[HN Gopher] Woman 'dehumanised' by viral TikTok filmed without h...
___________________________________________________________________
Woman 'dehumanised' by viral TikTok filmed without her consent
Author : phs318u
Score : 621 points
Date : 2022-07-14 12:03 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theguardian.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theguardian.com)
| nixcraft wrote:
| I looked into the comments posted on Video. It went viral because
| kids thought she cried and was lonely (something that many teens
| have in common, and with many comments, likes and shares, it went
| viral). The video title said, "I hope this made her day better".
| So basically, he tricked her, and the Video cuts at the right
| time with clever video editing, giving a false sense to the
| viewer that he was kind to her. It is about pumping numbers to
| get sponsorship while exploiting people's personal lives. The
| Video is still up and counting. He could have taken it down, but
| fame is more important than helping a fellow person who is his
| grandma's age.
|
| The battle for privacy was lost a long time ago :(
| omar12 wrote:
| If filming is done in public for the intent to be published,
| should there be a release form signed by any people that were
| filmed?
|
| Anecdotally, many years ago I was at an outdoor park and they
| were filming a fitness reality show. The fitness coach was making
| the participant do random workouts throughout the park. In one of
| those random workouts, I was in the background of the filming.
| Immediately as I was out of frame, a production assistant
| provided a release form to authorize the use of my likeness in a
| broadcast.
| whitecrow90 wrote:
| the cringe level of him going there and disturbing her for a
| video , i would have a panic attack if i was recorded like this
| i_like_apis wrote:
| I also cringed, at the implication that she must have been
| having a bad day ... why? Because she was eating alone? Or
| visibly suffering in some way? Such a rude thing to "help"
| someone minding their own business.
| amtamt wrote:
| > 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.
|
| Is this really how one apologizes these days.
| dchftcs wrote:
| While I don't like what happened to her, we should call it for
| what it is and not more. The filmer was a jerk and she had to
| right to not be disturbed or filmed. "Dehumanised" is a bit too
| far.
| strix_varius wrote:
| Copy->pasted from Merriam-Webster:
|
| > to address or portray (someone) in a way that obscures or
| demeans that person's humanity or individuality
| powerhour wrote:
| Turning someone into a prop for your entertainment and profit
| without permission seems like a dictionary definition of
| dehumanizing.
| dchftcs wrote:
| "Turning someone into a prop" is a metaphorical statement. To
| conclude the act matches a dictionary definition of something
| is taking rhetoric way too seriously. Any act can be
| metaphorically described in a way that sounds like that but
| if you want to attach moral judgment you really ought to
| focus on original facts and not the projection onto a
| metaphor.
|
| The woman is clearly still treated as a human being, even if
| not given enough respect. If the filmer did something like
| forcefully moving her body and limbs for posing to achieve
| dramatic effect, or deliberately humiliated her with
| insulting commentary, you may have a point that it's
| "dehumanizing", but he didn't go that far.
| [deleted]
| Invictus0 wrote:
| Nothing wrong with the video imo, if people think it's stupid
| that's just their opinion. When you're in public anything goes.
| The place this went wrong is that they lied to her about being
| filmed and didn't get her consent: but on the other hand, no one
| expects security camera operators to get consent either.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| There might be a case for calling this kind of video
| "commercial use" to help someone profit off of views. In many
| places that requires a signed release from the subject of the
| video.
|
| Security footage isn't generally used to advertise a product or
| person.
| justin66 wrote:
| > When you're in public anything goes.
|
| There's a rule of thumb I hope doesn't catch on.
| Invictus0 wrote:
| What's your stance then? That it should be illegal to speak
| to people in public?
| strix_varius wrote:
| What an absurd take. Are you really so confused?
| Invictus0 wrote:
| Quite confused. Please explain.
| strix_varius wrote:
| Sure:
|
| > That it should be illegal to speak to people in public?
|
| The error here has nothing to do with people speaking to
| one another in public. Of all the strawmen you could
| choose for why people find fault with this behavior,
| that's the least realistic.
| throwaway2016a wrote:
| This is not the case with this video (as it was a stunt) but a
| larger issue here is how Tik Tok creators feel it is OK to film
| everyone. It may be legally allowed but ethically it is a very
| gray area. I spend some time on the platform and frequently see
| videos of random people just having a bad day and being filmed
| without their consent for the internet to laugh at. It's
| voyeurism.
|
| This problem existed before Tik Tok but the platform makes it so
| insanely easy to go viral doing it.
| rychco wrote:
| Filming someone directly without their consent should be illegal.
| Full stop.
| zenron wrote:
| While I agree that this type of online content is questionable
| for the reasons said in this thread, the 'dehumanized' moniker is
| clearly sensational. No-one in that video has been dehumanized.
| This is rhetoric and nothing more. A person received an
| unsolicited gift and was filmed. If it was in a location where
| there is need of consent to be filmed by another party she can
| file a lawsuit. If it was in a location that doesn't require
| consent then them is the breaks and viewers of the video can make
| the conclusions of motives and ENDS for themselves.
| prionassembly wrote:
| At one point my nihilistic consumeristic 20s got me in the hobby
| of "Lomography", which was basically using up ("shoot from the
| hip!) expensive film without care and seeing what kinds of random
| stuff turns up, if any at all.
|
| Turns out shooting from the hip produces a lot of creepy angles
| on callypigian figures you were honest-to-god not trying to do.
| (Would a creepster use _film_?)
| wufufufu wrote:
| A significant amount of TikToks are simply video proof of
| harassment/bullying but I guess it's not a priority to them to
| detect and remove those.
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| 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 secret, will reward you." Matthew 6
| strix_varius wrote:
| > "do not let your left hand know what your right hand is
| doing"
|
| I see Matthew worked as a mid-level manager in a tech company.
| F_J_H wrote:
| Joking aside, Something I find fascinating about ancient
| wisdom literature that has been in circulation for centuries
| - honed and refined generation after generation, is how
| succinctly key concepts are boiled down in ways that can be
| easily grasped/remembered. (In this case, avoiding conflict
| of interest/segregation of duties.)
| notriddle wrote:
| 1. Selection bias. There's a lot of stuff in the Bible that
| is total gibberish to modern ears.
|
| 2. Inversed cause and effect. Even if you aren't Christian,
| there's a good chance that the morals you were taught as a
| child are influenced by it. The Christian Bible is
| literally the world's best selling book.
| decremental wrote:
| Going further it's in fact the very foundation of the
| morality of western civilization. It's little wonder why
| it's constantly under attack and diminished.
| melenaboija wrote:
| Why do you feel compelled to do so?
|
| Is it that you feel that a quote from a fantastic book measures
| the goodness or evilness of the act or are you just saying that
| someone else already found himself in this dilema in the past
| and wrote a parable about it with its personal judgement?
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| Having read that trash book, I appreciate the quote for the
| latter reason and find the former a terrifying notion
| melenaboija wrote:
| Agree, the thing is that being raised catholic I only heard
| bible quotes from my teachers, priests and family when
| judging my moral and that is what raised my curiosity.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| likewise tho baptist
| bussierem wrote:
| Similar, from AJR's "3:30" song:
|
| Someone told me to be selfless // But we are helpless without
| attention // Wealthy people learn the lesson // And never
| donate without the press there //
| guerrilla wrote:
| Funny, we were thinking similar, I immediately thought of
| Matthe 6:6 which I quoted above.
| sbf501 wrote:
| This is even older than Jesus.
|
| I also am not religious, but there is a hebrew tradition of
| Tzedakah mentioned by another poster below, but here are the
| levels instead of a link.,
|
| Maimonides defines eight levels in giving charity (tzedakah),
| each one higher than the preceding one.
|
| On an ascending level, they are as follows:
| 8. When donations are given grudgingly. 7. When
| one gives less than he should, but does so cheerfully.
| 6. When one gives directly to the poor upon being asked.
| 5. When one gives directly to the poor without being asked.
| 4. Donations when the recipient is aware of the donor's
| identity, but the donor still doesn't know the specific
| identity of the recipient. 3. Donations when the
| donor is aware to whom the charity is being given, but the
| recipient is unaware of the source. 2. Giving
| assistance in such a way that the giver and recipient are
| unknown to each other. Communal funds, administered by
| responsible people are also in this category. 1.
| The highest form of charity is to help sustain a person before
| they become impoverished by offering a substantial gift in a
| dignified manner, or by extending a suitable loan, or by
| helping them find employment or establish themselves in
| business so as to make it unnecessary for them to become
| dependent on others.
| kleer001 wrote:
| Yea, I wonder what it would be like to live in a culture, in
| a civilization, without usury. I think it'd be pretty nice.
|
| Also, isn't most important stuff older than Jesus? Like, he's
| a bit of a best-of compilation, right? Not to denigrate the
| story, I'm a big fan.
| googlryas wrote:
| It's out there - look up "Islamic finance" (or Islamic
| banking)
| kelnos wrote:
| #1 surprised me, in a good way. Propping someone up _before_
| they 're in dire straits is a great thing to do for someone.
| Identifying the need might be a little harder, but digging
| someone out of a shallow hole is easier and less costly than
| digging them out of a deep hole, and I bet that person will
| have a much better time not having to be in that deeper hole
| in the first place.
|
| This reminded me how some municipalities with homelessness
| issues will often spend homeless-related funds toward
| subsidizing living expenses for people who are _not_
| homeless, but are living on the edge and would end up losing
| their homes if not for some extra help. It 's much easier and
| better (and cost-effective!) to help keep someone in a home,
| than it is to wait until they are on the streets before
| helping them.
| ncallaway wrote:
| 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...
| jakubp wrote:
| No, no. You are going in the right direction in analysing the
| morality of such proclamation. The point is, you can a) give
| others and collect reward in terms of other's people
| perception/rewarding of you (what the Bible passage above
| suggests is bad), b) do the same because someone just
| convinced you you'll get a reward from .. someone important,
| worthy of respect/awe (what the passage suggests is good,
| though I'm sure there will be those who say it's just
| parabole for being humble in giving, which of course the text
| could say but somehow doesn't), c) for some another reason.
| We'll get to c) in a minute.
|
| When you think about what this is really easy to see is a =
| b. That I am rewarded with promise of heaven for a deed, or
| hope of being well-respected by others who see what I've
| done, affects the same object: ego. It's not driven by desire
| to help others (compassion, love or else), but desire to be
| seen /judged as good by others.
|
| There is a c) (and more for sure). The much more mundane
| reason c) is "give to people and let your reward be the
| feeling you get that you do a good thing". Good thing can be
| in this case simply the result of mental congruence of your
| act with, say, your utilitarian belief that "helping others
| by decreasing their suffering is good".
|
| If I tell people "a good act is when you help others to help
| them maximize utility", it's a moral stance. It's a very
| different moral stance than "a good act is when you do what
| someone says you should do in order to get eternal life".
|
| The former is far better from ego-point of view, and less
| prone to corruption, and focuses on the values and reasons
| why somethign is good, in other words - promotes
| understanding and is clear why it's good. The latter promotes
| blind following and subservience to anothe person/being
| becomgin the guide of y our actions.
|
| It's clear that most people need a guide, but be careful what
| kind of guide you pick.
| draw_down wrote:
| Well, it's not the only moral instruction in the Bible, to
| put it mildly.
|
| Consider also the story of the Good Samaritan: Jesus tells
| the story of a person who goes out of his way to help someone
| in need. He incurs risk (helping the man meant risking
| getting caught in an ambush), expense (oil and wine for the
| wounds plus paying the innkeeper), and inconvenience (he had
| to interrupt his journey to help). Jesus tells us this is how
| we should treat our neighbor.
|
| The Samaritan is also assuredly not Christian so isn't doing
| this to gain eternal life in heaven through faith in Jesus.
| It's pretty obvious and indisputable altruism.
| curiousgal wrote:
| The corresponding Qur'an verse (because they're all faces of
| the same coin):
|
| " _To give charity publicly is good, but to give to the poor
| privately is better for you, and will absolve you of your sins.
| And Allah is All-Aware of what you do._ " Al-Baqarah 272
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| Thanks for this.
| protonbob wrote:
| I don't think that the bible says that giving to the poor
| will absolve you of your sins. So maybe not the same coin.
| wyldfire wrote:
| If the reward cited above in Matthew 6 isn't absolution
| then it is still effectively similar if it's a pleasant
| afterlife.
| twodave wrote:
| 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
| attained. So (now having a mindset of gratitude) the
| Christian believer is free to be charitable without the
| need for personal gain, for what more could the believer
| gain? Or what could he/she lose that would stain the gift
| already received?
| tsol wrote:
| So what is the motivator for people to give charity if
| there is no reward from God? I would have thought there
| were some sort of reward for charity in Christianity.
| protonbob wrote:
| The reward is being in a state of obedience to Christ and
| his will which is a reward in and of itself.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > So what is the motivator for people to give charity if
| there is no reward from God?
|
| Love of ones fellow man.
|
| > I would have thought there were some sort of reward for
| charity in Christianity.
|
| To the extent that there may be, that reward is not
| generally viewed in most Christian doctrine as the
| _motivator_. Christianity is not, predomonantly,
| doctrinally, transactional in that way.
|
| (Transactional personal beliefs are, however, far more
| common in Christianity than formal doctrine would
| suggest, and _political_ Christianity frequently invokes
| a transactional view that is at odds with common
| doctrine.)
| krapp wrote:
| Human beings possess empathy and a desire to help the
| less fortunate entirely apart from religion or its
| rewards. From a purely utilitarian standpoint, one could
| argue that the reward of altruistic behavior within a
| social hierarchy is the strengthening of social bonds and
| likelihood of reciprocity, and this behavior has been
| seen in other primate species besides humans, suggesting
| it has an evolutionary benefit. Unfortunately, thousands
| of years of religious indoctrination has led many people
| to believe that humans are essentially amoral sociopaths
| without religion. But religion doesn't generate morality,
| ethics or virtue so much as codify them into a culturally
| specific framework.
|
| That said, Jesus commanded his followers to practice
| charity often and directly linked doing so with gaining
| rewards in heaven.
| Dudeman112 wrote:
| >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
| twodave wrote:
| There are entire books of the New Testament devoted to
| assurance of salvation. I find this sentiment I described
| commonplace in my area of the world (Florida, US).
| curiousgal wrote:
| Well even though it says that, the concept of absolution
| (at least as far as I know, I am not religious anymore)
| does not exist in Islam. It's more as in doing good things
| would cancel out some of your sins, but not omit them
| completely.
| unholythree wrote:
| I think people down voted this thinking it's pedantic, but
| there is a pretty significant distinction theologically
| between this Quran passage and the biblical description of
| how sins are forgiven. Although both books do encourage
| secret charity.
| swores wrote:
| Coins usually don't have the exact same thing on each side,
| just the core value is the same.
|
| Which is my being pedantic on the coin side, to point out
| that pedantry isn't really needed on the metaphorical side.
| protonbob wrote:
| Right. I would say that these concepts are similar. But
| "because they're all faces of the same coin" seems to put
| forth that the two religions are of the same coin which I
| disagree with.
| Graffur wrote:
| Reminds me of when I was a child and my very religious Aunt and
| Uncles would slip me a 5 pound note without saying anything and
| without it being obvious to my parents :)
| JackFr wrote:
| I had an aunt and uncle felt it was crass to give money as a
| gift, and that also it was bad luck to give someone a wallet
| or purse that was empty. I remember getting a wallet from
| them every year for my birthday from like the age of 5
| through 15. But the deal was that the gift was the wallet,
| and any of the cash inside was immediately spendable and
| didn't need to be put in the bank like other birthday money.
|
| Weird family traditions I suppose.
| joshjje wrote:
| "And your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward
| you."
|
| So still selfish (if doing it for the reward), but that is
| human nature.
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| "do not let your left hand know what your right hand is
| doing"
| sudosteph wrote:
| Weird metaphor, right? We're probably missing context for
| that one. My theory is that it boils down to "don't nickel
| and dime or be overly concerned with recording the amount
| of your charitable giving"
|
| The reason I think that, is because in ancient Roman times
| they had a way of counting on your fingers where you could
| count up to 100 on your left hand alone (then you could use
| your right hand after that for even larger values). [1]. So
| if the context is "small values" and charitable giving, it
| makes more sense to me at least.
|
| [1] https://tookmund.com/2020/05/roman-finger-counting
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| That is very interesting!
| clejack wrote:
| The context is the next sentence.
|
| "do not let your left hand know what your right hand is
| doing, so that your giving may be in secret."
|
| It's just hyperbolic/poetic language. It's not possible
| to do something in such a way that your right hand
| doesn't know what your left hand is doing, because they
| are both connected centrally (and they can't know
| anything to begin with).
|
| "Be so secretive that your resting hand doesn't know what
| your charitable hand is doing."
| andai wrote:
| I remember wondering, when I first heard about altruism,
| whether I was actually an altruist. If I feel good when I do
| something good for someone, am I not just an egoist who's
| wired differently? True altruism would be going against what
| feels good, because I know it to be right.
| ALittleLight wrote:
| I think you are an altruist if you feel good for
| sacrificing to helping others. That good feeling will
| motivate you to sacrifice to help others and sacrificing to
| help others is what an altruist is.
| kelnos wrote:
| I think this is a classic philosophical problem. Unless you
| are a philosopher, though, I don't think it really matters
| all that much. The bottom line is that you are making a
| sacrifice for someone else, and that you aren't involving
| other people in it.
|
| Doing good for others _should_ feel good! And if that
| internal reaction helps us want to continue doing good for
| others, then that 's also a good thing.
|
| I think also we should be less concerned about labeling
| ourselves this way. I would not try to make "altruist" a
| part of my identity (or "egoist", for that matter). You are
| just someone who does good things for others, and --
| incidentally -- that makes you feel good. That should be
| enough.
| unsupp0rted wrote:
| Even then it's not true altruism because you're doing it
| because you know it to be right and you (selfishly?) want
| to be the kind of person who does the right thing.
|
| I don't think it's possible for apes who evolved and
| outcompeted other apes in the endeavor to become the
| dominant species on a planet to be truly altruistic. At
| least not without a lot more cultural, social, and possibly
| biological evolution, if ever.
|
| Doesn't matter though. What difference does it make how
| "true" one's altruism is?
| lelandfe wrote:
| The way that CS Lewis puts this is essentially that if the
| reward becomes the motive, you're not going to get it:
|
| > _We are afraid that heaven is a bribe, and that if we make
| it our goal we shall no longer be disinterested. It is not
| so. Heaven offers nothing that a mercenary soul can desire.
| It is safe to tell the pure in heart that they shall see God,
| for only the pure in heart want to. There are rewards that do
| not sully motives._
| ALittleLight wrote:
| If the alternative is eternal torture in hell I'm not sure
| that holds.
| dropit_sphere wrote:
| This is more a disagreement about fact than it is a
| threat.
|
| "Take care of your body or else it will grow weak and
| sick" has a directive and a warning of consequences---is
| it a threat?
| kelnos wrote:
| Your example isn't a threat because there is no
| external/conscious actor who is going to cause your body
| to grow weak and sick if you don't take care of it; it
| will just happen as a consequence of normal biological
| processes.
|
| There need not be a consequence of failing to follow the
| Christian Bible; God/Satan have decided that there will
| be consequences, and Satan will be the one torturing you
| if you don't do what God says. That's definitely a
| threat. In these stories, God and Satan are conscious,
| sentient beings with free will. They can choose to reward
| or punish you based on whatever criteria they've decided.
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| Perhaps it only means, seek reward from heaven, not from
| people. Perhaps because the former would lead you into
| correct behavior while the latter will lead you inevitably
| astray.
|
| Not clear the passage is about selfishness per-se at all.
|
| And since presumably reward from heaven is the ultimate in
| delayed gratification.
| rendaw wrote:
| I think the point is that if you focus too much on the
| reward, you lose focus on helping the person. It's not that
| it's bad to (want to) be rewarded for good deeds, it's bad
| when you end up making things worse because of it.
|
| By some views every action you take is motivated by some
| psychological reward, and if you follow that through you end
| up with a view that there's no good/bad/emotion/etc and
| everything is purely mechanical.
| swat535 wrote:
| Everything in the Bible, including what Christians are
| supposed to be like, should be viewed through the lens of
| Jesus on the cross. The idea is that you are supposed to
| imitate Christ in your life for salvation which is reaching
| Heaven i.e glorifying God, the Father forever via achieving
| the Beatific vision.
|
| So the "reward" in this case is you becoming one with Christ
| and thus closer to God. It's not a "currency" to be
| accumulated to attain Heaven. This is why you can't "fake"
| your way through it by for example donating money to the poor
| or the Church and thinking that will impress God.
|
| I think what Christians say before receiving the Eucharist at
| Mass really summarizes this nicely: "Lord I am not worthy to
| receive you".
| vel0city wrote:
| Is that last part really a Christian (in a wide sense)
| thing or just a Catholic thing? I definitely hear it at
| Catholic Mass but I have not experienced it at most
| protestant Eucharist ceremonies.
| allisvancity wrote:
| In terms of the specific wording, most anglophone
| churches that use a historic liturgy have some form of
| this prayer (it comes from Matthew's gospel):
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer_of_Humble_Access
| finder83 wrote:
| There may be some overlap in some denominations I'm not
| aware of, but as far as the Eucharist is concerned, it's
| largely only a Catholic thing. In Catholicism, the first
| Eucharist has a particular significance as Christ/the
| Spirit dwelling within you. In Protestantism, it's only
| an ordinance, so is only a
| representation/ritual/tradition. There is often a
| component of confessing sins privately before partaking
| though, but the "Lord's Supper" (as it's called by most
| protestant denominations) is not a means of grace or
| sacrament in most protestant denominations. By "means of
| grace", I mean that taking the Lord's Supper does not
| lead to salvation or impart God's grace or anything else.
| It's purely symbolic in probably 95% of Protestantism. In
| the other 5% of orthodox Protestantism, it's not just
| symbolic, but is not a means of salvation/grace. In
| Catholicism (to my understanding of not being Catholic
| but studying it in a protestant seminary), it is
| considered a means of grace and imparts some form or
| measure of grace for salvation.
|
| In all of Christianity though, there is an understanding
| that our sin is a failure to live up to God's holiness
| and standards, and that in Protestantism one of the
| pillars (5 solas) is that it is only through his grace,
| mercy, and love for us that Jesus came to die, and that
| our salvation is due to his grace alone and not something
| individually inherent in ourselves that makes us worthy.
|
| I'm hedging all of that with the fact that there's a lot
| of religions/denominations/cults that call themselves
| "Christian", and many believe very different things.
| sudosteph wrote:
| Great summary! It's not actually talked about much, and
| not even well understood by many Protestants themselves,
| but it actually is a sacrament in most major Protestant
| traditions I'm familiar with (Reformed[1], Lutheran[2],
| Anglican, Methodist[4]). Zwingli was the only major
| reformer I know of to take purely memorialist stance,
| while Luther, Calvin, and Wesley all professed some
| degree of presence (spritual presence or real presence)
| in the eucharist.
|
| Some non-reformed baptists and non-denominationals are
| memorialist, but historically most protestant churches do
| consider it a sacrament.
|
| [1] https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/ccc/westminster
| /of_the... [2]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist_in_Lutheranism
| [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_eucharistic_th
| eology [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_theo
| logy#Methodist...
| finder83 wrote:
| Thanks for correcting me, I was completely off on that! I
| realized after your post that I was thinking of
| transubstantiation instead of sacrament/ordinance. I'm
| Baptist and both in the 1689 confession [1] and the
| baptist faith and message 2000 [2] it's considered an
| ordinance, so most southern baptist churches to my
| knowledge consider it an ordinance, even those that are
| reformed-leaning. There are also other non-mainline
| denominations, probably mostly non-reformed, where it's
| usually an ordinance, such as Pentecostalism.
|
| My confusion was that I was equating transubstantiation
| with it being a sacrament...so to my knowledge only
| Anglicans have preserved full transubstantiation (with
| others having some mixture of Christ being present)
|
| [1] https://www.arbca.com/1689-chapter30 [2]
| https://bfm.sbc.net/bfm2000/#vii
|
| I think it's safe to say that in almost all protestant
| denominations, the Eucharist is not a means of salvation
| though. I would hope that all would say salvation is
| through grace alone through faith alone. Let me know if
| you disagree though, I'd be curious of exceptions.
| sudosteph wrote:
| No worries, it was something I actually had to research
| recently myself after seeing the results of a poll of
| users' beliefs on /r/reformed where people were asked
| about their own beliefs on eucharistic presence. I was
| raised methodist and attend a reformed (presby) church
| now, so I appreciate your perspective as as a Baptist as
| well! I don't exactly know the difference between an
| ordinance and sacrament (and the WCF seems to refer to it
| as both), so I'll check out those links for sure.
|
| Definitely agree that most every Protestant church would
| agree that it's not a means of salvation, but I do think
| most would call it a means of grace though.
| curryberto wrote:
| I've never been to a protestant church where the message
| was that we were "worthy" of the cross. Everything has
| always been predicated on grace which is necessarily
| unmerited.
| vel0city wrote:
| Yeah don't get me wrong I'm not suggesting that any
| somewhat mainstream protestant church emphasizes that its
| followers _are_ worthy. I 'm just wondering about
| literally that line being said before they eat the bread
| and drink the wine.
| curryberto wrote:
| The theology of the eucharist/communion is definitely
| different in protestant churches.
|
| I've never been to a protestant church where they believe
| you receive a sort of saving grace from consuming the
| host - though there is agreement it is pleasing to God to
| do it.
|
| In the Catholic church they definitely believe you
| receive some sort of grace. What "kind" of grace is
| something I still haven't wrapped my head around.
| vel0city wrote:
| As someone who was a practicing catholic for over half my
| life, its still not exactly clear.
| whiddershins wrote:
| It's more subtle than that. Because God's reward isn't really
| in the same conceptual category as material reward or
| approval of your peers.
| azinman2 wrote:
| But it means you're doing it because you think you'll get
| something out of it.
| whiddershins wrote:
| It's more mind bending than that. The reward is
| synonymous with the fact that it is good. These are
| definitionally equivalent within this framework.
|
| It doesn't map one-to-one to the way we typically
| conceptualize rewards or self interest or altruism.
| [deleted]
| e-clinton wrote:
| The issue is that it is the trumpet-sounding which enables the
| giving to the needy. Can't have one without the other in this
| scenario.
| nailer wrote:
| > I sort of feel compelled to quote the Bible here, though I'm
| not religious.
|
| There's a lot of ancient wisdom that has stood the test of time
| in there, from which many could benefit. As we move away from
| the idea of a man-like god running the universe, I hope we
| still keep the good bits.
| nverno wrote:
| I grew up roundly rejecting religious teachings as a matter
| of course, mocking it on the grounds of fanciful belief in
| God/Hell/etc. As I've gotten older and started thinking more
| about how I want to live my life I've looked at the bible
| with new eyes, and no longer see any necessity to believe in
| god or the afterlife to realize the immense wisdom and beauty
| in Jesus's teachings.
| nepeckman wrote:
| Religious or not, I think one of the best philosophies on
| giving is Rambam's 8 levels of tzedakah. The highest is doing
| something to materially improve someone's condition, the
| absolute lowest is giving with a poor attitude. That he doesn't
| even rank "giving with the intention of getting something
| yourself" shows how far this is from any sort of good act.
|
| https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/67238?lang=bi
| jnsaff2 wrote:
| I find a very stark contrast between this discussion and the one
| on dominos couple of days ago [0].
|
| There most people thought it was all well and good to spend 50M
| to advertise a 100k kindness. This is just business.
|
| Here people (IMO correctly) see this a virtue signaling and not
| kindness.
|
| To me there is really no difference, Dominos did not do kindness,
| neither did this tiktok douche. All calculated to mislead people
| into thinking you are better. Vile scam artists.
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32070067
| password54321 wrote:
| These people really see others as NPCs. No you are not the main
| protagonist. No we are not all just a lonely sad bunch living in
| your tale. And no we don't give a fuck who you are and what you
| have to offer.
| [deleted]
| ushakov wrote:
| the "random acts of kindness" narrative is bullshit
|
| you can be kind and helpful without camera rolling
|
| not this guy though, he's desperate for attention and validation
| (watch me, i'm a good person), and wants that ad money to not
| work a regular job
| golemotron wrote:
| It seems like the video humanized her rather than dehumanized
| her. It showed her vulnerability. People don't like that.
|
| Many people have a wish about how we should appear to others.
| When that breaks down, they feel bad. Being able to laugh one's
| self and accept one's imperfection is a good remedy.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Reminds me of this scene, from _Tintin: Flight 714_ :
| https://youtu.be/mYLsRTKhyYM?t=100
|
| _[EDIT] Added a start time (1:40)._
| tablespoon wrote:
| > Reminds me of this scene, from Tintin: Fight 714:
| https://youtu.be/mYLsRTKhyYM
|
| Did you mean to link to a particular time? That link is just to
| a whole episode.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Oops. Forgot to include the start.
| sschueller wrote:
| I am glad that filming someone here (Switzerland) without consent
| is not legal even in public. You can film in public but if a
| person is the center attention in your footage it becomes illegal
| and you need their consent especially if you publish it. Only
| exceptions are large public events where privacy can not be
| expected.
|
| Same goes for identifiable information like license plates. For
| example if you film a parking lot at a cancer hospital. You need
| to obfuscate the plates.
|
| If you install security cameras the some law applies, you can
| only film your own property and must make sure you are not
| filming neighbour, street or anything else. You must also post a
| sign indicating that a security camera is installed. Public
| security cameras (train etc) all require posted signs and have a
| strict retention policy as well as how footage is released.
|
| Same law applies to drones or any other way you could make a
| photo or film so it automatically makes it illegal to film into
| windows or get close enough to specifically identify people on
| the ground.
|
| In extremely rare and extreme cases the police may publish
| someones foto or video footage if it helps solve a case but it's
| an exception because even criminals have the right to privacy.
| throwamon wrote:
| How do you determine if someone is "the center of attention"?
| Could someone record ultra high res video using an ultra wide
| lens, then privately crop the video at will?
| sbf501 wrote:
| I think society will need to start coming to terms with this.
|
| The concept of "it is public, so it is fair game" can no
| longer be applied.
| fastball wrote:
| I feel like you kinda have it backwards though, at least in
| regard to the parent comment.
|
| The objective standard of "you're in public so it's fair
| game" doesn't care if you have ultra-high resolution
| footage, if you're hiding in a bush, if you're doing X or Y
| so it's very easy to apply. Meanwhile "someone can't be the
| focus without consent" is a somewhat subjective standard
| that could easily become hard to apply.
| rlpb wrote:
| A court would decide. They usually consider intent.
|
| I don't know about Switzerland specifically, but usually the
| restriction on this kind of right is on
| distribution/publication.
| sschueller wrote:
| If you post the cropped video online then the "center of
| attention" is clear.
|
| Most videos posted online like this of the woman the center
| of attention is quite clear. If you are posting a video of a
| group of people whom happen to just be there it's also clear
| that it wasn't the intent of the video to record those
| people. Yes, it's subjective but the point of the law is to
| not completely outlaw video taping but to protect peoples
| privacy.
|
| You also always have the option to blur peoples faces/beep
| their voice and then there is no issue when posting the video
| online. You can post a video of a person "freaking out" as
| long as they are not identifiable.
|
| I don't see a difference between when someone records you
| with an ultra wide lens/high res than if someone is using a
| hidden camera at a pool. Both are illegal and most people
| except creeps aren't doing it.
| Graffur wrote:
| I fully agree with this woman. It is crazy how much support these
| invasive videos get online. The owner of the TikTok is not doing
| this to be kind. They are doing it for Content.
| aunty_helen wrote:
| The comments in this thread are a great example of how affraid of
| each other we've become.
|
| How upset we get when someone is "profiting"
|
| How things we don't like or understand become something that
| automatically has a negative reaction.
|
| Really, what is our role in this situation? We're the flowers.
| khazhoux wrote:
| Who's afraid? She was portrayed as a pathetic loner in front of
| tens of millions, simply for briefly holding flowers as a
| favor. You don't see why she's pissed off?
| egberts1 wrote:
| "Clickbait", spoken by a someone who has no social media account.
|
| Yeah, right. Something smells.
| fleddr wrote:
| If filming a "genuine" act of kindness isn't suspicious enough,
| the "hold this" move removes any benefit of the doubt.
|
| It's maddening that a "creator" (read: grifter) does this but
| what I find even more upsetting is how well it works. Millions of
| likes and comments celebrating it.
|
| There was a time where these kind of actions were more pure and
| we didn't need to be this cynical. It's probably already more
| than a decade ago, but I remember a video series themed "being
| nice to men".
|
| The idea being that men live in an emotional desert and rarely
| receive compliments or acts of kindness, often not even from
| their very own friends. So when they do receive it, it's a system
| shock.
|
| For example, the main character would attend an old guy in the
| park and say how cool it is that he feeds the pigeon daily. And
| then walk away. You could see the old man processing it. First
| puzzled, then delighted. It made his day, but probably his
| decade.
|
| Middle-aged men were even more puzzled and initially perceived it
| as an attack. Wtf does this guy want from me? Why would anybody
| do anything nice for me, what's the agenda here? Legend goes
| they're still thinking about what happened that day.
|
| Anyway, it was a cool theme (almost a social study), no
| monetization, and the participants were later informed and asked
| for permission to publish. I don't think it's possible in today's
| landscape to do this the genuine way, the incentives have changed
| too much.
| incogitomode wrote:
| She articulates the exploitative nature of this sort of viral /
| influencer charity incredibly well. His actions, while I'm sure
| well-intentioned, are sexist, ageist and absolutely dehumanizing.
| I hope the article helps him and the millions who liked the video
| check their assumptions and offers a lesson in moral complexity
| and subjectivity.
| tengbretson wrote:
| I feel sort of compelled to quote Kanye here:
|
| "I hate when I'm on a flight and I wake up with a water bottle
| next to me like oh great now I gotta be responsible for this
| water bottle" Kanye West
| StanislavPetrov wrote:
| This was crass and an invasion of privacy but I think,
| "dehumanised" is a bridge too far. It isn't helpful to use
| maximalist rhetoric for every slight.
| autaut wrote:
| I don't know if it's news but she's kinda right in calling it out
| for how fake and sinister these trends are and how these people
| profit from them
| highwaylights wrote:
| It's the TikTok-effect in action I guess.
|
| I had a fun experience with the Instagram-effect recently. I
| tried to visit an arboretum earlier this year (don't judge me,
| it's interesting!) and I couldn't get near the viewing platform
| because someone had a crew lighting their shots for Instagram.
| They asked me to wait for a couple of minutes to get finished,
| which I did. Ten minutes later a crowd had built up on the ramp
| and I just pushed past and said "all right good work today
| everyone we got what we need that's a wrap!". It's nuts.
|
| It's also weirdly disturbing to me that the presence of someone
| with an expensive looking camera was enough for a lot of them
| to just walk on past instead of enjoying the day out they paid
| for.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| > I tried to visit an arboretum earlier this year (don't
| judge me, it's interesting!)
|
| Why would you be judged for that? Botanical gardens are
| great.
| mihaic wrote:
| I've actually become a bit of a dick in these situations
| since a trip to Italy, and every time I see a large camera in
| a public place I walk in front of it on purpose.
|
| I'm a naturally nice guy, but these people were making my
| vacation less enjoyable for no reason, and I felt an
| instinctive urge to ruin their experience as well.
| hef19898 wrote:
| There is a difference between the social.media selfie
| photographers and those people trying to take nice pictures
| of beautiful places. A big camera usually points at tue
| latter, phones and lighting and whatnot at the former.
| mihaic wrote:
| I get that they might be professionals with possibly a
| good amount of skill, but even then what gives them the
| right to make any tourist attraction a lot less
| enjoyable?
|
| Museums are usually closed on Mondays, why not make
| "photographer Tuesday" a thing for instance?
| ryandrake wrote:
| The instagrammers and tiktokers have poisoned the well.
| If there is a human subject in the picture who is posing,
| it's now pretty safe to assume it's a social media
| narcissist, and I see no reason to step around or enable
| their behavior.
| itronitron wrote:
| Years ago I was walking with my wife and parents along a
| path/boardwalk across a marsh to the beach on Cape Cod, MA.
| At the top of the platform where the wooden stairs went up
| the dune and onto the beach there were three people standing,
| one holding a sun shade. We just walked past them, but my Mom
| chatted them up briefly. Apparently they were doing a photo
| shoot for a J. Crew catalog, but I never would have guessed
| that since they just worked around us.
| AlphaWeaver wrote:
| From the perspective of someone who has worked in the film
| industry: how a crew interacts with and treats bystanders
| is generally very telling about where they are on the
| "amateur-professional" scale.
|
| In my experience, professional productions are usually very
| intentional about not getting in the way of people just
| trying to go about their day. We were filming at a busy
| coffee shop in January, and we held for filming whenever a
| customer wanted to buy a coffee. The producers were pretty
| serious about not disrupting the business we were filming
| at.
| throwthroyaboat wrote:
| Last time I went hiking in Yosemite, and there were people
| who would hike all the way to a pretty spot (like, 4hr+
| hike), change into a dress/suit/etc that they had packed,
| get some pictures taken, change back, and then presumably
| hike all the way back out.
| pacomerh wrote:
| What gets me about these "random acts of kindness" like someone
| giving away $100 after they ask for $5, etc. Is that most people
| actually believe they are good intentions. Let's see if they'd do
| that without a camera in front.
| yoda97 wrote:
| It's funny that I have never seen a negative review of that video
| on the internet until the woman spoke up, shows you how fake most
| people are.
| that_guy_iain wrote:
| Different audiences have different opinions. Most of the places
| you would have seen the video were places where it was being
| upvoted and liked. So everyone was positive and those that
| weren't were downvoted and drowned out. This is something that
| isn't positive so all the negative opinions are here and
| positive opinions will probably be drowned out.
| toomanyrichies wrote:
| If the woman hadn't spoke up, how would anyone have known the
| truth of what happened /her side of the story / the the
| immorality of the video creator's actions?
| icare_1er wrote:
| After the lolcats, we definitely are in the area of rubbish
| staged fake videos with nobodies.
| [deleted]
| prepend wrote:
| I thought media releases were required for image rights before
| video could be commercialized?
|
| I always find these videos cheesy and fake and assumed they had
| received legal permission (if not hired actors to pose). If these
| jerks are filming and posing unwilling participants in their
| product, that seems pretty easy to remedy.
|
| I remember a few years ago pornhub had a decision to get positive
| consent from people in videos to prevent revenge porn and other
| types of content. I guess TikTok needs something similar for
| videos with1M+ views.
|
| It seems TikTokpays out between 2 and 4 cents per thousand views
| [0]. So if this video has 59M views it seems the creator made
| between $1,180 and $2,360.
|
| So should be a simple small claims lawsuit. Maybe add in treble
| damages.
|
| What would be really fun is to use the messed up class action
| lawsuit apparatus to create a class of victims that are in these
| videos that are uncompensated and just sue TikTok directly.
|
| I like how the creator offered to take the video down, if asked.
| No apology and no offer to give back the money he made from the
| video.
|
| [0] https://www.thetealmango.com/technology/how-much-does-
| tiktok...
| gnopgnip wrote:
| Media releases are really only needed for advertisements.
| Commercially exploiting a likeness means more than just the
| video being sold or making money in the US and most western
| countries. There would need to be an association with a product
| or brand and the likeness, and it isn't always clear when this
| is met
| oefrha wrote:
| Stupid hidden camera videos have been viral on YouTube for more
| than a decade, and YouTube pays out (a lot?) more for views. If
| no lawyer has milked this angle yet, I highly doubt it's
| profitable.
| Roguy wrote:
| >I thought media releases were required for image rights before
| video could be commercialized?
|
| Despite using the same terminology as copyright law, the rights
| photographers have are different and the use of terminology is
| different.
|
| To use the USA as an example because it's easier, photographers
| always have the right take photos on public property and they
| do not need consent to do so, and they also have the right to
| publish those photos and do not need consent to do so.
| Traditionally publishing would have meant publishing to print
| or broadcast media (i.e., news) where commercial activity is
| inherently implied. Today, publishing would also include
| posting to a blog, social media, sites like YouTube, etc.
|
| Where photographers usually need consent is using those images
| commercially, however since they already have the right to
| publish (and to profit from) images, what commercial use in
| this context means is to use those images in advertising, to
| use those images in merchandise, to sell those photos to image
| libraries (think stock photography websites), etc. This is in
| contrast to copyright law where there's no publish/commercial
| distinction and where a licence prohibiting commercial use
| prohibits selling that work.
|
| Of course none of that applies here, it was filmed on private
| property where the mall owner likely requires consent before
| people can take photos, and also because it's Australia which
| doesn't give blanket permission for people to take and publish
| photos without consent. However if Australia is anything like
| the UK the restrictions are that you can't take photos, or
| publish photos, of people that have an expectation of privacy,
| although this was filmed in a public place so there's likely no
| expectation to privacy.
| mmcconnell1618 wrote:
| The consent issue is even worse with live streaming available
| on many platforms. It is impossible for people captured in live
| streams to provide consent until after the content has been
| broadcast. You can make the argument for fair use in public
| spaces but once the "host" starts to interact with people, they
| are forcing people to be participants in their video without
| consent.
| naillo wrote:
| If you film in public places (depending on the country) it's
| often legal. Still really rude though and should be socially
| discouraged.
| strogonoff wrote:
| Public spaces like malls require a permit/location release
| for a commercial shoot on the property, and social media is
| increasingly commercial. I would be surprised if there were
| no lawsuits to this effect yet.
| nkozyra wrote:
| I don't think there's much case for a lawsuit. The mall has
| a right to kick you out for doing so but once it's done
| there's not much legal recourse in the U.S.
| robg wrote:
| Criminal and civil lawsuits are separable.
| nkozyra wrote:
| > Criminal and civil lawsuits are separable.
|
| Of course, you can sue for literally anything, but what
| damages would they claim?
| strogonoff wrote:
| IANAL but similarly if someone steals your
| bicycle/car/camera while you're not using it and then
| brings it back in pristine condition, what damages would
| you claim?
|
| It's more like "this is my property, I make it available
| to public under some conditions, this guy violates that
| condition".
|
| That said, the reality is that property owners and
| adjacent people often benefits from property being
| featured in a viral video. Unless US adopts similar
| restrictions as South Korea on photographing strangers, I
| guess these cases will keep happening.
| fastball wrote:
| I suppose if you could get anyone like this woman
| involved as a witness to testify that they will be less
| likely to be a patron of the business due to behavior
| like this you could claim damages that way.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| In the US you'd need permission to film the location, and
| without a release you could be stopped from using the
| video commercially (social media can count as commercial
| use if the uploader profits from views)
|
| This can cover public places too, some localities require
| a permit to film a public place for commercial use.
| anotherman554 wrote:
| I think the issue with getting a release is it shields
| you from litigation. It doesn't necessarily mean you'd
| lose the litigation if you didn't get the release, but a
| business is not going to want to take the risk they'd
| have litigation hanging over their head preventing the
| exploitation of the intellectual property asset.
|
| A journalist presumably isn't going to be getting
| permission to film, they are going to show up to where
| the news is and film.
| duncan_idaho wrote:
| Some courts have ruled requiring permits and fees for
| commercial filming constitute 1st amendment violations
| because they are content-based restrictions on free
| speech.
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| Commercial speech is generally less protected so this
| seems questionable. Also how is it content based?
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| Yeah it's definitely questionable... but banning someone
| using your images commercially feels right to me,
| especially in the context of this kind of exploitation.
| It isn't as blatant as creepshots, but it feels abusive.
|
| We can't hold so tightly to free speech that it erodes
| reasonable individual rights, but what's "reasonable" is
| often a grey area. Worth debating.
| robg wrote:
| It's not necessarily illegal (criminal) it's the potential
| damages for the civil offense (using her likeness without her
| consent causing untold losses to her).
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| > I like how the creator offered to take the video down, if
| asked. No apology and no offer to give back the money he made
| from the video.
|
| I'm sure he would, so long as she gave back the flowers.
| boffinAudio wrote:
| She should auction off the flowers.
| robg wrote:
| Why don't these folks have to get a signed release to use footage
| of a model? I get that it's a public place, seems like that still
| applies on the commercial interest. Couldn't she seek damages for
| use of her image without her consent?
| ls15 wrote:
| > "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?
| dr_orpheus wrote:
| 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.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Money? It's all about love and gratitude, Harrison clearly
| isn't interested in such shallow things as money.
| the_biot wrote:
| You think viral exploitative TikTok videos that cater to the
| lowest intellect are the worst thing in media right now? You'd be
| wrong. Writing articles about those videos is outright the lowest
| rung on that ladder of shit.
|
| Another low for the guardian, once a newspaper, now a
| propaganda/outrage rag of no news value whatsoever. Don't fall
| for the clickbait, and do yourself a favor: don't click on
| guardian links. It's _all_ garbage.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Actually, I see that article as the only way for that woman,
| and anyone else being in a viral video really, as the only
| means to get their voices heard as well. Hard to stink against
| millions of views and likes otherwise.
| the_biot wrote:
| All it does it get that video more views. Are you so far gone
| in the horseshit the guardian peddles that you're willing to
| defend their cheap practice with arguments you invented
| yourself? Can you really not see how their aim is
| _exclusively_ to sell more clicks?
| CPLX wrote:
| It's not that hard to just say that the idea of creating huge
| monetary incentives to harass, interrupt, or just distract people
| in public was a bad idea.
| dwringer wrote:
| To me it just seems like a lighthearted prank which resulted in
| giving flowers to someone who appears in need of cheering up.
| It's something that could easily have been on any comedy TV
| show of the last 30 years. And I think there's always been a
| monetary incentive; Candid Camera first aired in 1948.
| CPLX wrote:
| Those shows would have invariably gotten the consent of all
| the subjects that made it to air.
| ABoredBirb wrote:
| Were they also in need of being filmed and put in front of a
| large audience against their wishes, whilst being portrayed
| as old and sad?
| [deleted]
| PeterWhittaker wrote:
| The filming may be candid, but to air, the subject must sign
| a waiver. Whether the subjects were compensated for agreeing
| to the airing of the footage is a different Q.
| prepend wrote:
| Candid Camera acquired consent and revealed the cameras as
| part of the joke.
|
| It would have been such a sinister show if they never
| revealed it was a joke and never got permission to distribute
| the video.
| mihaic wrote:
| Besides the fact that TV shows always get consent all those
| being filmed, there is a quantitative difference between this
| and Candid Camera.
|
| Too many people now want to engage in these fake and
| superficial acts of "kindness", and it's messing up general
| day-to-day behavior and values.
| soylentcola wrote:
| But I'd imagine that Candid Camera required "participants" to
| sign a release. Same for those "Funniest Home Videos" and
| even stuff like Borat (and Tom Green, etc. before him).
| omega3 wrote:
| What a despicable human being. He even lied about her crying and
| being grateful after he left her the flowers.
| https://youtu.be/BU6PlJmGNkM?t=75
| ActionHank wrote:
| Mirror of this video for metric homies -
| https://streamable.com/upza7t
| exo-pla-net wrote:
| He may or may not have lied. The lady could have been grateful
| at first and changed her mind in hindsight (e.g. after learning
| it was just a stunt).
|
| Asserting that he's lying without knowing that he's lying is a
| mild form of libel. In the scale of moral wrongs, calling
| someone "a despicable human being" and a liar is arguably worse
| than giving a woman flowers for views.
| analyst74 wrote:
| > A friend contacted Maree that evening, sharing the uploaded
| video. At the time, Maree "didn't think much of it".
|
| > But after seeing the TikTok video featured in media reports
| describing her as an "elderly woman" with a "heartbreaking tale,"
| she said she "felt dehumanised".
|
| Not trying to support the tiktoker, who is obviously a douchebag.
| But it's interesting that the negative emotions didn't trigger
| until it becomes news.
| slx26 wrote:
| Receiving the flowers is one thing. Then having a video shared
| about it is another thing. And even beyond that, the second can
| also affect the perception on the first: maybe you thought it
| was something random at first, but then you realize it wasn't.
|
| It's not like something changed magically for no reason because
| humans are weird.
| strix_varius wrote:
| > it's interesting that the negative emotions didn't trigger
| until it becomes news.
|
| This doesn't seem to accurately reflect Maree's own description
| of events.
|
| Given that she said he interrupted her quiet time and then left
| her with an annoying problem to solve (what do I do with these
| flowers I don't want?), it's clear that this interaction
| started with negative emotions.
|
| Just the _scale_ of negative emotions increased when the
| _scale_ of the interaction increased. Which makes sense -
| imagine being reminded dozens of times over a period of days
| about what started as a minor negative experience.
| megous wrote:
| I wouldn't hold any flowers or anything really for any stranger
| in public. I've been to touristy places before and learned this
| lesson just by observation. High likelyhood some pressure style
| selling tactics would follow.
|
| Really, putting things on the groud or some other higher surface
| to free your hands should be a basic human skill by now.
| groovybits wrote:
| Very common in NYC. Someone on the street will ask you to "have
| something" or "check out something I'm giving away for free",
| acting as if it is a gift.
|
| As you walk away with said thing, that person will accuse you
| of stealing and use it as means for a physical altercation.
| turdnagel wrote:
| I'm not sure why someone would do this just to start a
| physical altercation which seems more likely to get someone
| in trouble for seemingly no reason. What I've actually seen
| in NYC is people offering something like a "mix CD" and then
| ask you for money once you take it.
| dymk wrote:
| I see this often in Seattle, especially near the tourist
| attracting areas. I had a friend get sniped by it and they
| ended up arguing with the scammer for 20 minutes. Absolute
| waste of everybody's energy, I'm surprised it's not treated
| as a form of harassment by the authorities.
| MandieD wrote:
| "Don't accept roses from strangers in Italy" was travel wisdom
| at least back as far as the mid-Oughts - the gambit there was a
| seeming well-wisher (often a child) handing a woman a rose, and
| then an accomplice badgering her male companion to pay for it
| and then resentfully yanking it back when he refused.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > the video was "designed to spread love and compassion"
|
| Hmmm.... seems more likely designed to get engagement.
|
| Presumably he doesn't love the woman, as he doesn't know anything
| at all about her, so that one is a lie for a start.
|
| And I guess he doesn't feel any compassion for her either, as he
| hasn't taken it down without forcing her to contact him, which
| she probably doesn't want to do.
| YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
| >> And I guess he doesn't feel any compassion for her either,
| as he hasn't taken it down without forcing her to contact him,
| which she probably doesn't want to do.
|
| I think it's not lack of compassion but lack of understanding.
| He probably thinks the lady is trying to milk the episode for
| likes. I'm guessing he has no capacity to comprehend that her
| life may not revolve around social media likes.
| titzer wrote:
| The irony is it that shows the exact opposite of love and
| compassion. Self-aggrandizement and no regard for others,
| motivated only by the needs of self, and didn't even spend an
| extra second with her beyond what was required to execute this
| vapid stunt.
| highwaylights wrote:
| I don't want to tar an entire generation with the same brush,
| but I have noticed that younger people seem to be really
| taken in with these very shallow like-farming operations on
| YouTube and TikTok.
|
| Mr Beast is incredibly successful at this, in that his stunts
| produce massive numbers for very little outlay. A friend's
| kid in his teens was telling me about how he's the most
| generous person he's ever seen and it make me wince a little
| as I really don't want to be _that guy_ and wade into it with
| a "well, actually".
|
| Social media has made the world an incredibly vapid place.
| mattgreenrocks wrote:
| > I don't want to tar an entire generation with the same
| brush, but I have noticed that younger people seem to be
| really taken in with these very shallow like-farming
| operations on YouTube and TikTok.
|
| I don't fault them. They're only responding the world that
| we, the older generation, are implicitly condoning. Fact
| is, our culture does not teach the benefits of generosity
| much, and the few instances we see are often highly public:
| "$FAMOUS_PERSON donates $LARGE_SUM to $NONPROFIT!"
| Anonymous donors are never trumpeted the same way.
|
| There is a marketplace for virtues, and people need role
| models.
| tsol wrote:
| >There is a marketplace for virtues, and people need role
| models.
|
| Good luck convincing people of this. One of the primary
| purposes of religion was to provide that role model
| figure, but society has thrown out that concept
| altogether. Nowadays I see more of a "everyone is flawed
| and whoever you think is a role model is probably a
| secret pervert or something" philosophy as common. So
| what does anyone expect? If we decide the
| theological/moral foundation of society is false without
| replacing it, then obviously morality will change as a
| result. It's like throwing out the bath water, and then
| complaining that there's no baby for some mysterious
| reason.
| jodrellblank wrote:
| > " _I really don 't want to be that guy and wade into it
| with a "well, actually"._"
|
| Be that guy; what's your criticism about Mr Beast's
| generosity? He does a lot of content which could be fake;
| like giving his friends $20,000, but ones which look more
| serious and genuine and costly include:
|
| - Opened a "free bank" where he loaned money into six
| figures to local people, then surprise! it's not a loan,
| they can keep it:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORUX1lHbOa8
|
| - Bought everything in a supermarket and donated it to a
| food bank: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha4tRQwKIUg
|
| - Donated $100k to plant trees, and organised a fundraiser
| which raised $21M to plant 20M trees:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPJKxAhLw5I
|
| - Ran a contest of TV show style challenges (endurance,
| falling into goop) with some of his viewers as contestents,
| with a million dollar prize at the end that one of them
| won: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQ4m4zD7BBA
|
| - Gave away three houses or free rent for a year in them:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJH28ICkCdU and
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfv1QaRzJg8 and
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cCpZl8euLI
|
| - Bought every car in a car dealership and gave them away:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LLnjRLrvLU
|
| - Gives his credit card to people, encouraging them to
| spend tens thousands of dollars on things they get to keep:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYVjOfoU3uI
|
| What's vapid or not generous enough about these for your
| liking?
| nautilius wrote:
| He makes money off of it. There's nothing wrong with
| that, but that doesn't make him a charity, imo.
|
| You could make the same case for Walmart: look at all the
| people (employees) they hand money out to! With many of
| them likely having much tougher lives than I do and thus
| being absolutely deserving of the money. But Walmart does
| it for the sole reason that it improves their bottom line
| --- just like Mr Beast.
|
| Do you think Mr Beast would insist on spending millions
| in a video if he could create the same income from just
| "Giving $1.5 to strangers!" videos?
| Zachsa999 wrote:
| This is important because Mr Beast doesn't actually spend
| a lot of time self aggrandising. He approaches
| philanthropy similarly to how many ultra wealthy people
| do; giving in public, only he makes more from it.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| gambiting wrote:
| I don't know how to explain it - if you make your living
| _by_ being charitable, then the whole act of charity is
| somewhat lessened, no?
|
| It's like when nestle announces they are going to plant 1
| million trees - like yeah, it's very generous of you, no
| doubt - but you are doing it as a marketing exercise.
|
| Mr Beast is making money this way. I am extremely far
| from saying that there's anything wrong with it - but
| it's not charity in my mind. It's just a business that
| happens to benefit random bystanders from time to time.
| webkike wrote:
| Mr Beast is making money this way for sure, but he's also
| feeding that money back into being generous, so I think
| in this case it's fine
| ALittleLight wrote:
| I'm sure he is making a profit off it but whatever good
| is happening is still getting done. He could be a famous
| YouTuber by playing pranks or video games and make
| millions too - is that better?
|
| I share an unsettled feeling about this. I think it is
| because things like this are a visceral reminder of
| differences between the rich and poor. A life altering
| struggle for a poor person is a solved by ten minutes of
| amusement from a rich person - "here, take my card and
| buy whatever you need."
| gambiting wrote:
| >>I'm sure he is making a profit off it but whatever good
| is happening is still getting done.
|
| I'm not saying it's not. I don't want him to stop. But I
| don't think I'd call it charity personally(and some
| people do, that's why I'm making this point).
|
| Like, let me try again with an example - if you pull $10k
| out of your account and give it to a homeless person,
| that's charity, right?
|
| Ok, but what if you get someone to invest $10k into you
| making a youtube video, because you promise them they
| will make this money back from monetization, and you then
| record a youtube video of giving the homeless person that
| exact $10k. The video then proceeds to make way more than
| that $10k in revenue. Is that charity too? After all the
| end result is the same - the homeless person was given
| money. Or is it just good business?
|
| The second example is exactly what Mr Beast has done. I'm
| not saying he shouldn't have - just observing that what
| he does, the entire spectacle of it - it's just a
| business venture.
| sorry_i_lisp wrote:
| MrBeast is in the business of arbitrage.
| highwaylights wrote:
| Since you insist:
|
| Any one of the aforementioned things could have been done
| at any time, anywhere, on an ongoing basis, that would
| have helped communities in a sustainable way.
|
| When he gives the cars away, or makes loans to people, he
| often films people getting significantly different
| amounts (or items of significantly differing value)
| simultaneously. I would assume the reactions are more
| valuable when someone has gotten less than one of their
| friends in the same group - this in particular is
| cruelty, not kindness.
|
| Even setting the above aside, the big issue I have with
| it is that it's not charity or altruism but is
| masquerading as such for profit. This is his business.
| Every act is a carefully calculated profit/loss equation
| relative to how many views he thinks he can get.
|
| Typically philanthropy would be considered willingly
| disposing of money you earned elsewhere when it's not
| necessary for you to do so, in order to help a cause.
|
| Beast isn't doing this. He's reinvesting his profits into
| growing his business.
|
| You wouldn't call a mechanic a philanthropist for fixing
| people's cars for money, even though they've done
| something that people appreciated.
|
| At best, Beast is redistributing the ad revenue from his
| viewers and skimming signifcantly from the top (given
| that it's expected he's approaching billionaire status).
|
| For what it's worth I do respect his business acumen.
| He's found a good hustle and is working it very well.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| This has also decreased the quality of content online in
| general since everything appears to be optimized for idiots
| with a 5-second attention span.
|
| Whether it's TikTok videos with that awful TTS voiceover
| reading the caption (I can read it myself, thanks) or
| YouTube videos that now always start with a ~5 seconds
| extract which spoils the entire video, or gaming videos
| with insufferable personalities. Oh and don't forget to
| subscribe and hit the notification bell!
| Graffur wrote:
| What is your opinion on Mr Beast? I just watched a video of
| his for the first time and he gave away over $500,000.
| TrickyRick wrote:
| Yeah to me he seems genuinely generous. Obviously there
| is a part of it being done to attract more viewers
| (Otherwise he could simply not upload the video at all)
| but from my, granted limited, experience of his videos a
| lot of the money he makes goes in to making (I.e.
| donating more) new videos. Very different from getting
| millions of TikTok views for the price of a flower
| bouquet.
| titzer wrote:
| The discerning questions are: would he do this a) with
| his own money and b) if no one is watching?
|
| I think both are no.
| hderms wrote:
| Why are those questions the end all be all of the
| discussion? Many good things are done in the world that
| have a variety of motivations. He could get views in a
| variety of ways but the fact that he's doing it by
| helping people shouldn't be dismissed just because he
| wouldn't spend millions of dollars with no one watching.
|
| Not to suggest he's operating in any way like a non-
| profit, but they all receive money and then distribute
| that money in ways that either increase the future money
| they can use for their mission or directly on the mission
| itself. The fact that he's built a self-sustaining model
| for helping individuals without merely forking over his
| own assets is impressive.
| WesleyJohnson wrote:
| Mr. Beast's driving motivation, as he's stated many times
| in interviews, is to make the best YouTube videos he can.
| He spends millions on his videos these days, all in an
| effort to outdo the previous one and provide the best
| content he can. So while he certainly does give away
| money in some of his videos, he films it in order to make
| money while doing it. I don't doubt that he's some level
| of generous, but his motivations are not solely
| benevolent.
|
| His first viral "giveaway" video was him giving a
| homeless person $10,000. That wasn't his money. He got a
| company to invest in him by giving him the money to
| donate (while filming it) and promised them a return on
| their money. It's been a business venture from the
| outset.
|
| That said, it doesn't really bother me. If he makes $1m
| dollars giving away $500k, so be it. He reinvests that
| money back into his business, that employs many, many
| people and sometime finds its way back to those in need.
| He's not inherently rich, he needs to make money to
| donate it and his means of making that money is sometimes
| exploiting the very act for likes, clicks and ad revenue.
| slillibri wrote:
| Mr Beast is a game show host. He's not giving away his
| own money yet everything is framed as the giant act of
| generosity on his part. He's giving away money much like
| Bob Barker gave away kitchen sets.
| epups wrote:
| But he owns his channel, no? So any money not spent in
| giving reverts back to him.
| tipsytoad wrote:
| No. A sponsorship would give a clear budget, if blizzard
| gives him 500k for video expenses the rest would go back
| to blizzard, not him.
|
| Blizzard would probably require him to spend all the
| money though, as more money = more clicks.
| maest wrote:
| Honest question - how does he fund these giveaways?
| onion2k wrote:
| He made $24m in advertising and sponsorship in 2020.
| CPLX wrote:
| The same way Bob Barker did.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| YouTube has advertising, as his videos have sponsorship.
| His audience is like double the level of an episode of
| Friends at its peak, so I guess the slots are worth a
| lot.
| highwaylights wrote:
| I'm stealing this comparison. It's mine now. I came up
| with it.
| YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
| I don't think it's a generational thing, but a social media
| thing, and I think it looks like it's representative of
| "everybody" when in truth it's representative of the people
| who are more active on social media, which should be a
| small proportion of the general population.
|
| I hope anyway.
| antiterra wrote:
| It's definitely a commercial generosity, but I think it
| differs.
|
| Mr. Beast's brand, and presumably identity, centers around
| a Calvinist ethic that hard work is a virtue even when
| exerted to meaningless ends. There's a 'don't act too big
| for your britches' undercurrent as well, flashy cars are
| props returned at the end of the day, not the spoils. He
| trades a lot of the mawkish sentimentality for self-
| deprecation.
|
| Another practical difference is that giving strangers money
| provides more actual utility vs a bouquet of flowers. His
| targets for interaction are usually more appropriate, often
| people he has a reason to interact with or where he asks
| for participation.
| kkielhofner wrote:
| It's amazing how many people don't realize this and post some
| comment/reply/like that reinforces this behavior.
|
| Some of these incidents even make the news, positioned as
| some heartwarming feel good story.
|
| In short from the perspective of the attention seeker/clout
| beast - it works.
| sarkron wrote:
| I guess it's fair to say that many people agree with Matthew 6,
| no? "So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with
| trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the
| streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have
| received their reward in full."
| khazhoux wrote:
| Maybe that's part of it, but the other key thing here is that
| she was not in any way actually needy. He made a random person
| out to be a pathetic weepy loner, to an audience of millions.
| isitmadeofglass wrote:
| There should be some easy way to report the content with proof
| that your the main subject of a video, and unless the creator
| proves concent the victim gets any and all proceeds plus a
| "publicity" fee.
|
| This will stop these horrible "acts of kindness" that are nothing
| but attempts at going viral and making money with blatant
| disregard for their victims.
| [deleted]
| HellDunkel wrote:
| This is TikTok. Complete waste of time and and absolute
| douchebaggery.
| [deleted]
| jasonhansel wrote:
| It's also particularly annoying that the gift was _a bouquet of
| flowers._ If the woman wants to enjoy her gift, she needs to get
| a vase, go home ASAP, immediately put the flowers in water, and
| then keep taking care of them for the next several days. That 's
| all fine if you're expecting it, but really annoying if it's an
| inconvenient time.
| pcmoney wrote:
| Dont film people without explicit consent.
|
| An act of kindness you show others is not an act of kindness. Its
| a negative on your character.
|
| This lady should sue if possible. So sick of these vapid, self
| obsessed "influencers". So tacky. So worthless.
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| 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
| duxup wrote:
| I dunno I disagree. Something can be kind and filmed.
|
| The issue here is how it plays out the person gifted isn't more
| than a prop.
| IG_Semmelweiss wrote:
| I think the wikipedia article from OP makes a strong point
| that you may have missed.
|
| Notice the wording "ENDS"
|
| That would modify your statement as follows :
|
| Something can be kind and filmed (provided.. ENDS).
|
| OR restating your sentence:
|
| "Something can be kind and filmed provided filming was not
| the goal of the kindness, and in fact filming was entirely
| unintended and unexpected"
| silicon2401 wrote:
| I agree much more with your wording of the idea, though I
| still believe 100% it's possible to do something kind with
| the intention of filming it. If someone wants to donate a
| million dollars to me they're welcome to film it on a
| million cameras if they want
| petercooper wrote:
| MrBeast. He's almost universally lauded for his
| generosity and good deeds which are mostly funded by ad
| revenue or sponsors and seemingly done specifically for
| YouTube clout.
| flatline wrote:
| My kids love Mr Beast. I have used the same word used
| here, "dehumanizing", to describe him. The very premise
| places more value on money than people. It's made for
| some great philosophical discussions with two ~10 year
| olds though.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| The flip side here is agreement on both sides, for me
| that is the moral question. Not that it was filmed, but
| that all parties should agreed to the filming.
|
| Prearranging to film giving you a million dollars, is
| very different from just showing up an putting camera's
| in your face with out your foreknowledge or consent
| silicon2401 wrote:
| Then I think we may differ on whether we consider
| consent/agreement a part of kindness. I don't think it's
| that simple. I think an act can be kind but be delivered
| in an incompatible way. Asking someone how they're
| feeling after a breakup can be genuinely kind IMO, even
| if you didn't realize that that's the last thing they
| want to think about and asking them caused them to have
| an emotional breakdown that they blame you for. At this
| point I'm disregarding the tiktok thing entirely; I would
| still consider the million dollar gift to anyone an
| incredibly kind gesture, even if filmed without prior
| planning/agreement.
| IG_Semmelweiss wrote:
| i think we are discussing separate points
|
| OP commingled morals and kindness when his intent (now
| obvious to me after rereading) was to explicitly discuss
| morality of the situation.
|
| You are exploring the morality of performing an action
| that violates moral norms (in this case, expectation of
| privacy)
|
| We were exploring whether it is possible to be kind from
| an act if the end goal is obtain valuable exchange, off
| the act
| azemetre wrote:
| What about this story that the thread is discussing? The
| woman in question did not appreciate being filmed, is
| this still an example of kindness? Not trying to argue
| here just understanding your thought process, because I
| agree with the poster you replied to.
| sixothree wrote:
| Agreed. I don't see any kindness in this video at all.
| bumby wrote:
| I think the distinction comes from differing worldviews
| on moral behavior.
|
| Consequentialists believe all that matters is the "ends".
| So even if I filmed something with the aim of patting
| myself on the back but it made people feel good, it's
| moral because the outcome was positive.
|
| Others believe all that matters is intent. A good
| Samaritan may act recklessly and end up maiming somebody,
| but they acted morally because they had positive intent
| to offer aid.
|
| (Of course, there's many other takes but those seem to be
| the one's germane to this part of the discussion).
| ncallaway wrote:
| I've really come to think of my moral framework as trying
| to maintain an Aristotle golden mean between
| Consequentialism and Deontology.
|
| Both outcome and intent matter, and the tricky question
| is how to balance the two.
|
| I don't have a strong philosophical argument to justify
| the balance I aim to strike in daily life, but it
| definitely feels like both consequentialism and
| deontology fall down when left totally to their own
| devices.
| bumby wrote:
| > _the tricky question is how to balance the two._
|
| I've heard people smarter than me advocate contractualism
| as a way of finding balance between the two.
| duxup wrote:
| Yes I think that's reasonable.
| jcynix wrote:
| From the description, the flowers weren't offered as a gift,
| but he asked her to hold them. And then disappeared. Just
| think of someone asking you told hold his stuff for a moment
| and then disappears. Now you have to care for something
| that's neither your's nor wanted? I'm tempted to call that
| obnoxious, not nice.
| jimmyjazz14 wrote:
| The act itself is also shallow, flowers are meant more of a
| symbolic gift; I give my wife flowers maybe to express love but
| if I just gave some random person flowers on the street without
| any further explanation then I have simply given that person a
| dead plant. If the guy gave the lady something of actual value
| or that served a need, or even just made statement as to the
| meaning of the flowers it could have changed the dynamic.
| Further it is customary to ask someone (especially someone you
| do not know well) to accept a gift and to explain why the gift
| was given; there is a very good reason for this.
| the_af wrote:
| Not only was this act meant for an audience, but he also
| tricked her because he was afraid she wouldn't want the
| flowers. Very underhanded.
| t_mann wrote:
| Beautifully said.
| bumby wrote:
| Isn't a limitation of Kant's view that intention is all that
| matters? In other words, neither context or outcome change the
| morality of the action?
| mekoka wrote:
| In other words, morality is relative to intent. I think the
| jury is still out on that.
|
| Our planet has seen its fair share of saviors, liberators,
| purifiers, improvers of all sorts. And they've left us with a
| culture rich in cliches and aphorisms that teach us that
| although you can't make an omelette without breaking some
| eggs and the ends will eventually justify the means, the
| roads to hell remain paved with good intentions.
| bumby wrote:
| Agree that there is no clear-cut answer. That's what makes
| ethics hard.
|
| On the flip side, consequentialism can justify all sorts of
| actions that are objectionable in other moral frameworks.
| Machiavelli isn't usually thought of as a bastion of
| morality, and he coined the phrase "the ends justify the
| means".
|
| The best answer is probably somewhere in between, but I
| think many people prefer simple to nuanced answers.
| crmd wrote:
| His intention was to film and monetize a viral video.
| bumby wrote:
| That's the cynical take, yes.
| jeremyjh wrote:
| It is a factual description of what happened. I don't see
| a lot of room for interpretation here.
| bumby wrote:
| Except the distinction is you were describing _intent_
| and not the _event_. The event can be framed as a factual
| description, but the intent cannot unless you somehow
| have unique insight into the person 's mind. You can
| infer intent in this situation, but you can't really
| claim it as an objective fact.
|
| That's not to mention that the two (action to create a
| viral video and the intent to truly act out of kindness)
| don't have to be mutually exclusive. For example, if I
| did the same to create a viral video with the intent to
| shape social norms, that would probably be a more moral
| decision than to create a viral video for monetary gain.
| Corazoor wrote:
| Kants moral philosophy (the categorical imperative) is
| deontological, which means it is based on the action (and
| only the action) itself.
|
| Intent and Outcome are important in other moral philosophies,
| but for Kant these were hypothetical imperatives: Nothing
| more than mere whishes, nothing concrete.
|
| For him, moral philosophy should be based on concrete,
| testable tenets, which have to be unconditionally true
| (categorical) and are always required (imperative).
|
| While one might disagree with that worldview, Kant's work on
| this kind of moral philosophy was so comprehensive and -
| quite franky - logically sound, that to this very day any
| deontological philosopher or moral theory is still called
| "Kantian" or in "Kantian tradition"...
|
| To come back to your question: While dismissing intent and
| outcome can be seen as a limitation of Kant's view, it also
| provides a very strong logical underpinning for the whole
| philosophy. Of all the moral philosophies, it's the one based
| most on pure reasoning.
|
| Of course, it qickly breaks down when pitting two moral
| wrongs against each other (ratting out innocents vs. lying to
| state forces, various trolley problems etc.), but any moral
| system seems to get in trouble in these kind of situations.
| bumby wrote:
| Thank you for clearing up my misconceptions. Is it fair to
| say Kants view mostly works when there is a universal
| answer that is not context dependent?
|
| I know this is a bit of an ad hominem and an aside, but is
| it true that Kant was a loner? Do you think his idealist
| worldviews contributed to that, I.e., his moral philosophy
| is more fit for theoretical and academic discussions rather
| than applied in practice, in the sense that philosophy is
| aimed at living a better life?
| Corazoor wrote:
| The categorical imperative (kinda) ALWAYS works for a
| single action, thats the real power of it. No matter the
| situation, applying Kants reasoning to a possible action
| will always give you a definite answer - Moral or
| Immoral.
|
| It is actually rather easy to apply: If you can
| generalize an action (i.e. "what would happen if everyone
| does this in this situation") without contradiction, then
| it is moral. Otherwise not.
|
| What it cannot do is weigh two actions against each
| other: Lying is immoral, but so is treason. You might be
| forced to break one principle to protect the other.
|
| Kant is kinda famous for taking extremist views in these
| circumstances. He regarded lying as the worst kind of
| immorality. Which, with a bit of hindsight, leads to the
| questionable stance, that it is worse to lie to a nazi,
| than to protect and harbor a jew from death. Obviously
| not a popular stance nowadays, and probably not even back
| then...
|
| But you can fix that by applying a different 'order' to
| the individual principles. Modern kantian theories
| heavily focus on these parts.
|
| I'm not sure if you can dismiss context entirely when
| thinking about a single action, I have the feeling that
| not. But on the other hand, I cannot think of an example
| where context does matter, but does not simultaniously
| pit two moral principles against each other... The answer
| to your first question kinda hinges on that...
|
| About the loner part: Kant was among the most influentual
| figures in the european enlightenment movement, he wrote
| the very influental pamphlet "What is the enlightenment",
| and he regularly held lectures at various universities. I
| dunno if he was an introvert, but he certainly didn't
| avoid society or discussions.
|
| He was a racist, though. Even made money through
| questionable lectures on the inferiority of non white
| races. Not that uncommon (and widely accepted) in Germany
| at that time, but yeah... Great intellectual, an actual
| liberal in many ways, but still a shitty asshole in many
| others...
|
| And for academic vs practical: Another name for the whole
| branch of moral philosophy is "practical philosophy". It
| is not possible to make an actual useful distinction
| between academic and practical application of morality.
| The questions are the same, the reasoning is the same.
| Only difference is if you have to actually go through
| with your choices, which makes it emotionally different,
| but not logically...
|
| I'm a bit of a Kant fan, but here are some telling quotes
| from wikipedia: (Not all about his moral phlosophy
| thoguh) "Kant's influence on Western thought has been
| profound." "Kant is credited with having innovated the
| way philosophical inquiry has been carried at least up to
| the early nineteenth century" "Arthur Schopenhauer was
| strongly influenced by Kant's transcendental idealism."
| "With his Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch, Kant
| is considered to have foreshadowed many of the ideas that
| have come to form the democratic peace theory, one of the
| main controversies in political science" "Jurgen Habermas
| and John Rawls are two significant political and moral
| philosophers whose work is strongly influenced by Kant's
| moral philosophy." "Kant's influence also has extended to
| the social, behavioral, and physical sciences, as in the
| sociology of Max Weber, the psychology of Jean Piaget and
| Carl Gustav Jung,[199][200] and the linguistics of Noam
| Chomsky." "Kant's work on mathematics and synthetic a
| priori knowledge is also cited by theoretical physicist
| Albert Einstein as an early influence on his intellectual
| development, but which he later criticised heavily and
| rejected."
| vlunkr wrote:
| Context has a big impact on intention. This video is a prime
| example of that.
| dncornholio wrote:
| It's not her limitation. A limitation would be to not realise
| the true intent.
| bumby wrote:
| Sorry, I don't follow, can you explain? The limitation I
| was referring to was in the OP references Kant theory, not
| to the person being filmed.
| EnderWT wrote:
| It's not even an act of kindness. It's a prank.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| Social Media has largely exposed the levels of narcissism
| embedded in a large number of human's psychological makeup ,
| Selfies, clout chasing and virtue signalling are ever
| increasing forms of narcissism that really has destroyed the
| internet IMO
| CPLX wrote:
| Alternately we could look at Social Media as a defective
| product. I think it's a much better metaphor. The product has
| horrible consequences and side effects. It's a for profit
| making entity, creating a product that often causes people to
| get hurt or damaged. Like lawn darts.
| kodah wrote:
| Civil courts deal with "defective" products, legislatures
| deal with harmful products. I had an ATC growing up, so
| many people died on them they outlawed the design - mainly
| because it was pretty easy to endo with the wrong tires.
| Interestingly, we still had one, and it wasn't illegal for
| me to operate, but you definitely couldn't buy another one
| legally.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| Well I enjoyed Lawn Darts and disagree with the prohibition
| on them so if the desire would be to ban social media I
| would also disagree with it
|
| neither were "defective" products, just because they caused
| harm does not make them defective, both lawn darts, and
| social media are working exactly as the manufacturer
| intended, calling them "defective" is stretching the
| definition of the term
|
| if you want to make the case of regulation one does not
| need to nor should the term defect be perverted to be used
| to get around legal productions (like free speech). Cocaine
| is banned not because it is defective but because it is
| harmful, though I also disagree with the banning of cocaine
| generally because I do not believe it is role of government
| to protect someone from self harm
| bumby wrote:
| > _just because they caused harm does not make them
| defective, both lawn darts, and social media are working
| exactly as the manufacturer intended_
|
| Then would it possibly be a better distinction to define
| them instead as poorly designed products with large
| negative externalities? If I build a product that meets
| it's stated goal but poisons the environment around it,
| it's not "defective" in the myopic view, but poorly
| designed in the global view. Even taking the libertarian
| line, doesn't the government have a role in regulating
| negative externalities?
| phpisthebest wrote:
| That depends on the type and scope of "negative
| externalities", and not all libertarian philosophies
| agree on the where to draw that line.
|
| Some would say a negative exernality like CO2 emissions
| would raise to the level for government regulations
| (violating NAP) , other libertarian philosophies would
| not, viewing it a totalitarian control as human breath
| expeals CO2 so if the government can regulate it then
| there are no limits on government at all.
|
| I dont know if I have a good answer
| jamiek88 wrote:
| Well who gives a shit what libertarians think?
|
| It's a philosophy for 12 year olds.
|
| I can come up with any old bullshit by extending
| arguments to a level of ludicrousness like that. Doesn't
| mean you should entertain my bullshit.
|
| humans are social creatures and have alway, always,
| always lived in a societal hierarchy. Our only genuine
| political decision we can make is what kind of government
| we want and how much freedom to give up.
|
| The idea that we can live without giving up any freedoms
| to a society just means that the strongest, most ruthless
| person 'wins' and is king.
|
| This is just a fact. There is no opinion involved. And
| the only reason this flavor of internet libertarianism
| exists is because those espousing it have grown up in
| relative comfort with no fear of warlords.
| bumby wrote:
| Please review the HN Guidelines:
|
| "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead
| of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3"
| can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| cool_dude85 wrote:
| >viewing it a totalitarian control as human breath
| expeals CO2 so if the government can regulate it then
| there are no limits on government at all.
|
| "If the gubmit can tell multinational corps not to pull
| oil out of the ground, they can make me hold my breath!
| It produces the same molecule!" Libertarian philosophy in
| a nutshell.
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| Your post made me wonder what libertarians think about
| things like llcs and corporations - the legal shields
| they provide are a massive government subsidy.
| corrral wrote:
| Left-libertarians often think they shouldn't be A Thing,
| since they're extensions of state power and, besides,
| left-libertarians are more concerned with large
| concentrations of power _per se_ than whether those
| concentrations happen to be called governments.
|
| Your average common-on-the-Internet right-libertarian
| usually hand-waves away how they're somehow fine and part
| of the "natural" (I cannot roll my eyes hard enough, in
| case you couldn't tell) free market. Some of the softer
| right-libertarians (bleeding over into folks who'd likely
| style themselves "classical liberals" rather than
| libertarians) aren't as hard-line and rigid, so don't
| really have the dilemma to begin with, but they're much
| less vocal on the Internet, probably in part because they
| disagree with the average person a lot less than the
| former sort does, so it just doesn't come up as much.
| CPLX wrote:
| The difference between the two of them is that due to
| historical specifics, the social media companies have
| Section 230, which completely immunizes them from dealing
| with the consequences of any of their actions.
|
| Without that they'd be subject to the same constraints as
| your average newspaper or TV station. Which is to say not
| a lot of constraints. But there would in fact be a means
| to address the consequences of their editorial decisions.
| hackyhacky wrote:
| That's not at all a reasonable characterization of 230.
|
| https://www.techdirt.com/2021/10/29/everything-you-know-
| abou...
|
| Websites and TV stations have the same first amendment
| protection. The main difference is that users do not
| contribute content to TV stations. That's what 230
| protects.
| cronix wrote:
| There were "public access" shows on cable that showed
| user generated content. Not so different than the
| majority of tik-tok content today.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G8reRPOoiw
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFBIMKdOdBg
| hackyhacky wrote:
| Actually, very different.
|
| Public access was very limited in bandwidth: one simply
| didn't have thousands of people posting content. As a
| result, public access was heavily curated and subject to
| the same broadcast restrictions as traditional
| television.
|
| Even allowing that, public access isn't much of a thing
| anymore. In modern mainstream television stations, there
| is absolutely no user-generated content.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| 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
| CPLX wrote:
| 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.
| hackyhacky wrote:
| The overwhelming majority of content on social media is
| curated by automatic means. Manual curation at that
| scale, is, as you know, infeasible.
| CPLX wrote:
| Automatic perhaps, but still _editorial_ in the decision
| making process.
|
| As soon as you start deciding to show some content and
| not other content based on the content of the
| communications you're making editorial decisions.
| Algorithms or not, it's a judgement call.
| cratermoon wrote:
| And the dark mirror of "virtue signaling": vice signaling
| https://kthorjensen.medium.com/jordan-peterson-donald-
| trump-...
| RugnirViking wrote:
| it takes what is a useful social response (I had better be
| kind, so other people physically present don't shun me) into
| a twisted spectacle (I must show me being kind to as many
| people as possible and in the internet I have the means to do
| it)
| orthecreedence wrote:
| > Social Media has largely exposed the levels of narcissism
| embedded in a large number of human's psychological makeup
|
| I don't think this is entirely fair to humanity. I think
| social media _encourages and incentivizes_ this behavior. Was
| it there before? Sure. But social media hasn 't _just_
| exposed it, it has also optimized for it.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| It's really a shame people turned virtue signaling into a
| dirty world that can't be used in civil discussion. It is a
| great descriptor for all sorts of human behavior in all sorts
| of contexts.
|
| Edit: y'all are kind of proving my first point.
| dools wrote:
| Virtue signalling is a term made up by a hard right
| libertarian propagandist writing for the spectator as a
| means of silencing progressive voices online. It's a
| bullshit term for which we already had a perfectly good
| word: hypocrisy
| Karunamon wrote:
| Hypocrisy is insufficiently precise. It is possible to
| disingenuously engage in any particular activity. If you
| wish to describe a specific behavior, then a better
| descriptor is necessary. On top of that, not all virtue
| signaling is necessarily disingenuous.
|
| And all terms are made up, and the political leanings of
| the person who supposedly coined the phrase is irrelevant
| to its applicability.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| I am not aware of a context where virtue signaling would be
| a good practice or behavior.
| Zachsa999 wrote:
| I like too think a virtuous person signals virtue without
| being narcissistic
| watwut wrote:
| Virtue signaling has similar effect as vice signaling: it
| signals to others what you think is good thing to do. It
| is statement toward rest of word.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| The signal it sends is that appearances and whatnot
| matter more than actual substances, that appearing to do
| something is more important than doing something.
|
| Bragging about how your food is cruelty free when you
| don't really care about the food, you care about being
| able to say that it's cruelty free doesn't make you
| against animal cruelty except by some absurdly expansive
| definition of "against".
|
| And there's also 800lb gorilla that is political
| discourse where people routinely say one thing and then
| not only do nothing to advance that, they live their
| lives by something that's close to the opposite.
|
| Rewarding virtue signaling absolves people of much of the
| requirement to put their money where their mouth is and
| relaxing that requirement is a bad thing.
| watwut wrote:
| First paragraph care more about what whoever does that
| action feels then about what impact it has.
|
| All in all, it rewards primary doing and saying nothing.
| Everyone else can be accused of virtue signaling.
| erybodyknows wrote:
| Virtue can be _practiced_ and even _observed_ without
| being signalled.
| tsol wrote:
| Practicing virtue in public, even if you don't intend it
| that way, is signaling virtue. What is strange is how in
| our society virtue has to be justified. Is it virtue
| signaling that people dislike, or being fake?
| goodpoint wrote:
| Most people now use "virtue signaling" as as insult to
| quickly dismiss any person expressing ethical concerns.
| goodpoint wrote:
| The silent downvotes only prove my point.
| afavour wrote:
| 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 signaling.
|
| _Broadly speaking_ , I think there is nothing wrong
| with, say, videoing yourself serving food at a soup
| kitchen. It's when you use that video to boost your own
| profile rather than the virtuous act that it becomes
| problematic. There are plenty of people that do that.
| However there are also plenty of people who interpret
| _any_ public record of virtue as being inherently
| narcissistic and I think that 's just as bad.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Virtue signaling in the common parlance specifically
| refers to exposition for personal benefit. Ie, they don't
| act virtuously when the cameras are off
|
| I think demonstration of virtue would be a better term
| without this connotation. EG being a role model.
|
| The large amount of virtue signaling has poisoned the
| Well for people that simply want to promote good deeds
| and behavior.
| mcv wrote:
| I think there's basically two different sorts of
| behaviour that could fit the description. One is doing
| something good while setting an example for others, and
| the other is being seen to do something good or virtuous
| in order to receive appreciation for it.
| vinyl7 wrote:
| 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 done because they were
| seeking to increase their own value.
|
| The way to go about this is to do the thing without
| anyone knowing and without displaying it. To do it
| without expecting any personal gain at all. If a friend
| tells their friend "afavour brought me soup when I was
| sick, it was so sweet of them" or if someone asks you
| what you do in your spare time and you say "sometimes I
| serve at a soup kitchen." then that's fine because that
| kind of display, which was prompted by other people,
| can't really be seen as you seeking to cash out the value
| of the virtuous act.
| watwut wrote:
| > 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?
| ckw wrote:
| I would alter that slightly: virtuous acts should be done
| whenever an opportunity arises. When we see particularly
| conspicuous acts of virtue, by which the practitioner
| benefits greatly, especially when the opportunity to
| avoid conspicuousness existed but was eschewed, we are
| right to suspect that the act would not have taken place
| in the absence of an audience, and thus actually signals
| a _lack_ of virtue. (Because the virtuous act so
| regardless of audience, and personal benefit, and even at
| great personal risk or hardship).
| Domenic_S wrote:
| Might be better stated as "altruistic acts", but the
| primary reason is that the benefactor's anonymity
| preserves the dignity of the recipient. When done
| privately:
|
| 1. The recipient doesn't have to cop to/explain their
| situation that prompted the generosity,
|
| 2. The recipient doesn't feel the need to publicly
| acknowledge the help (which in turn implies publicly
| explaining that you needed help),
|
| 3. The recipient doesn't become a revenue-generator
| without giving their permission, as happens in this case
| and others like it
|
| When done in public, these acts cease to be altruism -
| they're now a business exchange ("content creator" gives
| you something of value (flowers) in exchange for
| something else of value (clicks/views/clout)). Except you
| didn't know you were making this business deal, which is
| beyond slimy.
|
| IIRC most religious texts teach to do altruism privately,
| for reasons such as this. Attention-seeking didn't just
| come about in the internet age, it just got easier.
| afavour wrote:
| > it comes off as seeking return value for the action
|
| Surely that's in the eye of the beholder? It is possible
| to interpret it that way, certainly. But applying the
| observers value judgement (i.e. how it comes off) onto
| the original actor seems unfair to me.
|
| Sometimes I feel like (and I don't mean anything personal
| by this) we're all cynical bastards these days so when we
| see someone do something genuinely altruistic we simply
| cannot process it as such and immediately seek a way to
| dismiss it as self-serving.
| haswell wrote:
| > _we're all cynical bastards these days so when we see
| someone do something genuinely altruistic we simply
| cannot process it as such and immediately seek a way to
| dismiss it as self-serving_
|
| The question to ask is where this cynicism came from.
|
| I would argue that it is the performative variety of
| virtue that has made us mistrust such acts.
|
| We wouldn't have a reason to doubt one's intentions if
| those intentions are indistinguishable on the surface
| from a popular meme, which is what many of these recorded
| acts of kindness seem to be.
|
| Only the person carrying out the act knows the truth of
| what is in their heart, but I would argue that the very
| act of recording, bolstered by the act of publishing that
| recording reveals there are other motives involved.
|
| After all, _why_ does one post such a video? To
| participate in the incentive structure afforded by the
| social media platform of choice.
|
| Those incentive structures are inherently about self
| promotion, which feels incompatible with virtue.
|
| Now you could argue that I'm just being cynical about why
| people post on social media. Maybe that person has a
| genuine desire to brighten someone else's day through
| their own act of kindness. Maybe the guy with the flowers
| was similarly genuine.
|
| I think the video that is the focal point of this thread
| provides a good counterpoint to this. It made me
| uncomfortable when I first saw it (before this article
| emerged), and now I have a confirmation as to why. Even
| if the guy had every right intention, the incentive
| structure of social media overrode his better judgement
| and blinded him to the impact he was actually having.
|
| I don't think it is _impossible_ to highlight one's good
| work in an appropriate way, and I do think there's an
| opportunity to inspire people to do good things, but I'm
| not convinced that this trend of social media posts has
| anything to do with that.
| vinyl7 wrote:
| > But the people in the soup kitchen see me serving the
| food. Anyone walking by might see me in the window.
|
| The nuance here is that there's a difference being
| observed doing a kind act versus purposefully making it a
| public spectacle. I don't view people I observe doing
| something altruistic as self-seeking unless they try to
| "cash in" on it.
|
| I would see someone helping a person in need and think
| "how kind of them!" But then later, if I see an Instagram
| post from that person saying "There was this person in
| need of help and I went over there and did something
| about it", then it can be seen as self-seeking.
| afavour wrote:
| I actually erased the part you replied to, sorry.
| Primarily because I figured out the response to it
| myself!
|
| > it can be seen
|
| I still maintain that it's unfair to project the value
| judgement of the observer onto the observed, as if the
| observer is impartial in all of this. It _can_ be seen
| that way, yes, but it doesn't have to be. That is the
| observer's choice.
| nathanaldensr wrote:
| I agree that folks need to have a discerning eye on this.
| There are several channels on YouTube where lawn care
| guys will mow an overgrown yard for free. Yes, they are
| filming it and hoping to drum up interest in their
| channel, but providing free lawn care is objectively a
| kind and expensive thing to do. In these cases, the
| amount of effort expended being actually kind makes it
| obvious it's not just some stage with props.
| afavour wrote:
| Absolutely, and I'd say your example prompts a further
| question: even if it _is_ partially self serving, maybe
| it's worth the price? If these YouTubers are are looking
| for subscribers but also do free lawn care _and_ inspire
| others to do other free things for those who can't do it
| themselves... do we really need to be so down on it?
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| > "I voted! You should get out and vote too" feels like
| an example of positive virtual signalling.
|
| Good point. This is a clear example of where "virtue
| signalling" (leading by example in this case) can be
| considered a good. rather than an ostentatious,
| pretentious, or pridefull showing-off of empty virtue.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| I meant it's a useful and descriptive term. I abhor the
| behavior.
| o_1 wrote:
| I agree, I think the internet took all the trash content
| over. Reality Shows/MTV to Tick Tok. We really better filters
| trash content. Kind of the reason most people are here on HN.
| RulerOf wrote:
| >We really better filters trash content.
|
| I can see it now, "Show HN: Introducing InstaGavage, force-
| feed all the bullshit from your socials to this neural
| network and let it throw out the trash."
| Baeocystin wrote:
| I wonder how long it would take to just evolve |
| /dev/null.
| jancsika wrote:
| It's similar with C. Who knew the levels of memory unsafety
| embedded in a large number of human's psychological makeup!
|
| Luckily, now that Rust exists, our collective psychological
| makeup is proven to be much safer.
|
| But of course on a deeper physical level, hertzbleed shows
| that all of us are one Javascript away from becoming
| Manchurian candidates.
| disqard wrote:
| Was this generated using GPT3?
|
| Lately, I find myself wondering whether I'd be able to tell
| the difference.
|
| In this particular case, I'm not at all sure how this
| string of words came to be.
| dwringer wrote:
| I read it as a bit of a joke about unprotected memory,
| human fallibility, and language complexity, in the style
| of a Gene Shalit review.
| cwkoss wrote:
| in the words of everlast: 'some people will rob their mother,
| for the ends'
| golemotron wrote:
| > It also turns the subject into an object of utility, a means
| and not and end in themself.
|
| False dichotomy. It can be both.
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| > False dichotomy. It can be both.
|
| I was about to agree, but then this is deeper than a simple
| binary. You are right if saying one could act towards another
| so as to benefit them and yourself. And, if so maximising the
| total utility that is utilitarianism. No dichotomy. However,
| and this why Kant's categorical imperative _isn 't
| utilitarianism_, something cannot be both a means and and an
| end. A node in a tree cannot be both a parent and a leaf
| node.
| golemotron wrote:
| Why not? I can exercise both because it makes me feel good
| and because it is good for my health. There is no
| contradiction. I think people can tie themselves in knots
| looking for the true cause or intent. I'm not sure it
| matters or even exists in any way that matters.
| treesknees wrote:
| It depends on the context and use of the video, and I really
| blame social media for driving this constant pressure to be
| relevant and generate content people will interact with.
|
| Granted this isn't a random act, but at a family birthday
| gathering sometimes it can be fun to take a photo or video of a
| loved one opening a present and capturing their genuine
| surprise as a memory. But I've never uploaded them to the
| Internet, because it wasn't about likes or shares. And I don't
| feel that capturing the moment ruined any of the meaning behind
| it.
| mikkergp wrote:
| 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.
| e-clinton wrote:
| I disagree. If entertainment value can be extracted out of
| people doing good things, then we 100% should do that. The
| issue here is that the creator didn't do a good thing. He
| should've offered the flowers outright and asked permission to
| post the video.
| TheDudeMan wrote:
| Even liking and sharing these videos is virtue signaling.
| TheRealNGenius wrote:
| Tell that to mr beast.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| Meh, virtue displays that still help people are fine by me.
|
| I don't think _this_ really helped anyone, but "dehumanizing"
| is an overreaction, IMO. "Mildly annoying" is probably the more
| accurate term.
| wahern wrote:
| Words like "dehumanizing" and "trauma" have lost their
| meaning. I was listening to an NPR program a few weeks ago
| discussing the Uvalde massacre where the speakers described
| the Uvalde families as being "traumatized" while also
| describing themselves (the speakers) as being "traumatized"
| by the online political debates over gun rights. They very
| briefly caught themselves, and at one point of them briefly,
| self-consciously excused themselves (something like, "not
| [traumatized] like the Ulvalde families"). Yet they continued
| (I lost count how many times) using and _relishing_ in the
| word as a descriptor for their experience of the debates.
|
| It's absurd and surreal, and yet here we are. People think
| they're being empathetic by applying these words more widely
| but it's really reflective of how disconnected people are
| from reality, and how much narcissistic license they've given
| themselves. Social media gives people an illusion that
| they're connected to others, but the effect has mostly been
| to turn the vast majority of people and issues into
| caricatures. One might even say it's "dehumanizing", but
| what's the point.
|
| A decade or two ago the word for criticizing the TikTok video
| would have been "objectifying". That word got overused, too,
| but it still had academic connotations (from the feministic
| movement) that better contextualized the point someone was
| making. Sadly the political left PC movement has created such
| an arms race in linguistic virtue signaling that more
| precise, descriptive language is considered lacking in
| empathy and therefore, well, "dehumanizing".
| guerrilla wrote:
| I'm not religious but it reminds me of Matthew 6:5-6 "And when
| you pray, do not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray
| standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen
| by men. Truly I tell you, they already have their full reward.
| But when you pray, go into your inner room, shut your door, and
| pray to your Father, who is unseen. And your Father, who sees
| what is done in secret, will reward you."
|
| Some people have always just wanted to show how good they are
| instead of trying to actually be good (not saying praying is
| necessarily good but clearly the people who wrote the bible and
| the people they're speaking of did :P)
| zelos wrote:
| Although, one could read that as "do good for an audience,
| just do it for the _right_ audience "
| guerrilla wrote:
| I think that's abstracting too far. They're not even of the
| same metaphysical substance in the mythology, let alone
| ethical character.
| ask_b123 wrote:
| I was also reminded of Matthew 6, but I thought of the first
| 4 verses
|
| "Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of
| others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward
| from your Father in heaven. So when you give to the needy, do
| not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the
| synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly
| I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 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. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret,
| will reward you."
| apeace wrote:
| The woman's reaction to feeling patronized is a valid one. But at
| the same time, I think we probably want to make room for this
| kind of content online.
|
| The internet is so full of hatred and vitriol. I had to leave
| Instagram because I couldn't stand the constant political
| diatribes, gotcha-style quotes and clips, etc. It just brought so
| much negativity into my life, and I'm much happier without seeing
| it anymore.
|
| I do see the point[0] that this video is more of a virtue display
| than a random act of kindness. But, I think the _real_ point of
| the video is to make viewers happy when they watch it, and I
| think that 's a good thing, even if the creator has some sort of
| profit motive behind it.
|
| The creator was wrong to lie to the woman about being filmed. He
| forced her into a situation where she felt patronized and
| dehumanized. He could've deleted the video and done it to the
| next person he saw, who maybe wouldn't have felt the same way and
| would've wanted to participate.
|
| But that doesn't mean that this type of content is vile and
| disgusting as a category, just because it's not a "true random
| act of kindness." A lot of us want to see content that just,
| well, feels nice.
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32095418
| watwut wrote:
| The simple thing that was missing was to come back and ask for
| permission. She would either said "yes" or "no". If no' he can
| try again.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| I am forced to ask: who cares?
|
| The whole thing is a dumb stunt. But there is no harm and no
| reward for bad behaviour.
|
| If you're worried about privacy, give Google or the NSA some
| attention. If you don't want to be bothered by people, avoid
| people.
|
| This whole story seems like it's purpose made for people to argue
| over. And "news" like that is just a huge waste of time and
| actively distracts from our societies real issues.
| anotheryou wrote:
| If you don't even ask before publishing you're an asshole and
| it's rightfully illegal.
| wafriedemann wrote:
| A lot of online content creators still think all of this is some
| legal grey area, although it's not. This perception will clear
| pretty quickly once a couple of them get heavily sued.
| unsupp0rted wrote:
| > "It's the patronising assumption that ... older women will be
| thrilled by some random stranger giving them flowers."
|
| > She said she had ask whether she was being filmed, and was told
| "no". She also said she offered the flowers back to Pawluk.
| kache_ wrote:
| I really can't believe people fall for engagement bait
|
| Meanwhile: I'm responding to a hnews post about engagement bait
| because it makes me upset
| schroeding wrote:
| I honestly dislike it so much that social media normalized
| filming or making pictures of random people (in the "they are the
| (sole) motive" way, not random crowds) and publishing it without
| their permission. Doesn't help that everyone always has an
| unsuspicious camera on them. :/
| Pakdef wrote:
| TV has been doing the same for much longer, but the difference
| is that they get your approval before posting it.
| debrice wrote:
| I'm puzzled why he didn't take the video down while he
| acknowledged that Maree is upsets about it, instead asking that
| she contacts him and requests the video to be taken down.
|
| The strange perspective and sense of entitlement of a successful
| TikTok influencer...
| User23 wrote:
| Ah, the classic "here, hold this" and walk away. Is it effective
| and even perhaps funny? Yeah. Is it kind? Not so much. Still,
| it's a fairly benign prank in and of itself. Posting a video sure
| changes things though.
| a-dub wrote:
| am i alone in finding tiktok to be the single most obnoxious pop
| culture phenomenon to exist ever?
|
| also, we need new rules. while it makes sense to have no
| expectations of privacy in public, i think an expectation of not
| being an unwitting participant in someone else's self-promotional
| quasi-commercial activities where your picture and voice may be
| broadcast to millions is reasonable.
| xwdv wrote:
| I do not want an act of kindness, the kindest thing a person
| could do is just to leave me the fuck alone, especially since
| most "acts of kindness" are done for some other motive these days
| such as viral Tiktoks.
| crikeyjoe wrote:
| smarri wrote:
| Consumer Web2 is trash.
| taylorius wrote:
| She should have chucked them in a bin, and given the finger while
| the camera lingered to capture the "love and kindness". Now
| there's a viral video.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Maybe that's a new trend! Like punching scary clowns and scare
| pranksters...
| cm42 wrote:
| My loathing for TikTok knows no bounds. It's always the most
| vapid, narcissistic stuff, like a modern-day Tumblr but with
| sound. All of the uninformed bad takes of Twitter and Reddit, but
| as dance videos.
|
| This _is_ the Bad Place, frens.
| jpindar wrote:
| TikTok is known for having a very good recommendation
| algorithm. Whatever you watch, you get more of.
|
| My TikTok is entirely people demonstrating arts and crafts and
| DIY projects. Oh, and some cute animals.
|
| If your TikTok consists only of things you don't like... that's
| your choice, I guess.
| cratermoon wrote:
| The sad reality of our world
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWKzVxMzvxg
| shapefrog wrote:
| Its just a prank brah
| frankbreetz wrote:
| While certainly demonstrative of an issue with our current
| society, I think it is important to remember that the video
| creator, while misguided, didn't do that much wrong. He is just
| trying to make something of himself, in fairly harmless way. In
| my opinion, not worthy of being burned at the stake.
|
| Perhaps being told that some of his acts of not appreciated and
| are in fact causing people discomfort will cause him to be more
| thoughtful and maybe go a different path.
|
| The women in the article is seemly experiencing something of
| Streisand effect and instead of being a no name in mildly viral
| tik-tok video is now in an international news article. Maybe she
| is passionate about the issue and the notoriety is a side-effect
| she is willing to bear, maybe she likes the attention.
|
| I think this entire problem would go away if all participants
| were just ignored.
|
| One thing this article does demonstrate is just as you should be
| suspicious of rich pastors, convincing you to give to the lord,
| you should also be wary of people who are making money spreading
| "random acts of kindness" and an online persona is perhaps
| entirely different then the a real persons morals. I don't know
| if that is the case with the creator in the video, but I that is
| my current exception with all people similar to this.
|
| Overall my takeaway from this article is: Annoying young person
| annoys grouchy old person, a tale as old as time.
| EForEndeavour wrote:
| > I think this entire problem would go away if all participants
| were just ignored.
|
| Ignoring people? In this attention economy?!
| savolai wrote:
| I feel the wheel of consent is a wonderful tool for making sense
| of such situations. Who is actually giving and who is receiving?
| Did both parties agree to?
|
| https://www.wheelofconsent.coach/what-is-the-wheel-of-consen...
| bloopernova wrote:
| 508 resource limit reached.
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20210801103538/https://www.wheel...
| vmchale wrote:
| Depictions of oneself are part of your identity, but the only way
| to control such things is via copyright, which is assigned to the
| person filming.
|
| Could really use some new laws here.
| hef19898 wrote:
| If a person is the main subject of a picture, the photographer
| (or videographer) needa consent of the model to use that image
| or vidoe. Already under current law in most places. And most
| legitimate publishers ask for proof of consent when buying,
| before publishing such pictures. That social media firms don't
| care is not a big surprise.
|
| Edit: And that influencers think they are above existing laws
| when it comes to consent ain't a big surprise neither. I agree
| with the woman here, handing stuff to people that don't want
| it, lying to them about being filmed and using the footage for
| petty self promotion and monetary gain is the opposite of
| kindness. In fact it is borderline abbusive.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| "Just enforce the existing laws in a reasonable manner" seems
| to be the solution to a lot of problems these days.
| mysterydip wrote:
| "We're going to do what we already should be doing" doesn't
| get re-election votes the same way "I made a new law to
| address this" does.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _" We're going to do what we already should be doing"
| doesn't get re-election votes the same way "I made a new
| law to address this" does_
|
| In most systems, legislators have smaller constituencies
| than the executives. No President or Prime Minister will
| swing meaningful votes by prioritizing enforcement of
| consent-to-be-photographed laws. But an MP or
| Congressperson with an off-year primary projected to be
| within a 1,000-vote margin might find those 50 or 60
| extra votes helpful.
|
| That said, the ordinary course would be for said
| legislator to compel the executive to enforce. Not to
| write more laws. (The latter being easier to do, easier
| to message and less prone to backfiring.)
| Dracophoenix wrote:
| I can't speak for Australia, but in the United States, there
| is generally no right to privacy in a public area. The model
| consent forms are more of a CYA than a legal requirement.
| It's useful as evidence to dismiss charges rather than go
| through the hassle and expense of a full trial.
|
| In addition, requiring the consent of people in public places
| would make it difficult for individuals to record illegal
| conduct committed by others, especially law enforcement.
| hef19898 wrote:
| You need consent, in the US (I recebtly read an article
| from an US blog about that and it is similar to the
| situation I know in Europe) if the oerson is the main
| subject. If you film a mall, no consent from those people
| in the shot needed. A demonstration, sake thing, no consent
| required.
|
| A particular person as the main subject, yes, consent is
| absolutely necessary. E.g. newspapers don't buy or publish
| pictures of people without gwtting consent of the model /
| person from the seller. Persons of public interest, read
| promis and paparazzis, are different in the details of the
| interpretation of that law. And those are litigated often
| enough.
| Dracophoenix wrote:
| > You need consent, in the US (I recebtly read an article
| from an US blog about that and it is similar to the
| situation I know in Europe) if the oerson is the main
| subject.
|
| Perhaps you're referring to audio? If so, audio has
| different requirements as a result anti-wiretapping laws.
|
| > If you film a mall, no consent from those people in the
| shot needed. A demonstration, sake thing, no consent
| required.
|
| Permission may be required from the mall and/or
| storefront owners if you're filming on or inside the
| property.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > make it difficult for individuals to record illegal
| conduct committed by others, especially law enforcement.
|
| The states have had no difficulty in specifically making it
| illegal to record law enforcement, so they understand
| exceptions. You can easily require consent from people
| while as an institution _giving consent_ for law
| enforcement to be filmed.
| Dracophoenix wrote:
| > The states have had no difficulty in specifically
| making it illegal to record law enforcement, so they
| understand exceptions.
|
| And those laws are running up against the 1st Amendment.
| https://www.rcfp.org/secret-recording-ban-ruling/
|
| While the issue has not yet been delegated to the US
| Supreme Court, recording laws have been or are being
| struck down in more states on 1st Amendment grounds.
|
| > You can easily require consent from people while as an
| institution giving consent for law enforcement to be
| filmed.
|
| IANAL, but such legislation would be a content-based
| restriction and, as a result, would be subject to strict
| scrutiny. Frankly, any such requirement is unlikely to
| survive strict scrutiny unless it seeks to prohibit
| currently unprotected expressions (obscenity, incitement
| to imminent lawless action, etc.). Recording an
| individual in public isn't one of them.
| docdeek wrote:
| It depends on the country. Filming someone in public where they
| are the subject of the video (or photo) without their consent
| is illegal in France. If this had been recorded in France
| instead of Australia, the rights of the subject (the woman) to
| her image would trump any right to film in a public place of a
| Tiktok creator.
| hirundo wrote:
| Derek Chauvin would appreciate that.
| makoto12 wrote:
| I don't think the solution to police brutality is to
| sacrifice the the privacy of an entire nation.
| brokenodometer wrote:
| This law does not apply to filming the police. See the
| authoritative French government interpretation here:
|
| http://www.montpellier-
| journal.fr/fichiers/circulairephotosp...
|
| And see here where the French Constitutional Council struck
| down a law that would have criminalized filming with the
| intent to cause harassment of officers:
|
| https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210520-french-
| court-...
| hirundo wrote:
| What would the legal status of the video be if it also
| contained images of George Floyd?
| shikoba wrote:
| I have recently checked and it's absolutely legal to film
| someone in public. You're just not allowed to diffuse it.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| In the Netherlands there's such a thing as "portretrecht" that
| gives people the right to not be depicted in public. Recording
| in public areas is usually allowed, but you can't just
| distribute your recordings centered around people without their
| consent or making them unrecognisable. More often than not,
| though, this law is only applied after the damage has already
| been done. Adding some hefty fines to these cases might
| convince the Tiktok/YouTube crowd to stay clear of the risk,
| though.
|
| It's far from a clear cut law, if you just appear in the corner
| of a frame or in the background you'd have a hard time winning
| any lawsuits, but in this case I think the deck would be
| stacked against the Tiktoker pretty unfavourably.
|
| Personally, I think it's offensive how often these social media
| posters will use other people for their profits. Doing tricks
| in front of the camera is a fine way to make some cash or get
| famous, but when you start filming interactions with other
| people just for social media clout it's disgusting,
| narcissistic behaviour. This isn't some fun event that happend
| spontaneously, this is a planned, well thought out video shoot
| that puts a stranger in the center of attention in world where
| any moderate amount of attention can result in death threats
| from strangers across the globe.
| bergenty wrote:
| sriram_malhar wrote:
| It seems like you are keen to put a chip on her shoulder.
| onemoresoop wrote:
| > She's still enamored but her secondary abstractions are
| preventing her from truly accepting those feelings. Hence the
| cognitive dissonance and lash out.
|
| I love how you think you can read other people's minds.
|
| > Everyone knows the reason she's up in arms about..
|
| Sorry to break it to you but not everyone is making random
| assumptions about people they have never met in their real
| life.
| dang wrote:
| Please don't cross into personal attack or flamewar in HN
| comments.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
|
| We detached this subthread from
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32095231.
| jamiek88 wrote:
| This says way more about you than it does her.
| elliekelly wrote:
| This comment is even more disgusting than the video and it's
| exactly the type of invasive public commentary she's speaking
| out against. Who are you to make an assessment about this
| woman's mental state? Or how attractive she is or isn't? Or how
| "enamored" she is or isn't? What makes you somehow _more_
| capable or better suited to assess how she 's feeling and what
| she's thinking than she is herself? The absolute audacity of it
| is appalling.
|
| Good for her for speaking up and shame on you for your
| misogynistic and conceited attempt to speak for her.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| TikTok and Instagram are fascinating to me. I got on the latter
| less than a year ago and seem to have "used up" all the decent
| content. There are some content generators that still do a good
| job. But it's loaded with a whole spectrum of operators who are
| simply trying to game the system.
|
| Yesterday on my timeline was a video of a machine in a factory in
| China that rotates a drum 180 degrees. It had a million views and
| 30k likes.
|
| I've never seen the signal to noise ratio anywhere this terrible
| for any other social media app.
| the_only_law wrote:
| > I've never seen the signal to noise ratio anywhere this
| terrible for any other social media app.
|
| Sign out of YouTube and see what's "popular".
| keb_ wrote:
| Ha, don't remind me. I went as far as adding custom styles
| via Stylus to hide all "recommended" videos as well.
| preommr wrote:
| > I've never seen the signal to noise ratio anywhere this
| terrible for any other social media app.
|
| Is the tide finally turning? Even a few months ago people were
| making superlative claims about how insanely good tiktok's
| recommendation system is. People claiming it's never-seen-
| before levels of addictivness. My experience has been a lot
| more mediocre.
| kcb wrote:
| Every post about TikTok seems to have a very similar comment
| about how all the content is positive and it makes them feel
| great. And it's recommendations are perfect not like those
| western social media apps that are bad and negative. It's
| weird.
| Graffur wrote:
| > and seem to have "used up" all the decent content
|
| What does this mean? Instagram is used for current content.
| onemoresoop wrote:
| I hope we'll turn a page on this type of behavior sooner than
| later. Self made media is a relatively recent phenomena and the
| etiquette and decency hasn't yet had time to catch up with it
| all. I'm extremely turned off by forcing unconsenting individuals
| participate in pranks and other videos, and being made money on
| their behalf but seeing none of the benefits but unwanted
| attention.
| FunnyBadger wrote:
| Seriously?
|
| Apparently no one knows or has seen Alan Funt's Candid Camera.
| This was no worse than hundreds of situations that Funt created,
| filmed and put in TV over decades.
| guilhermeasg wrote:
| I can't believe people are talking about a thing, when clearly
| there also exists another thing!
| davesque wrote:
| I remember _Candid Camera_. I don 't think the general
| comparison with _Candid Camera_ really lines up. I 'm not sure
| I can explain why exactly. Maybe there was just a different
| general attitude that people had about that sort of thing back
| then. Maybe people were given the opportunity to sign consent
| forms before the video was broadcast. Perhaps it was less of a
| problem because it had to be more carefully orchestrated; not
| everyone had a video recording device in their pocket.
|
| However, in this specific case, I think the biggest problem was
| that falsehoods were being spread about this person without her
| consent. From the article: But after seeing
| the TikTok video featured in media reports describing her as an
| "elderly woman" with a "heartbreaking tale," she said she "felt
| dehumanised".
|
| The woman's response: "It's the patronising
| assumption that ... older women will be thrilled by some random
| stranger giving them flowers."
|
| Seems totally fair to me. She now has to feel like she's an
| object of pity. And the original gesture was clearly self-
| serving. If you check out the rest of this guy's TikTok videos,
| they're all like this.
| FollowingTheDao wrote:
| Social media dehumanizes everyone who touches it.
| macns wrote:
| > 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.
|
| The video should've been taken down already.
| dagurp wrote:
| Yep. It should have occurred to him that taking it down is the
| right thing to do.
| scotty79 wrote:
| Honest thing to do would be to disclose the profits from the
| video and share it with her.
| fastball wrote:
| Aren't the profits from TikTok videos still approximately
| "fuck all"?
| starfallg wrote:
| The honest thing to do would be to donate any profits to
| charity and make a real apology. Sharing profits would just
| encourage this type of distasteful behaviour that social
| media seems to be encouraging.
| usrusr wrote:
| You assume that she would request the video taken down. But she
| might have realized that from her perspective, the damage is
| already done and she would gain nothing from the video being
| taken down. And would very much prefer him to get his share of
| unwanted attention as well (e.g. making it all the way to the
| hn frontpage)
| Closi wrote:
| It's probably a pretty safe assumption that she would be
| comfortable with it being removed, considering her feedback.
|
| Particularly considering his current caption for the video
| remains "A beautiful gesture - little big moments".
| gumby wrote:
| 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.
| dr_orpheus wrote:
| "TikTok content creator, Harrison Pawluk" would be a better way
| to phrase it. "Creator" has ended up as a term like
| "influencer" or "maker".
| khazhoux wrote:
| There are millions of TikTok creators, but only one person
| (Zhang Yiming) created TikTok.
| V-2 wrote:
| This is a form of douchebaggery, sure, but "dehumanised" seems a
| bit out of proportion here. I'd reconsider such phrases out of
| respect for all the people who have been genuinely dehumanised
| throughout history, if nothing else.
| parkingrift wrote:
| Who are you to gatekeep whether a person felt dehumanized? Your
| attempt to gatekeep who can feel dehumanized has actually
| dehumanized this woman again.
| glitcher wrote:
| Well, it was the victim's choice of words to describe her own
| feelings. I wouldn't get too pedantic over it. Granted the
| level of victimization is relatively minor in this case but her
| feelings about it surely are real.
|
| Also, I don't think there is a clear and well defined line of
| exactly when something becomes dehumanizing. If the definition
| is "only when nothing else is more dehumanizing", then almost
| nothing is. But more importantly, when using strong wording to
| describe human emotions, it's not to be taken too literally.
| Otherwise next you'll be arguing with this woman about what you
| think she felt.
| giarc wrote:
| I agreed until I read that news stories covering the video
| described her as an "elderly woman" and a "heartbreaking tale".
| She might be "senior" by definition, but it doesn't mean she
| would describe herself as "elderly".
| dwringer wrote:
| That seems almost to be the crux of the issue. From the
| article:
|
| > A friend contacted Maree that evening, sharing the uploaded
| video. At the time, Maree "didn't think much of it".
|
| > But after seeing the TikTok video featured in media reports
| describing her as an "elderly woman" with a "heartbreaking
| tale," she said she "felt dehumanised".
|
| > "I feel like clickbait," she said.
|
| It really sounds like she agreed until she read that as well.
| treis wrote:
| Maybe I don't get it but this doesn't even rate as
| douchebaggery to me. At worst it's a minor inconvenience but
| mostly it's free flowers.
|
| The blast on TikTok might rate but she's not portrayed in a
| negative light. Personally I just find it all very weird.
| carbadtraingood wrote:
| Do you have quiet times where you collect yourself? Get lost
| in your own thoughts or read a book?
|
| Imagine me coming up to you during those times and
| interrupting them, while secretly filming your response.
|
| You find out later you've been filmed, and that the person
| who interrupted you is getting paid for the footage they
| collected of you without your knowledge.
|
| Millions of people have now seen how you react when
| interrupted, and are leaving comments about how much you look
| like you "needed" interrupting. Maybe a coworker or relative
| sees you.
| treis wrote:
| >Do you have quiet times where you collect yourself? Get
| lost in your own thoughts or read a book?
|
| >Imagine me coming up to you during those times and
| interrupting them
|
| Minor inconvenience
|
| >while secretly filming your response.
|
| Weird
|
| >You find out later you've been filmed, and that the person
| who interrupted you is getting paid for the footage they
| collected of you without your knowledge.
|
| Weird but not really any skin off my back.
|
| >Millions of people have now seen how you react when
| interrupted, and are leaving comments about how much you
| look like you "needed" interrupting.
|
| Weird
|
| >Maybe a coworker or relative sees you
|
| "I saw you on Tiktok"
|
| "Yeah, it's so weird"
| davegauer wrote:
| This may not work since I don't know anything about you, but:
| imagine you discovered this was your own mother (or
| grandmother or...) in the video.
| password54321 wrote:
| Used for profit without consent can very well feel
| dehumanising.
| V-2 wrote:
| If this headline went: "Woman used for profit without
| consent", wouldn't you consider it a bit of a clickbait upon
| examining the actual content of the article? (Not technically
| untrue, I give you that)
| kzrdude wrote:
| I wouldn't, that sounds accurate. 58 million views or
| whatever - she's being used for profit.
| carbadtraingood wrote:
| She's not being treated as a human, she's being used as a prop.
| There are many levels of dehumanizing, and treating your
| subjects like objects rather than people is a form of
| dehumanization.
| havblue wrote:
| "It's the patronising assumption that ... older women will be
| thrilled by some random stranger giving them flowers."
|
| This reminds me of when high schoolers get the "generous" idea of
| nominating an unpopular girl, who they never talk to and only
| talk about, for prom queen. There's nothing nice about it.
| wodenokoto wrote:
| This is basically a hidden cam prank.
|
| These have been on TV for ages and as far as I know they require
| written consent from the victims.
|
| If that is the case, she might have a case in court.
| devd00d wrote:
| I'm yet to ever see what TikTok looks like.
| balderdash wrote:
| When would this become an unlawful use of her name and likeness?
| Seems the given the views he's likely monetizing his account?
| baxtr wrote:
| I feel for this women. It is not right to do something like that
| without her consent.
|
| Then again I wonder: Is this a new phenomenon? Weren't these kind
| of jokes normal for certain TV shows? And now they have made
| their way into social media?
| sjamaan wrote:
| AFAIK the "candid camera"-like TV shows would approach the
| people afterwards and ask for permission to use the footage.
| They probably did it only because otherwise they'd get sued
| into oblivion.
| schroeding wrote:
| But there is a difference: There were only so many "street
| comedy" shows, but there is a way bigger pool of potential
| social media content creators.
|
| And, at least here in Germany, they always got permission after
| the bit and either did not send it if permission was refused or
| at least blurred the face. Ain't so for social media comedians.
| :/
| [deleted]
| upupandup wrote:
| Virtue signaling has taken off after the me me me culture took
| off on social media.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Those TV shows asked for written consent afterwards and didn't
| (usually, sure there are exceptions over all those years) air
| footage without it. Wouodn't kill influencers and the like to
| do same would it?
| xxr wrote:
| I can't tell whether TikTok is really that much worse than
| Instagram, Twitter, FB, MySpace, etc., or whether it's just the
| first major social platform to explode after I turned 30.
| drakonka wrote:
| The video itself was quite off-putting when I first saw it. He
| didn't even just kindly offer her flowers. He _tricked_ her into
| taking them by making it sound like he just wanted her to hold
| them for him. She was actually being kind to him by doing him a
| favor, and then he basically ran away and stuck her with them.
| That's not kind at all, it's pushy and exploitative. As someone
| who doesn't usually like to accept gifts from random strangers,
| I'd be really put off and uncomfortable; and that's before taking
| into consideration the fact that it was filmed and put online for
| people to gawk at.
| hypertele-Xii wrote:
| What a weird psychological fragility. If a stranger leaves me
| holding their trash I shrug and shove it in a garbage bin.
| fossuser wrote:
| It's worse when that stranger is also surreptitiously filming
| you to paste it all over the net as evidence of how 'kind'
| they were to you.
| drakonka wrote:
| What a weird straw man; he did not hand her trash, he handed
| her flowers under the guise of doing him a quick favor, then
| ran off. I guess she could think of it as trash after he left
| and even if she did - you genuinely wouldn't think some
| random person handing you their trash is kind of a rude thing
| of them to do?
| hypertele-Xii wrote:
| > you genuinely wouldn't think some random person handing
| you their trash is kind of a rude thing of them to do?
|
| Sure, but I'm the kind of person who picks up litter
| anyway.
| drakonka wrote:
| That's great, then it sounds like we're on the same page.
| xorcist wrote:
| Good thing it was just free flowers. Imagine if it had been a
| free puppy.
|
| "Here, just hold this" _running off_
| tuxie_ wrote:
| Or a baby.
| p1mrx wrote:
| SCOTUS has entered the chat.
| gonzo41 wrote:
| In both of those cases, Just get in contact with the apt
| shelter and child protective services to make sure the
| idiots running the tiktok can't endanger anything else ever
| again.
| [deleted]
| FalconSensei wrote:
| Even with flowers, I would be mad, because them I'll have to
| take them home, put on a pot near the window, water them...
| (I don't like the idea of just throwing plants and flowers
| out in the trash).
|
| Actually, I would like it even less because I hate the idea
| of cutting flowers out to put on a bouquet. They'll just die
| way faster for nothing. I think it's just not a good thing to
| give someone
| matheweis wrote:
| > I hate the idea of cutting flowers out to put on a
| bouquet. They'll just die way faster for nothing.
|
| Many kinds of flower plants last longer and produce _many_
| more flowers if the flowers are cut away from the main
| plant.
|
| I have flower plants in my garden that I intentionally and
| frequently cut blooms from because it keeps the main plant
| healthier and blooming longer.
| FalconSensei wrote:
| Ohh, I didn't know that. Thanks for the info!
| pcurve wrote:
| Agreed. Even if did appreciate the gesture, I wouldn't want to
| be filmed without consent, especially for the whole world to
| see. He should've given her opportunity to review he footage at
| the minimum.
| datavirtue wrote:
| Warning: This video was designed to generate profit.
| zelos wrote:
| It does sound truly odd. He seems confused about the concept of
| giving flowers. The actual flowers are not the point.
| nkozyra wrote:
| Obviously the most exploitative thing is doing it for the
| clicks, but none of this has ever felt "sweet" or "positive" or
| whatever other guise they're presented as.
|
| I wonder who finds this type of content genuinely appealing?
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| >I wonder who finds this type of content genuinely appealing?
|
| The only people I've ever heard say anything about this kind
| of content are radio DJs who are talking about the wholesome
| stuff they've posted to their employer's twitter and why you
| should definitely follow them.
| [deleted]
| workingon wrote:
| The answer is always 'kids'.
| raunak wrote:
| Eh I'd say you're looking at the wrong culprit. More likely
| than not, the average person who mindlessly spends time on
| their phone. Next time you take public transportation, look
| around you to see what people do when bored - nearly
| everyone these days is on either TikTok, Reels, YouTube
| Shorts, or whatever nonsense Facebook calls their short
| algorithmic video.
|
| It's everyone - people fall for whatever the path of least
| resistance to the next dopamine hit is.
|
| And even if not true, you're discounted bored housewives,
| the elderly, etc.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _that 's before taking into consideration the fact that it
| was filmed and put online for people to gawk at._
|
| That's the thing for me. If you are truly doing a "random act
| of kindness", then you are not planning it, you are not filming
| it, and you are not putting it online. You are also being
| respectful: some people would be put off or offended for
| accepting certain kinds of help, so you probably should ask for
| consent.
|
| If you're filming it, and intend to post it somewhere, then you
| have some sort of ulterior motive to doing it. And I don't
| really find credible people who claim to be posting them in
| order to "spread awareness" or inspire other people to do these
| sorts of things.
|
| I wonder how much advertising revenue this sort of thing
| generates for someone with this guy's viewership...
| lurquer wrote:
| "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."
|
| Matthew 6:3-4
| naillo wrote:
| 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.
| winternett wrote:
| So much of the content I see now on TikTok and other apps is
| totally staged, and quite often poorly staged at that. It
| would be interesting to know who funds the production of many
| of the videos, because there's obviously an advertising
| scheme or some sort of moneymaking ploy behind a lot of it.
|
| I think things really took off with the people who were
| making "gold-digger" videos, where a guy tries to talk to a
| girl and she rejects him, only to come back when he walks up
| to a (most likely rented) exotic car. In many of these cases,
| all of the people involved in the video are not authentic,
| but there's never disclaimer that the video is staged or a
| skit. Even car accidents, sad stories of addiction and mental
| illness, and stunts can all be staged to gain views as well.
|
| I'm skeptical of everything I see online, been that way for a
| long time... Worst part is there is no real way to avoid that
| type of content, and that phony content often gets plastered
| across all the sites, and reposted for years too come, and
| even written about when it's exposed as fake, so there's no
| real way to avoid it, and there's no incentive for people to
| stop doing it because of the (negative) popularity it breeds
| for the people and companies that sponsor and create it.
| cratermoon wrote:
| William Gibson's novel _Pattern Recognition_ revolves
| around the protagonist 's search for the origins of "the
| footage", a series of anonymous, artistic clips posted on
| the internet.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| > It would be interesting to know who funds the production
| of many of the videos, because there's obviously an
| advertising scheme or some sort of moneymaking ploy behind
| a lot of it.
|
| A friend of a friend is an influencer doing 50K a month. He
| has a network of influencers he knows. It is overwhelmingly
| referral schemes for apps or pumping shitcoins.
| another-circus wrote:
| You can avoid that content by not watching the video or
| visiting places where videos like that appear.
| winternett wrote:
| Like the entire Internet now... Got it.
|
| These apps don't allow for people to choose the content
| they see. Even the front page of CNN.Com is regularly now
| citing TikTok clips that went "viral". In the next few
| years there will be no way to avoid this staged and
| shilled content anywhere. Especially as monopoly
| platforms begin to collaborate with each other to create
| marketing campaigns.
|
| Suggestive/manipulative marketing has a stranglehold on
| the Internet without most people knowing. Things
| displayed on site front pages are there for a reason, and
| it's not usually because it naturally went viral, it's
| there because it makes companies a lot of money.... The
| real content, made by authentic people is buried by
| algorithms and under a sea of staged and copycat content.
| (Just my opinion though)
| pdonis wrote:
| _> Like the entire Internet now_
|
| Not even close. There are plenty of places on the
| Internet that are not infected with this trash. (This
| site is one of them: nobody has to wade through videos
| and ads just to post here.) It is unfortunate that so-
| called "mainstream news" sites like CNN are not among
| them, but that's CNN's problem.
| winternett wrote:
| Give me a good example, and I'll give you an example in
| that instance where you're wrong. If sites are not
| currently contaminated by fake and staged content, I
| guarantee you they soon will be.
|
| News sources previously reporting on and praising crypto
| companies and coins that have now been exposed as scams
| (now gone bankrupt) is a troubling sign that even
| journalism is relying on likes for reputation more than
| properly checking sources.
|
| Many influencers pushed crypto heavily in the past years,
| leading to huge money losses for people who follow them.
| There has still never been proper public account for how
| this social media content cycle mentally manipulates
| people regularly.
| pdonis wrote:
| _> Give me a good example_
|
| I already gave you one: this very site.
|
| _> a troubling sign that even journalism is relying on
| likes for reputation more than properly checking
| sources._
|
| So-called journalism has been in that mode for decades,
| if not centuries. If anything, the Internet makes it
| harder for them to keep it up, because there are so many
| more ways for their practices to actually be exposed so
| people can see them. That might make it seem like
| journalists do more of that kind of thing than they used
| to, but it doesn't; it just means that they get caught at
| it a lot more than they used to.
|
| _> There has still never been proper public account for
| how this social media content cycle mentally manipulates
| people regularly._
|
| Social media can only mentally manipulate you if you're
| naive enough to (a) use it, and (b) believe what you see
| on it. No amount of "public account" is going to fix that
| problem.
| notriddle wrote:
| > I already gave you one: this very site.
|
| Hacker News is almost entirely influencer marketing, and
| has been from the very beginning. The whole point is to
| push Y Combinator the angel investment company.
| pdonis wrote:
| _> Hacker News is almost entirely influencer marketing_
|
| Really? That's what this discussion is? Or, for that
| matter, every discussion I have participated in in the 10
| years or so I have been posting on HN? Are we both
| posting on the same site?
|
| I get that the existence of HN gives publicity to YC, and
| that every so often pg or sama posts a new essay and
| those always make it to the front page. But to call the
| site itself "almost entirely influencer marketing" seems
| to me to be, to say the least, highly inaccurate.
| foepys wrote:
| That is the exact thing that children get told when they
| are being bullied. "Stay away from them, ignore them,
| just don't read it online."
|
| It doesn't work
| germinalphrase wrote:
| A child is legally compelled (in most cases) to attend
| school. I am hardly compelled to visit TikTok, Facebook,
| Fox/CNN/etc.
|
| I forgo _something_ when I opt out, but I absolutely am
| in control of that choice whereas a bullied child is not.
| phkahler wrote:
| >> Even car accidents...
|
| I hate when a real car accident is attributed to a drunk
| driver when it was not. There are plenty of wrecked cars
| from actual drunk driving, you don't need to lie to get an
| example. Some people think their intentions justify their
| actions, even when their actions can accurately be
| described as "lie" or "cheat" or "for profit" or some other
| dishonest thing. This may be effective in many cases, but
| in others it discredits your efforts and perhaps even your
| cause.
|
| Random acts of kindness DO happen, but are usually _not_
| captured on video.
| alias_neo wrote:
| My wife and I, individually, and on various occasions
| over the years, have paid for random strangers' shopping.
|
| We don't do social media, we don't even tell anybody,
| except for this one time, right now to support your
| point, so I think it's appropriate in this case.
|
| We've told each other because we talk about our finances
| and it's reasonably to discuss why the grocery bill was
| double triple, etc what it would have been for what was
| brought home.
| teakettle42 wrote:
| Would you mind sharing how you do this without making it
| awkward for the recipient or a spectacle? I've never been
| able to work that part out.
| carvking wrote:
| Yeah - it would be strange if someone offered to pay for
| my groceries, just because I was wearing old jeans
| looking depressed and worried because of the price of
| bitcoin.
|
| But I think it's a good thing to do if you "hit" the
| correct "target".
| senojretep356 wrote:
| Yeah this I go to the market in a hoodie and joggers, -
| looking as rough as hell. But if somebody paid for my
| groceries and was filming it all without my permission
| I'd be mad as hell. Aside from not needing others to pay
| for my groceries, it's an invasion of privacy.
| autoexec wrote:
| I don't need strangers to pay for my groceries either,
| but I think if they did (assuming it wasn't for a social
| media stunt) I'd accept it gracefully and try to pay it
| forward somehow. Maybe offer to pay for the next person,
| or use the money I'd have spent to buy those prepared
| bags for food pantries some shops offer.
|
| It's feels good to genuinely do something nice for
| another person and I wouldn't want to take that from
| them. It's also nice just knowing that not everyone in
| your community is only looking out for themselves. Might
| as well take the opportunity to do something for someone
| else
| senojretep356 wrote:
| The issue is the social media bit. Someone paid for my
| groceries without filming it then yeah I'd just pay for
| the next persons.
| mjevans wrote:
| Some supermarkets have two output buffers after a
| checker, seems easy to offer to pay just as the person in
| front finishes or to wait around a little to pay for the
| next person.
|
| You might also just pass 5 to 10 x 20 USD cash (or local
| equivalent) to the cashier and have that applied to the
| next person in line, and let them work out how to split
| any leftovers on their own.
|
| I've never done either of those things myself, but I did
| feel horrid enough about our government during an
| extended shutdown over budget stuff to directly support
| the food bank with some 'staples' from Costco as well as
| a just outright cash donation back when that BS happened
| last.
|
| Directly supporting the food bank is also an option that
| can help the even more needy.
| blix wrote:
| If someone doesn't have enough cash to pay for the
| groceries they brought to checkout, it's already an
| awkward situation.
| buscoquadnary wrote:
| For me I've done things like that unusually just leave my
| card with the cashier and circle back to pick it up after
| they've left.
| jacquesm wrote:
| I've done this but only if the person has an obvious
| problem to pay for their shopping.
| Mordisquitos wrote:
| > Random acts of kindness DO happen, but are usually not
| captured on video.
|
| Indeed. In fact, when the act is intentionally captured
| on video by its performer, not only is it already very
| debatable that it is an act of "kindness"... but it is
| also obviously _NOT_ "random"!
|
| (For the colloquial meaning of "random" of course)
| carvking wrote:
| You can make the case that it's not an "act of kindness"
| when your motive is self promotion and gratification.
|
| Also giving someone flowers is quite a cheap kindness.
| Help somebody in need out. Or just go clean the streets.
| No good content clickbait video to be made of you picking
| up the trash ?
| mjevans wrote:
| If cynical enough, no act is selfless.
|
| That phrase, to 'remove yourself from the equation'
| applies here too. That leads to a better 'test' and
| metric.
| datavirtue wrote:
| 'remove yourself from the equation'
|
| The real definition of compassion.
| bbarnett wrote:
| I recall a few years back, I was going to visit someone,
| and bought flowers.
|
| Before I left, plans changed, so now I was in the mall
| parking lot, and had (to me) useless flowers. In the
| parking lot, I saw an older woman sitting in her car.
|
| I walked up to her, proclaimed "surprise, flowers!",
| which she took, and I walked away.
|
| It is sad to think that these days, it almost makes more
| sense to just throw them away, instead of giving a bit of
| unexpected joy to someone.
|
| (the woman seemed surprised, and happy)
| gambiting wrote:
| The difference is that you didn't use the opportunity to
| promote your brand on social media, nor did you trick her
| into holding the flowers for you just to disappear. I
| think the reaction would have been completely different
| if he did actually present those as a gift.
| gnicholas wrote:
| > _when the act is intentionally captured on video by its
| performer, not only is it already very debatable that it
| is an act of "kindness"... but it is also obviously NOT
| "random"!_
|
| I was about to propose to my girlfriend and was setting
| up my DSLR on a tripod to take photos via IR remote (she
| thought we were just going to take photos of us at
| sunset).
|
| Then a guy came walking by and offered to take the photos
| for us. I demurred, but he said he had the exact same
| camera and knew how to use it. So I quietly told him what
| was about to go down, and he took a bunch of great photos
| of our engagement.
|
| For at least a year after, my wife didn't believe that he
| wasn't a plant!
| bshipp wrote:
| Usually you can tell a plant by their lack of opposable
| thumbs and green pallor.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > Indeed. In fact, when the act is intentionally captured
| on video by its performer, not only is it already very
| debatable that it is an act of "kindness"
|
| Only if you're going into the whole "every act is
| selfish" kind of thing.
|
| > but it is also obviously NOT "random"! (For the
| colloquial meaning of "random" of course)
|
| Why not? It only takes a few seconds to start filming.
|
| If you mean having a camera person, that starts to get
| into the weeds, but it depends on how much planning there
| was and how it was done.
| karaterobot wrote:
| > Only if you're going into the whole "every act is
| selfish" kind of thing.
|
| There are selfless acts of kindness, but this isn't one
| of them. There's no conflict there. He did it to make a
| video he could monetize on TikTok. It's his job. It's a
| really simple distinction.
|
| > If you mean having a camera person, that starts to get
| into the weeds, but it depends on how much planning there
| was and how it was done.
|
| If he went to that mall and bought flowers and picked a
| sympathetic-looking subject, with the intention of
| filming a video of himself doing it to upload to TikTok,
| it's not random. It's premeditated. I don't mean that in
| the legal sense, though it probably applies. I mean he
| thought about it in advance, so it's not "random".
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > If he went to that mall and bought flowers and picked a
| sympathetic-looking subject, with the intention of
| filming a video of himself doing it to upload to TikTok,
| it's not random.
|
| Okay but that goes _way_ beyond the general-case
| statement I was responding to.
| gwd wrote:
| "Watch out! Don't do your good deeds publicly, to be
| admired by others, for you will lose the reward from your
| Father in heaven. When you give to someone in need, don't
| do as the hypocrites do--blowing trumpets in the
| synagogues and streets to call attention to their acts of
| charity! I tell you the truth, they have received all the
| reward they will ever get. But when you give to someone
| in need, don't let your left hand know what your right
| hand is doing. Give your gifts in private, and your
| Father, who sees everything, will reward you."
|
| --Jesus
| hk1337 wrote:
| At least if it's staged you know all the parties are in on
| it and it's not leaving someone "holding the bag".
| [deleted]
| admax88qqq wrote:
| It's interesting how you're complaining about so much
| content being staged. I much prefer that this type of
| content is staged. The alternative appears to be harassing
| random strangers like the case in the article.
|
| With staged content the only victim is the duped audience
| who can always just not watch TikTok.
| [deleted]
| autoexec wrote:
| I don't thins the videos being staged is the issue, it's
| that they are staged without disclosure. We want to be
| entertained, but not lied to. A sitcom or summer
| blockbuster is a lie too, but we're all pretty clear
| about that going in. I think reality TV and cable news
| regularly crosses that line though.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| I like watching dash cam videos. I would hate to see a
| staged one, and would complain loudly about it not being
| real. That doesn't mean I want more accidents and near-
| accidents, it means anyone faking a dash cam video should
| not submit anything at all.
|
| If you want to do a skit, make a skit.
| dwringer wrote:
| This reminds me of the film _Nightcrawler_.
| tsol wrote:
| Well I think his issue is that the staged stuff(that
| pretends it isn't staged) leads to people trying to
| copycat the format and do it unstaged
| admax88qqq wrote:
| Maybe but most people complain about staged stuff for not
| being "real."
| dylan604 wrote:
| >but there's never disclaimer that the video is staged or a
| skit.
|
| This is where working in the entertainment industry has
| jaded me a bit. By default, I assume that if it captured on
| camera, it has been planned/staged/etc for the explicit
| purpose of being shown to people. With social media, I
| think it has been turned up to an 11 as everyone is trying
| to become social media famous. It takes a bit of convincing
| for me to believe that something is truly real at this
| point.
|
| Due to the "inside baseball" knowledge of how fake
| everything is on film/TV, I find it sad that so so many
| people fall for thinking something is real and actually
| needs this kind of disclaimer.
| datavirtue wrote:
| A huge swath of the population thinks life is a TV show.
| Not consciously, but in the back of their mind because
| they have spent so much time living through
| entertainment.
|
| "To the Capital building...this should be fun!!"
| Hahaha....
| dylan604 wrote:
| Or how the real houswives are really not acting or any
| reality tv show is not make-believe for entertainment
| purposes.
| wizofaus wrote:
| "By default, I assume that if it captured on camera, it
| has been planned/staged/etc for the explicit purpose of
| being shown to people" - I'm genuinely curious, you'd
| include much of the war footage that's come out of
| Ukraine recently? I've no doubt a certain amount of it is
| "stage managed" and carefully edited to come across on TV
| as strikingly as possible, but to imply that most of it
| (including secret-filmed footage of POWs being marched
| off and later shots of their bodies etc.) is staged for
| the explicit purpose of being shown is a big claim.
|
| (Technically your initial claim is almost tautological,
| but I assume you meant "shown for purposes other to
| genuinely convey information about the real world")
| btilly wrote:
| The staged stuff doesn't bother me as much as the dangerous
| stuff:
|
| https://www.fastcompany.com/90287323/people-are-falling-
| off-...
| winternett wrote:
| People get pushed to the brink in desperation after years
| of posting but not being noticed... It's tragic, but to
| be honest, a lot of the people that end up dying in an
| accident for doing dumb things would possibly be even
| more destructive if they succeeded each time.
|
| Not everyone is cut out to be an entertainer, influencer,
| or celebrity. The problem in our current world is that
| social platforms are encouraging everyone to quit their
| job to be those types of entertainers (while not paying
| the very same people), and it's not a realistic model for
| success, and quite possibly very harmful to the world's
| future and to mental health.
|
| It has happened in the past, Evel Knievel was one of the
| most popular incidents of someone sacrificing themselves
| to entertain others well prior to the "like and follow"
| era.
| robotnikman wrote:
| I'm reminded of the song 'Creature Comfort' by Arcade
| Fire
|
| "God, make me famous. If you can't, just make it
| painless"
| AlexandrB wrote:
| > A British YouTuber named Jay Swingler performed a
| dangerous stunt about a year ago. He placed a plastic bag
| with a breathing tube over his head, then "glued" his
| head to the inside of a microwave oven with expanding
| plaster. The plaster set, and Swingler couldn't get his
| head out of the microwave. It took a team of paramedics
| to set him free.
|
| Wow.
| phs318u wrote:
| The Darwin Awards - now an 8 part docu-series on YouTube
| Premium.
| branon wrote:
| Natural selection at work.
| autoexec wrote:
| I kind of agree. Stupid people doing dangerous things for
| "likes" usually deserve what they get, but it's not as if
| there aren't external costs they force on the rest of us
| for their idiocy. The 911 dispatcher whose line is tied
| up, the paramedic who has to scrape some dumb kid off the
| sidewalk, the doctors who'll do their best to save
| whatever's left, or any innocent bystanders caught up in
| the mess these people make. It's certainly behavior we'd
| be better off discouraging.
| oasisbob wrote:
| If you're implying social Darwinism being an expected
| natural consequence, you may want to research the history
| and abuses of the idea before accepting it and throwing
| it around so glibly.
| sizzle wrote:
| Got any good links?
| branon wrote:
| Couldn't even tell you what social Darwinism is. My
| comment was not political in nature, I was merely
| referring to the concept of natural selection in a
| literal sense.
| pdonis wrote:
| _> If you 're implying social Darwinism_
|
| I don't think the GP was referring to social Darwinism,
| just plain old Darwinism, of the "Darwin Award" variety.
| supercheetah wrote:
| Not even close to the same thing. Someone doing something
| to themselves that puts themselves in mortal danger isn't
| anywhere on the same level as wanting to eliminate an
| entire group of people based on some arbitrary attribute.
|
| They should definitely be warned, and perhaps be put into
| therapy with a professional, but self harm isn't social
| darwinism. It's just a mental health issue.
| okasaki wrote:
| I think the most disturbing variant is where they put
| animals in dangerous situations (sometimes hurting them)
| and then "rescue" them.
|
| There's a whole industry of this shit.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Like the dolphin calf that died over some selfies?
| carvking wrote:
| It's an industry -
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvqa8dsBtno
|
| Fake cooking videos en masse. I think it's time to give
| people the option of opting out of filming, carry a small
| rfid/chip or s-t and then you can't be filmed - built in AI
| blur :)
| squarefoot wrote:
| A QR code carrying a universally standardized and
| unskippable instruction to "blur whoever wears it" should
| suffice. "Permission levels" could also be added so that
| for example I can choose to be filmed/photographed only
| by family and/or friends but not strangers. It doesn't
| seem out of reach with current technology.
| martin_a wrote:
| > there's obviously an advertising scheme or some sort of
| moneymaking ploy behind a lot of it.
|
| gaining influence with videos like these (widespread, "easy
| content") will probably earn you some advertisement deals
| winternett wrote:
| That's the problem... Advertisers seeking easily
| "malleable" actors to shill their products... People who
| they can also underpay and over-contract. Social media is
| a gold mine for exploiting people who need opportunity...
| Especially young people.
|
| They're unionizing Starbucks, but it might be
| wiser/better to unionize social media creators before
| it's too late.
| giarc wrote:
| Let's be honest though, they aren't intended to spread love
| and kindness, they are intended to get views. It's nothing
| more than a ruse to get views. If the creator was so inclined
| to spread love and kindness, he'd donate some of the millions
| he makes off these exploitive videos to charities.
| ComputerCat wrote:
| I think true acts of kindness are difficult to achieve
| because something that you might find "kind", I might not,
| and vice versa. I think if you truly want to make people
| happy and do nice things for them you need to know them,
| their situation, what they're doing well with, what they're
| struggling with. Being tricked into holding random flowers
| wouldn't have made my day.
| yawaramin wrote:
| However he _did_ pay for groceries for a few randos, so
| that _completely_ balances it out.
| sva_ wrote:
| With the amount of beggars in cities, I already highly
| distrust anyone who comes up to me to speak to me. 99 out of
| 100 times it is someone who tries to somehow enrich
| themselves.
| jcpst wrote:
| When I was poor and eating at the soup kitchen, I spent a
| lot of time with people that lived on the street. Most of
| them were decent people in a bad situation. Sure, a healthy
| dose of distrust is smart. But I think it's worth it to not
| totally distrust anyone who is that hard up.
| corrral wrote:
| Tricking you into taking flowers and then trying to charge
| for them is already a Whole Thing, too. Not that that makes
| what they did any better, but this specific behavior sets
| off "scam" alarm bells for me.
| sva_ wrote:
| I mean they've been doing that in Paris for quite some
| time when you're walking with someone. 'What you don't
| want to buy roses for 50 euro? Is your girlfriend not
| worth it to you?'
|
| Luckily my girlfriend told the guy to put his roses some
| place I may not mention here.
| corrral wrote:
| Haha, Paris was exactly what I was thinking of. "Pretty
| lady, flower for you! You want flower? Flower for you,
| pretty flower for a pretty lady," pressing the flower
| toward the woman as if trying to give it away for free,
| and then if she takes it, "that'll be [insane price for a
| flower]", hand out for payment, and resisting taking it
| back.
|
| Your best policy in public in a major city is to
| internalize Tony Stark's strong aversion to being handed
| things.
| naillo wrote:
| Please be more empathetic to people who beg for money.
| upupandup wrote:
| revolvingocelot wrote:
| Arguments of the form "So
| $MISREPRESENTATION_OF_STATED_OPINION" are disappointing
| to see here. I don't think you really think that the
| grandparent is suggesting that to be "more empathetic to
| people who beg for money" is to invite them to
| Thanksgiving or give them your bed.
|
| Consider visiting Reddit, where discourse of the form "So
| $MISREPRESENTATION_OF_STATED_OPINION" is more accepted.
| upupandup wrote:
| phpnode wrote:
| that's not what empathy means, you don't have to house
| someone to feel empathy for them. In this case, I'd say
| don't judge them so harshly because they're a product of
| a failing social system. They're the consequence of
| society's collective decisions and priorities.
| [deleted]
| tuxie_ wrote:
| Is that what empathy means to you?
| cultofmetatron wrote:
| try living in a city with a lot of them. you get tired of
| their shit REAL fast.
|
| I've seen too many literal dicks just getting off the
| BART.
| sva_ wrote:
| Glancing over my comment again, I can see it appearing
| fairly heartless, if you have the archetypal image of a
| homeless guy who's laying at the side of the road in your
| head.
|
| But I don't even mean those or have that much of an issue
| with them (there aren't many of those here.)
|
| What I mainly had in mind is a phenomenon that may not be
| very common outside my country (idk). I live in a country
| with social healthcare and government welfare for those
| who have no work. The people who are running from person
| to person in the streets begging for money aren't really
| needy. They most likely already collect welfare from the
| government, and they additionally beg as they don't want
| to work, and the welfare office can't deduct that money
| from what they get, since it isn't documented.
|
| These are healthy looking young guys in their mid-20s or
| so, who are completely able-bodied, well dressed, and
| they're begging as if it is their fulltime job. It's
| apparently pretty lucrative, else there wouldn't so many
| of them be doing it.
|
| They've recently become a lot more brazen in their
| tactics and will verbally assault and sometimes even
| follow you around for not giving them anything. They ask
| for money for food as they claim to be hungry, but when
| you offer to buy them some food they get angry with you
| as well.
|
| These people aren't needy, and there are so many of them
| now that I've grown so tired of it that I first started
| completely avoiding downtown, and ultimately also moved
| somewhere else (there were other reasons of course.)
|
| I don't have any problem helping someone who's really
| down on their luck (and you can usually see it pretty
| easily), but I'd never give money, always offer to buy
| them food instead. I also point them towards various
| places they can go to get food/shelter/help.
|
| I'm angry at those who abuse the goodwill of people
| because they've turned that city I loved so much into a
| place where everybody always tries to quickly get-in-and-
| out, never look someone into their eyes, because that
| might prompt them to try to manipulate you into giving
| them money, and just generally turned downtown into a
| place where everyone constantly wants to rush through and
| avoid any contact with others.
|
| I'm not just blaming those beggars, I also blame the
| people who give them money. People need to stop falling
| for this, it turns cities into shit.
|
| Anyways, enough ranting for tonight...
| jasonladuke0311 wrote:
| Go walk around Capitol Hill in Denver.
| tomc1985 wrote:
| Do you live somewhere that is being overrun by homeless?
| Like the west coast for example?
|
| Because it is really, _really_ hard to be empathetic with
| the homeless folks here, based on how they behave.
| DocTomoe wrote:
| It is almost as if forcing people who need professional
| psychiatric help out of the psychiatric clinics and
| putting them to their 'freedom' somehow has diametral
| effects on societal health.
|
| Maybe you shouldn't put these people in the same
| category. Not everyone living in the street is the same.
| Some are just poor. Some need medical and/or
| psychiatrical help. Some may be on the street by choice
| (see: Hobos (meant in the 'going from town to town, often
| by freight train or hitchhiking' sense)).
| tomc1985 wrote:
| The other day at the transit station there was a man
| sitting on a bench with a shopping cart of his stuff,
| having a loud argument with nobody in particular. Like
| shouting at the top of his lungs, for at least a half
| hour.
|
| A couple of weeks ago I had to avoid an altercation with
| a woman who talking to herself on the subway, she didn't
| like the way I "looked" at her as I was doing my best to
| mind my own business. She starts mad-dogging me and then
| darts off the train.
|
| Every so often a transient blocks the stoplight at a
| large, 6-lane intersection near my house, because he
| decided to ignore the crossing signal, and sometimes even
| the crosswalks.
|
| My young sister doesn't feel safe walking home on certain
| routes as there are groups of disheveled men hanging out
| doing nothing in particular. I've counted over a dozen of
| them, blocking the sidewalk and sometimes a lane or two
| on the street.
|
| The strip mall near my house has had to fence off certain
| areas open spaces because they had a habit of hosting
| impromptu bike chop shops.
|
| A woman who owns a local tasting room at said strip-mall
| has told me multiple stories of shenanigans with the
| local transients, as they like to get into trouble in
| their outdoor bathrooms, and her business has the closest
| key.
|
| Last week a man was sucker-punched because he asked a
| transient, who was sleeping in his car, to leave. (The
| man who got punched needed to drive to work.)
|
| Last year a woman was stabbed with a needle by a
| transient while waiting in line at a drive-thru.
|
| My city's local subreddits are rife with complaints and
| specific altercations. Most city parks are or have
| homeless encampments, and you can find them pretty much
| anywhere that there is unattended open space. My city
| even opened a safe zone for unhoused to camp, with police
| supervision and outreach resources available, and had to
| shut it down due to lack of use.
|
| City police generally do nothing; they are underfunded,
| understaffed, and still butthurt from the BLM protests
| and imposed COVID policies. Some of the videos that have
| been posted online have been downright childish.
|
| I know that not everybody is the same, and there are a
| handful of locals that I see repeatedly and know to be
| decent folk, but it is extremely difficult to be
| charitable with a narrative like this. And I am aware of
| other cities around here that have it much worse.
|
| There are areas of town that I used to enjoy walking
| through, but now they smell of a shit and piss. People
| are not quite as destitute as some of the South American
| cities I've walked around, but it feels like we are
| getting closer to that.
|
| If the homeless, as a group, would control/behave
| themselves people might have a different attitude. But
| they don't, and it takes a long time to recognize whether
| a specific individual is worth helping or not.
| msrenee wrote:
| You understand that most of these are examples of mental
| illness, right? It would be great if schizophrenic people
| would behave themselves, but kind of the whole deal is
| that they can't.
| tomc1985 wrote:
| _Many_ , not most. Meth is a huge problem here.
| msrenee wrote:
| I don't see how that refutes my argument.
| todorus wrote:
| Neither does it his. It is a problem for some areas to
| the point it will completely erode the empathy of people
| who have to live with it. Their stake is not an internet
| argument, but a daily reality to deal with.
|
| You can then argue that it's caused by mental illness and
| we should be empathetic, but I've talked to multiple
| people who actually worked in psych wards, my mother
| being one of them. They know they need to take care of
| them and be empathetic, but boy don't they all have
| stories to tell that has caused them to dehumanize them
| to some extent, or suffer burnout as the alternative.
|
| Don't just empathize with the mentally ill, but also the
| others you so easily burden with doing the actual work.
| tomc1985 wrote:
| So how do we get these people to stop harassing folks?
| DocTomoe wrote:
| One of the side effects of Meth use: Psychotic episodes
| [1]
|
| [1] https://www.drugs.com/sfx/methamphetamine-side-
| effects.html
| xzel wrote:
| I think most people would consider drug addiction a
| mental illness. If not it often is being used as a coping
| mechanism for mental illness or something else. Being
| able to empathize with people who are struggling is
| exactly what OP was talking about.
| tomc1985 wrote:
| And at what point do those people who made the choice to
| be drug addicts deplete the goodwill that is afforded to
| them?
|
| This isn't Minnesota or New York City. Our winters are
| mild; you don't need meth to stay warm at night, and the
| transients here tend to have more than enough clothing to
| stay warm when it gets into the low 50s/40s.
|
| In fact this mild weather is probably why we have so many
| of them literally dumped on us. (Dumped, as in, given a
| one-way ticket to a sunny, seaside city of their choice)
|
| Community policing programs work, just look at the
| success that Urban Alchemy has had in Los Angeles and San
| Francisco. The community is more than capable of policing
| itself, but it doesn't.
| closewith wrote:
| > And at what point do those people who made the choice
| to be drug addicts deplete the goodwill that is afforded
| to them?
|
| With respect, do you believe people choose to become
| addicts?
| tomc1985 wrote:
| They choose to take drugs with widely-known addictive
| properties, so yes.
|
| I'm not talking about opoids which were sold to folks as
| non-habit-forming for a long time. Or other cases of
| addiction without consent. But I don't think that is the
| case here, for the majority of people.
| closewith wrote:
| I think this is a harsh and somewhat antiquated take on
| addiction, if I'm honest. I hope the curse of addiction
| never falls on you.
| de6u99er wrote:
| What they are intendet to do, is generate views and likes for
| the owner(s) of the channel.
| headsoup wrote:
| I would like to ask this tiktok guy how often he does his
| random acts of kindness without the camera rolling...
| hef19898 wrote:
| His spokespeople will be happy to answer that question for
| him.
| ushakov wrote:
| why the hell does a TikToker need a spokesperson at all?
| ego boost?
| powerhour wrote:
| Same reason I have someone change my oil -- I don't want
| to spend the time myself, I can afford it, and they'll
| probably do a better job.
| Sporktacular wrote:
| You're right. His team of image consultants, publicist
| and spokesman are probably best able to handle this.
| pennaMan wrote:
| when you make money by manipulation and lies you're gonna
| have to hire a spokesperson at some point to manage your
| web of lies. See politicians, institutions of the state,
| corporations, tiktokers, etc
| prox wrote:
| In the future everyone will have their 15 minutes of
| exploitation.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_minutes_of_fame
| weird-eye-issue wrote:
| Possibly he doesn't even have one but just pretends to
| talk through a spokesperson. Gives you a fake fall person
| dymk wrote:
| To manage negative PR
| charcircuit wrote:
| If you are doing a random act of kindness you might as well
| film it too. Is there any incentive not to film it?
| fleddr wrote:
| Yes, it's called common courtesy.
| mcv wrote:
| 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.
| atomicUpdate wrote:
| > As someone who doesn't usually like to accept gifts from
| random strangers
|
| I'm dubious this happens enough for you to even have an opinion
| about it. What sorts of gifts are random strangers giving you?
| drakonka wrote:
| It's happened enough to know I'm not into it. You don't know
| when they just genuinely want to do something nice or when
| they're expecting something in return. I've had someone hand
| me a flower and then ask for my number. It got kind of
| awkward. Other times they hand you something making it out to
| be a gift, but then when you hold it in your hand they
| actually expect money for it. A trick sales tactic. And being
| _really_ pessimistic (unfortunately also from experience),
| who knows where that object has been or what's in/on it. And
| now, of course, who knows if they're actually filming you for
| some cringe TikTok video (luckily this one has not happened
| to me).
|
| It does depend on the place, situation, and general vibe you
| get from the person, though. Aside from awkward experiences,
| I think it's just weird and rude to hand someone something
| under the guise of asking them to hold it for you and run
| away, then try to claim it as some sort of act of kindness.
|
| One act of genuine kindness from a total stranger that still
| stands out to me the most years later did not involve them
| giving me anything.
| maxwell wrote:
| Thinking of the common CD bullies in New York:
|
| https://www.scam-detector.com/article/cd-bullies-in-new-york
| flycaliguy wrote:
| Spot on. The connection between these types of videos seems to
| be an inability to appreciate that a filmed encounter is
| ultimately inauthentic. I wonder if young people who have
| always had smart phones and perhaps have always been filmed by
| parents and friends live in a different reality a bit. They
| went to school probably guarding their "image" at all times
| from a cellphone video.
|
| Thank god there were no cellphones during my high school goth
| phase.
| duxup wrote:
| 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.
| TrueGeek wrote:
| 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!
| gonzo41 wrote:
| '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.
| NonNefarious wrote:
| "Her concerns are mute"
|
| Are concerns themselves normally able to talk?
| drcongo wrote:
| Small thing, "moot" not "mute".
| pwdisswordfish9 wrote:
| Well, it's not like she's been meaningfully given a
| voice...
| rad88 wrote:
| My guess is you don't know this woman or even live on the
| same continent as her? This is a thread of 500 comments
| from strangers, more or less unanimously condemning the
| tiktok media culture that led to her abuse. It's possible
| most people here know more about the incident and how it
| affected her than what happened this week in Ukraine.
|
| > Maree gave her consent to publish the video with this
| article
|
| https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-14/tiktok-video-
| maree-me...
| Hnrobert42 wrote:
| We don't know what journalists feel or care about. We are
| not mind readers. For that matter, journalists described
| hundreds of thousands if not millions of people.
| Hammershaft wrote:
| This is a fair conclusion but the tiktok itself is a
| primary source and so should be included so readers can
| draw their own conclusions.
| drcongo wrote:
| That leaped right out at me too.
| an9n wrote:
| The Guardian sold out to corporate interests a long time
| ago.
| nonbirithm wrote:
| It's hard to understand the importance of keeping something
| invisible when we are attached to what is visible and
| directly in front of us.
|
| It's like attempting to look at the negative space between
| news aggregator headlines and asking, "what am I _not_
| going to read here, no matter how much I read? "
|
| Maybe the act of making something visible in the context of
| social viewing will become culturally inexcusable in more
| circles. It would be the ability of people to get offended
| at being shared by someone else, which is not perceived as
| a big deal yet, and a taboo developing that forces people
| to reconsider at every potential share if they will offend
| someone. If that doesn't happen, then this will continue
| for some time. It's a cultural problem.
|
| It's sad that selective ignorance feels like a necessary
| virtue at times when being curious about the world is
| commonly taught. In effect, "the world" is what we're
| tempted to be interested in by nature and curiosity is a
| highly exploitable resource.
| watwut wrote:
| Tho, I would argue that linking content you talk about is
| good habit. If they write about content without linking
| full version of it, there should be strong reason for it.
| lbrito wrote:
| I saw kids sneakily tacking a sticky note on a stranger's back a
| store a while ago. The person noticed (their stealth level was
| negative. It was embarrassingly obvious) and they awkwardly took
| it off and ran away.
|
| I'm pretty sure it was some TikTok idiocy.
|
| I get that adolescents have always been pretty nasty, but I don't
| think this licentiousness with random (and older) strangers was
| ever this prevalent.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-14 23:01 UTC)