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

Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 634 posts

Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent

#331

Post by Dudeman112 »

twodave wrote: post #277
wyldfire wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the reward cited above in Matthew 6 isn't absolution then it is still effectively similar if it's a pleasant afterlife.

It isn’t. A primary tenet of Christianity is to identify with Christ, mainly through suffering. Much the way a workout can be rewarding in and of itself (e.g. the runner’s high), the suffering of sacrifice can be its own reward if given in the correct mindset. What makes this possible for the Christian believer is the faith/knowledge that one’s sins have already _been_ absolved, so Heaven has already effectively been…

>What makes this possible for the Christian believer is the faith/knowledge that one’s sins have already _been_ absolved, so Heaven has already effectively been attained

I have yet to meet a Christian believer IRL who has actual faith that their sins have already been absolved so heaven has already effectively been attained

Maybe that's more common in other corners of the world? I haven't met many people who actually act as if they know they'll be saved as opposed to hoping they'll be saved

Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent

#332

Post by ncallaway »

jonnycomputer wrote: post #57

I sort of feel compelled to quote the Bible here, though I'm not religious. "So when you give to the needy, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do ... to be honored by men. Truly I tell you, they already have their full reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father, who sees what is done in s…

This is an interesting passage. I fully support the message, that giving done in secret is more valuable than equivalent giving done for public acclaim, but for a believer, it seems like it leaves the same basic moral philosophical question open.

Instead of giving publicly to receive an extrinsic reward, instead you should give in secret to receive a different but still extrinsic reward.

Of course, a non-believer donating in secret is also probably doing it in order to obtain an intrinsic reward of self-satisfaction, and there’s no real reason why I should view the intrinsic reward self-satisfaction as any more worthy than the extrinsic motivation of God’s reward.

I don’t have any really coherent point here, it just seemed somewhat interesting…

Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent

#333

Post by drcongo »

TrueGeek wrote: post #288
duxup wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like the video is for the creator and the audience… and that’s it. There seems to be little interest in the actual person given the flowers other than as a prop.

Even The Guardian couldn't help but link to the TikTok channel, point out when it was posted so you could find it easier, and post a screenshot of the video with the woman in it even though it's an article all about how she didn't want to be on camera. They're going to get tons of views!

That leaped right out at me too.

Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent

#334

Post by hackyhacky »

CPLX wrote: post #204
phpisthebest wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the clear editorial choices via moderation that the platforms have chosen to undertake I would be in favor of treating them like a newspaper of TV Station

Yup. The second you prioritize one piece of content over another by other than an automatic means like chronological order or votes you're not presenting user generated content any more, you're making editorial decisions. The fact that we've tolerated this for so long is appalling.

The overwhelming majority of content on social media is curated by automatic means. Manual curation at that scale, is, as you know, infeasible.

Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent

#335

Post by dr_orpheus »

gumby wrote: post #321

This article confused me with the phrase, “TikTok creator Harrison Pawluk”. I looked it up and though I still don’t know who this guy is, I do know he did not write TikTok.

"TikTok content creator, Harrison Pawluk" would be a better way to phrase it. "Creator" has ended up as a term like "influencer" or "maker".

Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent

#336

Post by mcv »

headsoup wrote: post #48
naillo wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny how these videos say they're intended to spread love and encourage random acts of kindness, but the actual effect of them is decreasing trust in strangers (that they might be filming us for their tiktok). This makes me not trust anyone that goes up to me in the street.

I would like to ask this tiktok guy how often he does his random acts of kindness without the camera rolling...

Exactly. Actual kindness doesn't need a camera and takes into account what the recipient of your kindness actually needs. This was just some guy taking advantage of someone for internet points.

Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent

#337

Post by watwut »

vinyl7 wrote: post #194
afavour wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps we're working to different definitions of the term. To me, virtue signaling is signaling (i.e. making publicly known) a virtuous act. To me that seems like an unambiguously good thing: it is likely to inspire others to similar virtuous acts, creating a feedback loop of people encouraging others to engage in good behaviour. "I voted! You should get out and vote too" feels like an example of positive virtual si…

The problem with public displays of virtue is that it comes off as seeking return value for the action. Virtuous acts should be done in quiet/secret and for the simple reason for it being virtuous. Seeking some other sort of value out of it (like social recognition, social credit, youtube views which end up with ad revenue) makes the act look dishonest. The act wasn't done because they were a nice person, the act was…

> Virtuous acts should be done in quiet/secret and for the simple reason for it being virtuous.

Genuinely, why? As in, why is it better to do nothing then to do virtuous action that you also get some benefit from?

Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent

#338

Post by drcongo »

gonzo41 wrote: post #300
TrueGeek wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even The Guardian couldn't help but link to the TikTok channel, point out when it was posted so you could find it easier, and post a screenshot of the video with the woman in it even though it's an article all about how she didn't want to be on camera. They're going to get tons of views!

'Journalists' dont' give a shit about anyone. Her concerns are mute, now they guardian gets to talk about the meta issue. The tiktok was exploitative, the guardian article was likewise exploitative. They could have not linked to the channel and also just written a description of the tiktok. Choices were may, all of them to exploit that women directly or indirectly by piling onto the hype.

Small thing, "moot" not "mute".

Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent

#339

Post by mikkergp »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #40

The reason this act breaks a moral boundary is that it subverts a principle of "ends" [1]. A genuine random act of kindness cannot occur if it's being filmed. Filming the act turns it into a virtue display. It also turns the subject into an object of utility, a means and not and end in themself. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Ends

Social media has certainly bastardized this, but I think healthy behavior is often dependent on your natural instincts. If your instinct is towards virtue signaling, then advertising your genuine random act of kindness for the clout is probably bad.

But I'm shy and don't value social media clout. It then morally to me seems that despite the fact that you may judge me for advertising my "random acts of kindness" I should do it anyways, because if I inspire someone else to do said good act, I maximize the good in the world, even if it is a reputational hit to myself or I am embarrassed to do so. This seems compatible with the kingdom of ends, even if it is oppositional to what I see as the general interpretation of it, which is to do the best good, it must be done in private.

Anyways I guess in the spirit of this, I make micro-loans on Kiva (https://www.kiva.org/) and you should too ;-). Or take this time to donate to whatever cause you're passionate about.

Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent

#340

Post by dr_orpheus »

ls15 wrote: post #28

> “So far Harrison has only encountered gratitude for what he has done, however it is clear in this case someone is upset. He wholeheartedly apologises to Maree if she was offended by what he did and urges her to contact him privately so he can personally apologise. If she requests him to take down the video he will do that.” 59m views. What about the money?

This statement from the spokesperson just reads to me as "we are doing as little as possible about this".

If this...if that...not actually proactively doing anything unless they really get pressured to do it.

Post reply on HN