Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Instagram faces $500B in fines alleging it harvested biometric data

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–112 of 112 posts

Re: Instagram faces $500B in fines alleging it harvested biometric data

#111

Post by wwwwwwwww »

gwright wrote: post #54
adwi wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t find snide sub-commenting toward the queer community helpful in this discussion or appropriate for Hacker News.

This seems to me to be a parody of queer theory or the idea of socially-constructed gender from critical social justice theory. Those theories shouldn't be off limits from parody or criticism.

> Those theories shouldn't be off limits from parody or criticism.

That's true, yet in the reality of Cancel Culture, they are.

My post was now flagged. Oh well. Other people have lost their job and life for parodying those who can't be criticized.

Re: Instagram faces $500B in fines alleging it harvested biometric data

#112

Post by mannykannot »

3763282827 wrote: post #107
mannykannot wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with this argument is that it would be self-servingly naive for the recipient of the images to assume that the source of the data had obtained the appropriate permissions. Of course, the people creating this policy are not that naive; they are simply adopting the attitude cynically, as cover for what they know to be unethical. To be clear, this does not absolve the supplier of the data for their responsib…

Why should the recipient/platform be culpable if the supplier is already acknowledged as being both culpable and dishonest as far as the ToS? It might be sexier in a David vs. Goliath sense to go after Facebook but Facebook isn't the party creating and uploading all of this content. If the risks of supplying a platform without consent aren't sufficiently high then suppliers will never have an incentive to verify cons…

In any worthwhile system of ethics, willfully ignoring very reasonable doubts about the provenance of something is itself unethical, separately from what was done by others. Similarly, it is unethical in itself to take advantage of another’s indifference to a third party’s rights in order to do to that third party something they would object to.

As for the question of what the platforms can do, it is simple: treat third parties as if they have refused permission. There’s nothing difficult about it once you filter out the self-serving attitude of the platforms. This has nothing to do with what’s “sexy” and everything to do with what’s right.

Post reply on HN