They didn’t ask to go viral • Hacker News Board

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#41

Post by foogazi » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 3:24 PM UTC

dustincoates wrote: post #35

newsclues wrote: post #7

Part of the power of social media, is that powerful people acting badly in public finally might face some public backlash or justice. Banning this, will certainly protect the powerful, and will likely continue to be unenforced for the average person.

> Part of the power of social media, is that powerful people acting badly in public finally might face some public backlash or justice. Who are the powerful people in your opinion? Does it depend on their skin color? Their gender? Their perceived wealth? Their looks? Try hard enough, you can find any kind of hook that will justify public shaming because this person has privilege and so it isn't punching down. Of cour…

> Who are the powerful people in your opinion? Does it depend on their skin color? Their gender? Their perceived wealth? Their looks?

One use of recording is if you hire someone to do a job and they don’t do it - a recording can be used as evidence in court

Like of you hire a police officer to enforce traffic laws and they choke someone on the sidewalk

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#42

Post by yosito » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 3:25 PM UTC

nullindividual wrote: post #26

yosito wrote: post #18

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when in public. While it's certainly polite not to take photos of strangers and post them without asking if it's ok, you shouldn't morally or legally need permission. They're in public. Their actions can be seen by anyone else in public who crosses paths with them, whether online or off. There are cameras everywhere, and a random person with their smartphone should not be…

You're coming at it from a legal perspective where the platforms do not have their own rules on what is allowed or not allowed. In the example I gave in this thread, yes the man was in public, nude, however the platform (reddit) has a rule against posting this type of content. That reddit itself doesn't follow. > I recently had someone give me a hard time because I had posted a selfie where someone else was in the ba…

> Why didn't you blur/crop/etc. them out, instead?

Because they weren't the focus of the photo and I really didn't even notice them there. And I don't believe that it matters one bit if someone is caught doing something embarrassing in public on camera. They could have been the focus of the photo and I still think it would have been morally acceptable to post it. Whether it is acceptable according to the rules of the platform it's posted on, or according to social etiquette, is a completely different question.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#43

Post by orangecat » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 3:25 PM UTC

jsemrau wrote: post #19

BurningFrog wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like it or not, this is just the beginning. Fairly soon, all human life will be recorded.

There should be a right to be forgotten https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten

I agree that overexposure is a problem, but I can't support censorship of truthful information.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#44

Post by yosito » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 3:26 PM UTC

rcme wrote: post #24

yosito wrote: post #18

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when in public. While it's certainly polite not to take photos of strangers and post them without asking if it's ok, you shouldn't morally or legally need permission. They're in public. Their actions can be seen by anyone else in public who crosses paths with them, whether online or off. There are cameras everywhere, and a random person with their smartphone should not be…

I think you’re confusing legal duty with moral duty. I have no reasonable expectation conversational counterparts aren’t lying through their teeth, but I have the moral expectation that they’re telling the truth. Similarly, you have no expectation of privacy when browsing the internet, but I think you would still feel an invasion of your privacy should I post your browsing history, along with your real name, publicly…

> you have no expectation of privacy when browsing the internet

Uh, yes I do. And a very reasonable one!

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#45

Post by gochi » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 3:26 PM UTC

anon84873628 wrote: post #6

It seems like existing laws could already cover some of these scenarios if judged correctly. E.g. if a TikTok'er uploads a video lying about you, isn't that slander? The size of their audience and known effect of internet mobs makes it very clear to a reasonable observer that harm to the victim is expected/intended. And gaslighting children or abusing the elderly is already illegal, right?

No, most countries don't have very aggressive libel laws.

EFF has a post about online defamation laws and one of the examples they go into is Vogel v Felice where the claim was about videos that used titles like "Top 10 Dumbasses" among other things. They got away with it because they couldn't prove actual malice and because despite nobody being want to be publicly known as a "dumbass" it's not a statement that can be proven true or untrue.

They also go into how private and public figures are viewed differently. It's all very interesting and worth reading. Also I had no idea insurance was now covering online libel claims for small businesses/bloggers. https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamati...

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#46

Post by foogazi » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 3:26 PM UTC

tjpnz wrote: post #25

newsclues wrote: post #7

Part of the power of social media, is that powerful people acting badly in public finally might face some public backlash or justice. Banning this, will certainly protect the powerful, and will likely continue to be unenforced for the average person.

Whenever this argument comes up I think of what happened to Logan Paul and Justine Sacco. One desecrated what was effectively a burial site and faced few consequences, the other told a dumb joke and had their life destroyed over it. The powerful continue to thrive while the weak suffer.

We need more forgiveness in this world

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#47

Post by quantumfissure » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 3:27 PM UTC

laputan_machine wrote: post #12

nullindividual wrote: post #4

Social media truly is the opioid of today's society. While browsing /r/all, I ran across a post from a very popular sub which had an airport worker stripping in the airport, flailing on the floor, etc. No one knows why, could have been drugs, could have been a mental defect. Yet many of the thousands of responses were laughing because they could see the man's flaccid penis. While we don't know what caused the man to…

I often think this about Ring / permanent surveillance that exists now. Nobody can even be free in front of their own house without the threat of something ludicrous happening to you and then it being on public record until the end of the internet. It's absolutely wild to me.

What's really scary about this, is that it can be edited by anyone before being posted online to make you either look like a victim or an instigator. It's then picked up by the media (which apparently are just influencers or Redditors now). People will always view that initial video as fact, even after the full evidence is posted. This can ruin the rest of your life, the damage has been done.

While editing videos has always been an issue, it wasn't possible to gain notoriety, make money, or instigate racial/class/political/whatever warfare as easily as it is now. You just need to post an edited video and whatever side you want to instigate, you can.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#48

Post by Mezzie » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 3:27 PM UTC

Aurornis wrote: post #13

roenxi wrote: post #3

The "everyone:1" ratio of internet criticism also has had an interesting effect on politics. Given the sheer amount of vitriol directed at politicians no sane person would run for election. A plausible base-case scenario is a group of socially disabled internet dwellers dedicate their life to hounding you for imagined wrongs. Let alone the pressure of making any decision in a situation where large groups of people ar…

> A plausible base-case scenario is a group of socially disabled internet dwellers dedicate their life to hounding you for imagined wrongs. The intersection between the set of chronically online people who see this content and the set of people who actually vote is much smaller than you might think. Voter turnout is consistently very low among young people, despite how actively interested they may appear on sites lik…

> The intersection between the set of chronically online people who see this content and the set of people who actually vote is much smaller than you might think. Voter turnout is consistently very low among young people, despite how actively interested they may appear on sites like Reddit.

Not all chronically online people are in the young voter bucket. There are Boomers with terminal Facebook brain and a lot of Redditors have accounts that are almost old enough to vote in America.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#49

Post by ilrwbwrkhv » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 3:27 PM UTC

dustincoates wrote: post #28

nullindividual wrote: post #4

Social media truly is the opioid of today's society. While browsing /r/all, I ran across a post from a very popular sub which had an airport worker stripping in the airport, flailing on the floor, etc. No one knows why, could have been drugs, could have been a mental defect. Yet many of the thousands of responses were laughing because they could see the man's flaccid penis. While we don't know what caused the man to…

I know I'm not saying anything new here, but I'm always shocked by just how vicious the Reddit community is, especially from a group who considers themselves highly intelligent (compared to those "other" people). Videos like you describe are there every time I visit, along with fight videos and comments making up a back story as to what the victim did to deserve it, etc. Sometimes I wonder why things like vigilanteis…

Groups which consider themselves as very intellectual can commit the worst atrocities. Just look at communists.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#50

Post by nullindividual » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 3:28 PM UTC

yosito wrote: post #42

nullindividual wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're coming at it from a legal perspective where the platforms do not have their own rules on what is allowed or not allowed. In the example I gave in this thread, yes the man was in public, nude, however the platform (reddit) has a rule against posting this type of content. That reddit itself doesn't follow. > I recently had someone give me a hard time because I had posted a selfie where someone else was in the ba…

> Why didn't you blur/crop/etc. them out, instead? Because they weren't the focus of the photo and I really didn't even notice them there. And I don't believe that it matters one bit if someone is caught doing something embarrassing in public on camera. They could have been the focus of the photo and I still think it would have been morally acceptable to post it. Whether it is acceptable according to the rules of the…

> They could have been the focus of the photo and I still think it would have been morally acceptable to post it.

No. No it wouldn't have been.

You have absolutely zero need to post any picture online. It is a choice; a choice to further humliate the individual, possibly even causing them greater distress.

People who post pictures with justification like yours have caused those who are the target of the cruelty to commit suicide.

You do not need to post anything on social media. You choose to do so. And by choosing to post an embarrassing moment, you are the problem and you are morally in the wrong.