[HN Gopher] Overrun by influencers, historic sites are banning T...
___________________________________________________________________
Overrun by influencers, historic sites are banning TikTok creators
in Nepal
Author : elsewhen
Score : 184 points
Date : 2022-08-12 05:37 UTC (17 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (restofworld.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (restofworld.org)
| Beldin wrote:
| > _" Officials should have requested TikTok content producers to
| respect the sanctity of the religious places, instead of banning
| something outright."_
|
| No, they really should not.
|
| Apply Will Wheaton's Rule; in case of doubt (whether that rule
| applies): don't. If you're not mature enough to do that, that's a
| problem; if there are a large number of ignorant folks like you,
| that's a very good reason for banning something outright.
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| > Apply Will Wheaton's Rule; in case of doubt (whether that
| rule applies): don't.
|
| Where can I read more about this rule?
| Beldin wrote:
| Sorry; in a nutshell: "don't be a dick". e.g. [1].
|
| [1] https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/wheatons-law
| [deleted]
| lancesells wrote:
| Anyone else think it's odd that the signage[1] is so aged after a
| year or two? [1] https://restofworld.org/wp-
| content/uploads/2022/07/IMG-20220...
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Nepal is in the top ten polluted countries measured by PM2.5.
| https://kathmandupost.com/climate-environment/2020/10/21/one...
|
| At that level, things outside just get dirty.
| beilabs wrote:
| I live in Nepal. The country has some really wonderful
| regulations across all sectors, very few of them ever enforced.
| elzbardico wrote:
| We in the west should have banned Instagram in historic sites
| years ago too
| sudden_dystopia wrote:
| Interesting given Nepals close relations to China (they help put
| down anti China rhetoric of Tibetan refugees and strictly adhere
| to one China principle) that Nepal gets the western version of
| Tik tok and not the super serious Chinese version.
| [deleted]
| ryankrage77 wrote:
| When I went to Iceland a few years ago, various tourist spots had
| 'no drone' signs. There was still a drone or two in the air at
| every one of them. I expect these signs in Nepal will be ignored
| too.
| anm89 wrote:
| I think a lot of significant sites would do well to ban
| photography and video entirely.
|
| People are upset that Venice will turn into a museum with
| entrance passes and so on and few people will live there. I think
| that's yhe best realistic case for a lot of these places.
|
| So many of them are already unenjoyable to visit, blanketed in
| trash, herding lines of people from busses to take a few pictures
| and be loud for a few minutes before stampeding back to where
| they came.
| jmyeet wrote:
| I find this phenomenon of essentially mass gloating to be really
| depressing form the perspective of human psychology.
|
| I mean this has caused problems well beyond Nepal [1]. Hundreds
| have died taking selfies [2]. It's just so sad that the need for
| approval and envy ruins tourist spots and kills people.
|
| Nepal is an interesting case because the country is really
| impoverished and really depends on the income from
| mountaineering. The result however is that Everest in particular
| is way too crowded and it kills people as people get stuck in the
| death zone [3].
|
| All essentially for a less than 30 minute photo op at the top.
| There are a bunch of mountains over 8,000m in height. Some are
| even much more difficult to climb than Everest (eg K2). But
| people go to Everest to be a couple of hundred meters higher for
| the bragging rights and they're quite willing to endanger
| themselves _and others_ to get there.
|
| I really don't understand this.
|
| [1]: https://www.insider.com/travel-destinations-instagram-
| influe...
|
| [2]: https://www.npr.org/2019/05/06/720800572/hundreds-have-
| died-...
|
| [3]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-everest-
| casualtie...
| flr03 wrote:
| TikTok is not the problem here, so thy are missing the points
| with the No TikTok signs.
|
| If they are annoyed by people dancing and recording themselves
| they should have a "Please no recording devices and no dancing"
| sign.
| josefx wrote:
| Recording doesn't seem the problem, neither is dancing. Being
| loud, annoying and damaging everything around you to make a
| viral video is. And since the TikTok crowd doesn't know the
| meaning of "respectful", "quiet" or "DO NOT BREAK" they had to
| phrase it in a way they would understand. I wouldn't be
| surprised if there were already signs that mention the other
| points for normal people.
| mgbmtl wrote:
| "no tiktok" is short, and easy to understand to non-native
| English speakers.
| o_1 wrote:
| Tik-tok has and continues to encourage social disruption in
| public places. It erodes self-goverance in favor artifical
| interaction. I provokes attention seeking nature through
| means of excessive absurdity. Class Clown as a Service.
| ncpa-cpl wrote:
| > "no tiktok" is short, and easy to understand to non-native
| English speakers.
|
| Funny thing is that for Portuguese speakers it could be
| understood as "In Tiktok"
| xtiansimon wrote:
| > "They need to play the same music over and over again to get
| that perfect shot..."
|
| Sounds disrespectful. What's the issue? Actual harm to TikTok
| freedom of expression or that memes* are rotting our brains?
|
| * memes a la Dennett, Blackmore
| MomoXenosaga wrote:
| There was an interesting idea in my country that predictably got
| massacred in the media:
|
| A CO2 budget. High enough that poor people could still fly to
| Spain once a year low enough to block yuppies from sightseeing
| Nepal or New York. Obviously the wealthy would never allow it-
| virtue signaling on HN about how long they use their iPhone is
| one thing.
| politelemon wrote:
| While I understand the intent of the freedom of expression
| campaigners statements and those by "content producers", they are
| missing important context and assuming they are without blame.
|
| The "content producers" are not interested in the location
| itself, only what the location can give them, which is engagement
| numbers on their platform. The sanctity of the location itself is
| of little relevance.
|
| It's that singular focus which is the problem here, not any kind
| of curtailment of freedom of expression. And even with such
| freedoms you shouldn't expect no consequences. These loose bans
| are the consequence, and I'm willing to bet that at no point
| would other tiktok users or expression campaigners have asked
| their fellows to behave themselves.
|
| After all there are other people who visit these locations and
| aren't needed to be told to respect it.
| qikInNdOutReply wrote:
| This is what ethnic minority tourism is in han china. Funny
| dances in colorful cloths in painted up reservations.
|
| There is only one culture though, one language, one everything.
| Its a conquered place app(used).
|
| The main atrocitiy is the conquest not mentioned. The
| colonializers dancing on the conquered holy sites.
| lastofthemojito wrote:
| Reminds me of this short documentary I saw recently regarding
| (mostly Chinese) tourism at Tibetan sky burials:
| https://vimeo.com/141606509
|
| "Hey this culture does something very different from us,
| let's go gawk and laugh!"
|
| Not that I'm accusing Chinese folks of being unique in this
| regard, it's just regrettable that we haven't matured beyond
| stuff like this as a species.
| wnscooke wrote:
| Too true.
| bawolff wrote:
| > The "content producers" are not interested in the location
| itself, only what the location can give them, which is
| engagement numbers on their platform. The sanctity of the
| location itself is of little relevance.
|
| So like 95% of tourists then?
|
| Most tourists just want a story to make themselves feel
| "worldly" so they can brag and dont care about what they are
| visiting.
|
| I think its totally reasonable to ban obnoxious behaviour at
| tourist sites, but i don't think normal tourists are any more
| moral than the tiktockers.
| Eupraxias wrote:
| Do you really believe this? Worse, is this accurate?
|
| I cannot think of a single travel adventure I have taken,
| where my purpose was to collect a story to tell other people.
|
| There's a deeper criticism to be made for "experiences" in
| general, like what I tend to do: travel and adventure for the
| experience of it, in-itself. The nature of the criticism is
| still murky to me; Nietzsche writes about it - though he was
| a bit of a hermit.
| bawolff wrote:
| Just look at all the tourist shops that line historic
| places selling made-in-china plastic keychains and nick-
| knacks. Its hard to imagine such places would stay in
| business if tourists were really there for the sancity of
| the historic site.
| bigwavedave wrote:
| > The "content producers" are not interested in the
| location itself, only what the location can give them,
| which is engagement numbers on their platform. The
| sanctity of the location itself is of little relevance.
|
| > So like 95% of tourists then?
|
| > Most tourists just want a story to make themselves feel
| "worldly" so they can brag and dont care about what they
| are visiting.
|
| > I think its totally reasonable to ban obnoxious
| behaviour at tourist sites, but i don't think normal
| tourists are any more moral than the tiktockers.
|
| > Just look at all the tourist shops that line historic
| places selling made-in-china plastic keychains and nick-
| knacks. Its hard to imagine such places would stay in
| business if tourists were really there for the sancity of
| the historic site.
|
| Oh, I don't know about that. I find it very difficult to
| believe it to be more likely that someone wants to spend
| a ton of time and money on a trip just so they can brag
| about their social and financial status with a $1
| keychain rather than someone wanting a momento of a good
| experience. If you want to assert that 95% of people who
| go on vacation are only doing it to rub it in their
| friends' faces as opposed to doing it to make memories
| and have a good experience, you need to provide some
| source other than a gut instinct.
| mlsu wrote:
| My girlfriend is a "content producer." She makes
| travel/restaurant/"location" content. Because she is large
| enough, she does not make content for someplace unless they pay
| her, unless she really just likes the place.
|
| People frequently bemoan that she is "spoiling" or "ruining"
| the places that she is promoting -- because they don't know
| that the place is paying her!
|
| I really want everyone who travels to realize: no, it's not
| content producers who are ruining it. It's YOU. YOU are ruining
| these places. You are going there, putting your footprints on
| the trails, using the restroom, polluting the parking lot. You
| are responsible. You are the one who wants only what the
| location can give you -- a pretty view, a life changing
| epiphany, an "authentic" view at a different culture, a
| different experience. And what do you give back? Your purchase
| at the gift shop? You're the selfish one. And, you're the
| stupid one, because you're not even getting paid for it!
|
| Of course, I don't really believe that. At least not 100%. I do
| think travel is inherently a selfish act, just like eating at a
| restaurant is a selfish act. It's alright to be selfish:
| really, it's OK. Because if it's not OK, that means that it's
| not OK to live at all.
|
| DFW puts it better than I do [0]:
|
| _As I see it, it probably really is good for the soul to be a
| tourist, even if it's only once in a while. Not good for the
| soul in a refreshing or enlivening way, though, but rather in a
| grim, steely-eyed, let's-look-honestly-at-the-facts-and-find-
| some-way-to-deal-with-them way. [...] To be a mass tourist, for
| me, is to become a pure late-date American: alien, ignorant,
| greedy for something you cannot ever have, disappointed in a
| way you can never admit. It is to spoil, by way of sheer
| ontology, the very unspoiledness you are there to experience.
| It is to impose yourself on places that in all noneconomic ways
| would be better, realer, without you. It is, in lines and
| gridlock and transaction after transaction, to confront a
| dimension of yourself that is as inescapable as it is painful:
| As a tourist, you become economically significant but
| existentially loathsome, an insect on a dead thing._
|
| [0] http://www.columbia.edu/~col8/lobsterarticle.pdf
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > People frequently bemoan that she is "spoiling" or
| "ruining" the places that she is promoting -- because they
| don't know that the place is paying her!
|
| People would know if your girlfriend was not breaking the
| law:
|
| https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-
| releases/2019/11/...
| zucked wrote:
| There's so much silly about this, I'm struggling with where
| to start.
|
| >I really want everyone who travels to realize: no, it's not
| content producers who are ruining it. It's YOU. YOU are
| ruining these places.
|
| How do you suppose so many of these places are "discovered"
| in the first place? My beef with these "content producers" is
| that they've all got the "I'M THE MAIN CHARACTER" vibe. They
| hog all the views, the private spaces so they can make their
| locale look a specific way. I don't really care if you're
| being paid for it - that doesn't mean you get to hog the
| space so you can preen and primp it into a specific A E S T H
| E T I C.
| mlsu wrote:
| I'm not actually taking this tone here, this is kind of a
| play argument:
|
| ---
|
| You're hogging the space! Why do you get to be there?
| Content producers are allowed to have whatever vibe they
| want. If you want to have a private space, why don't you
| pay the owner to close it off? Then you can have what you
| want, and the owner won't need to reach out to a content
| producer to market their space!
|
| YOU'RE the reason the content producer is going there.
| Because you spend your money at the gift shop. You're not
| working there, you're just consuming. Consuming the view;
| consuming the silence; consuming the clean air. At least
| the content producer is working!
|
| Who is selfish?
|
| ---
|
| You cannot visit a place without changing that place. The
| unspoiled place is spoiled by the very fact of you being
| there. You and the content producer are equals. The only
| person with the high ground here is someone who lives there
| (who, themselves have a range of positions on this
| argument; many want more visitors!), or someone who never
| visits.
|
| The point I'm trying to make is entirely separate from how
| you feel personally about "content producers." I get that
| some people personally don't like the content. I,
| personally, hate it -- I don't even have instagram or
| TikTok. But then again, I don't like fan fiction, or MMA,
| or Burning Man. It doesn't really matter what I like, does
| it?
| hef19898 wrote:
| I do have to agree with the parent that a paid influencer
| is basically a professional marketer. And that, paid or
| not, an influencer without followers is neither an
| influencer nor a problem. As with everything consumerism,
| us consumers cannot ignore that, collectively, we are
| driving a lot of that development. With the more than
| generous and friendly help of Social Media companies of
| course.
| slothtrop wrote:
| > It's YOU
|
| I don't think we can divorce content producers from everyone
| else qua "ruining it".
|
| Otherwise, I mostly agree. My view on travel is cynical. It's
| just a pleasurable extravagance, and for some reason (ime)
| championed by types who ostensibly decry consumption or
| consumer culture.
| thefz wrote:
| > _The "content producers" are not interested in the location
| itself, only what the location can give them, which is
| engagement numbers on their platform. The sanctity of the
| location itself is of little relevance._
|
| Amen to that. In most historical places in Italy, there's a
| blanket no cell phone / no camera ban when you are visiting,
| and that has been working for decades.
|
| Respect those who attend the place for prayer or admiration,
| too.
| deelly wrote:
| I always hated this signs. I can't take a picture of some
| interesting place, but in most cases I can buy picture made
| by someone else.
| rjzzleep wrote:
| How does monetizing a public good for your own selfish social
| standing to the detriment of everyone else become freedom of
| expression to begin with? I'd like to know who those
| campaigners are.
|
| It's a person expressing "a public good" - not themselves - for
| their own selfish gain. When an influencer runs through a super
| market recording everyone and every item (s)he's not expressing
| (it)self. Nobody asked for a review of that place(unless they
| were specifically invited to that which is rarely the case),
| nobody asked to be recorded by those people, and most of the
| times the people this is broadcast to, won't ever set foot in
| that country or the store.
|
| I think there is bright red line between "I love this
| place/item and I want to share it with my friends and family
| and hopefuly I can show it to you in person one day" and "I
| don't care about this place, but I want all of you guys all
| think I'm amazing". Somehow this has become blurred.
|
| I once was told that my personal freedom ends when I put
| everyone else's personal freedom at risk. It seems that people
| understand this fact only in very few parts of society.
| Otherwise you could argue that it's wrong to remove a
| bloodsucking leech from your leg, because you would infringe on
| its freedom of expression.
| watwut wrote:
| > How does monetizing a public good for your own selfish
| social standing to the detriment of everyone else become
| freedom of expression to begin with? I'd like to know who
| those campaigners are.
|
| Freedom of expression includes that and it was done for
| years. Photographs taking pictures or videos of public spaces
| and monetizing them is nothing new nor outrageous. There are
| local limitations, in Europe often about your ability to
| center other people in your pics or videos. But afaik, in USA
| you are free to take pictures of people or public spaces full
| stop.
|
| > Somehow this has become blurred.
|
| This was never as clear as you make it up to be. The primary
| difference is that too many people do it in current form and
| they do a lot of repetitions or include music.
|
| Freedom of expression or speech or whatever never included
| the requirement to "not be selfish". Also, the limitations
| that EU or USA tend to put on places basically never deny
| specific platform. You might have to pay extra for ability to
| take pictures. You might be unable to use flash. It might be
| flat out denied to play music at some place (requirement to
| be silent). These are fairly normal restrictions, that dont
| care whether you are personally outraged over tik-tok or
| youtube - which is actually what makes sense.
| soco wrote:
| First of all that "freedom" is a US constitutional thing,
| not defined anywhere else as such so maybe some
| expectations should be tuned down a bit. Secondly not even
| in the states does freedom of expression equate "freedom to
| do whatever and wherever I want" - try yelling nasty things
| at a biker gang and see where that gets you. But you know
| what is defined pretty much everywhere else? The right of
| property - which includes the right to ban from it whoever
| you feel like, without bothering even to give an
| explanation.
| bawolff wrote:
| > try yelling nasty things at a biker gang and see where
| that gets you
|
| I mean,maybe they beat you up, but then they go to jail
| and you get a bunch of money as compensation, so i don't
| think this supports your point.
|
| > The right of property - which includes the right to ban
| from it whoever you feel like, without bothering even to
| give an explanation.
|
| That's generally not true. Try banning <insert specific
| race here> and see what that gets you.
|
| However banning obnoxious photographers from your
| commercial business is of course reasonable.
| drugstorecowboy wrote:
| > That's generally not true. Try banning <insert specific
| race here> and see what that gets you.
|
| I can't speak for other countries, but in the US you are
| free to ban any race you like from your private residence
| for any reason or no reason, with or without explanation.
| A business has different rules but its not entirely
| "private" in the eyes of the law.
|
| Also I don't know where you live but were I to insult a
| biker gang and get beat up in the US, I would not be
| expecting to be compensated outside of very unusual
| circumstances ( the "biker gang" is composed of dentists
| and doctors ) you simply aren't going to be compensated
| by anyone for something like that aside from your own
| private insurance (maybe). Even if you sued this biker
| gang and won, collecting it would be difficult, the
| justice system _might_ include restitution of some sort
| in the sentence but it certainly wouldn 't be "a bunch of
| money".
| samatman wrote:
| Could you explain the root of this notion that the limits
| of a legal right are determined by the willingness of
| criminals to assault you for practicing it?
|
| It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
| selectodude wrote:
| You can lodge a civil suit but generally broke people who
| are in jail are pretty judgement proof.
| watwut wrote:
| Biker gang is not broke by definition. The debts are
| expected to be paid after you leave the jail, with
| interests sometimes and you can collect on them. It can
| create endless circle of issues for formerly incarcerated
| people.
|
| That being said, this sounds more like "disordered
| violence police is unwilling or unable to control" then
| anything to do with legality or justice. I can steal from
| your wallet, not be caught and it will amount to the same
| thing.
| bawolff wrote:
| > I can't speak for other countries, but in the US you
| are free to ban any race you like from your private
| residence for any reason or no reason, with or without
| explanation. A business has different rules but its not
| entirely "private" in the eyes of the law.
|
| Sure, but tourist sites aren't private homes. Afaik, the
| tiktokers aren't breaking into private homes to film you
| sleeping.
| watwut wrote:
| I did not mentioned US constitution at all. The concept
| of "freedom" does exists all around the world. In various
| forms and with various limitations, but USA does not have
| monopoly on that concept. In particular, the expression
| "freedom of expression" was used by non-Americans in the
| article - and they did not referred to American
| constitution. They would probably be puzzled by why you
| are bringing it up at all.
|
| > But you know what is defined pretty much everywhere
| else? The right of property - which includes the right to
| ban from it whoever you feel like, without bothering even
| to give an explanation.
|
| Also, this is actually incorrect both for around the
| world and for USA. USA has protected groups and you can
| not arbitrary ban them. Beyond that, this limit is afaik
| not based on individual property rights.
|
| > try yelling nasty things at a biker gang and see where
| that gets you
|
| This is not applicable here. The biker gang does not have
| legal right to do anything about you hurting their
| feelings.
|
| They may become aggressive and violent, but are you sure
| you want to put equivalence between violent gang and
| Nepal authorities in this context? Cause I surely dont
| think the situation is the same.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| >Freedom of expression
|
| Even in America, you need permits in many places to film
| for commercial reasons. People who are making a job out of
| being an 'influencer' are obviously filming commercially,
| so I don't see anything wrong with making them get permits.
| watwut wrote:
| So? How does that contradicts anything I wrote? Freedom
| of expression is name of a group in Nepal pushing for
| their things. America is utterly irrelevant (but actually
| public photography in America allows quite a lot).
|
| Note also how those permits literally never state "your
| intentions must have pure interest in place itself" as
| person I responded to assumes. Instead, they tend to be
| commercial and protecting monetary value of the place.
| Once you pay for permit you do whatever you please with
| it, unless it divides between commercial and non
| commercial. And they never limit platform - there are
| rules around flash or noise or time spend etc - you are
| quite clear on them from the start. Which is literally
| what the disagreement in article is about.
|
| Note also I disagree primary with nonsensical comments
| that projects their outrage over media not targeted at
| them existing and young people putting serious effort in
| them then with Nepal authorities trying to trial-and-
| error rules that will work.
| hef19898 wrote:
| And follow all the other rules aroind commercial content
| creation, e.g. getting model consent before publishing.
| Something all pros do, and again a way where disruption
| is actually just another way to say that rules don't
| apply to _you_.
|
| The trickey question is so where the threshold for
| "commercial" activities lies.
| watwut wrote:
| USA has looser rules around taking photos of strangers
| then other places (like European countries tho rules
| there differ). In general, if it is public space, you can
| legally take pictures of people and use them even when
| they are fairly prominent in pic. The privacy limits tend
| to be stricter in EU, usually to Americans comains on HN.
|
| But, in the article in question, other people were not
| issue. More of too many repetitions and activity changing
| feel of the place.
| michaelt wrote:
| _> Nobody asked for a review of that place(unless they were
| specifically invited to that which is rarely the case)_
|
| I agree with a lot of what you've said - but you don't need
| the seller's permission to review a car or a video game or a
| washing machine or a hotel room.
|
| 'Invited' reviewers are basically all shills, who know
| they'll never get invited again or gifted free review units
| if their review is anything less than glowing.
| yftsui wrote:
| Poor / no cellular coverage at national parks is such a nice
| thing to have, thanks to the "influencers".
| Gigachad wrote:
| How would that help? They can record with no connection and
| post it later. Only limited from livestreaming.
| soco wrote:
| I think OP means those ruin cell bandwidth too.
| tinus_hn wrote:
| It's a start and also chances are the people who insist on
| broadcasting every second of their drama filled life do not
| like being out of coverage.
| ghuntley wrote:
| Cough Starlink. It changes everything...
| koonsolo wrote:
| When I was young in the 90's we used to go to music festivals. It
| was nice to be with your friends, just relax and enjoy some
| music.
|
| Years ago I went back to the same festival, and what I notice
| what changed immensely was that everyone was taking pictures and
| selfies with smartphones. It was so weird to see. Plus, what used
| to be a Rock festival was now a Pop festival (everyone needed to
| be there).
|
| Somehow nowadays, you don't only enjoy yourself, but you have to
| broadcast it that you're enjoying yourself. For me, that takes
| away a big part of the enjoyment.
|
| I'll stop my old man's rant now ;).
| slothtrop wrote:
| Fortunately this doesn't happen much at small-venue metal
| shows.
| christophilus wrote:
| It's not a totally new phenomenon, but it's gotten much worse.
| I remember as a kid, my mom would interrupt
| $enjoyable_experience to take photos for the family album. It
| would totally take me out of the flow as a kid and is why most
| of my childhood pictures are of me with an annoyed expression.
| In fact, most of my adult pictures feature the same expression
| for the same reason. Only, now my wife is the one with the
| camera.
| mattpallissard wrote:
| Are you me?
| andrepd wrote:
| How come taking a picture of you playing in the yard "takes
| you out of the flow"? x) You make it sound like you were
| writing assembly or something.
|
| For me, I look back on pictures and tapes of my childhood
| with joy. I'm glad my parents recorded those things and I can
| go back and see how things were when I was 3 or 8 or 12.
| discreteevent wrote:
| As a child you don't have to be writing assembly to be
| immersed in something. If someone takes a picture it
| suddenly makes you conscious of yourself rather than what
| you are immersed in.
| filoleg wrote:
| > How come taking a picture of you playing in the yard
| "takes you of the flow"?
|
| Not the person you are replying to, but I can explain to
| you how it was "taking me out of the flow", because I have
| the exact same feeling about my mother and taking pictures.
|
| If it was just her taking pictures while I was doing
| something like playing in the yard, that wouldn't be an
| issue. However, it was never just this. It was always "ok
| ok, hold up, one sec, can you stand over there to the right
| and look in this direction and smile?" whenever we went
| somewhere that was supposed to be a fun experience that
| wasn't a part of the daily routine. As a kid, you can
| imagine, stopping doing whatever fun thing I was doing just
| to awkwardly pose for a photo I don't care about in the
| slightest for a few mins, it was an aggravating and not a
| fun experience.
|
| I actually would not have minded at all if she took
| pictures of me while i was doing something without
| interrupting and stopping everything. To this day, I find
| photos of me (and just in general) taken "naturally"
| (without stopping things and everyone posing intentionally)
| to be the best all around. They just look real and looking
| back at them makes the memories of that moment flow back
| into my head much stronger.
| xenocratus wrote:
| Not OP, but had/have the same. It's because the person
| taking the photo doesn't want to capture the moment, they
| want to capture a choreographed moment, where everyone is
| looking at the camera, smiling etc. The same photo as
| everywhere else, but there.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| Not him but
|
| _" Wait wait, do that again so I can get a picture of it!
| No no you were over here, don't face this way do what you
| were doing before just pretend I'm not here. What's wrong,
| you were having fun a minute ago stop pouting!"_
|
| Camera people can be really obnoxious like this,
| particularly to young children who haven't yet learned the
| value in humoring their parents. I always _hated_ it when
| my mother got out the camera. If she had stood back and
| taken pictures without trying to arrange everything for the
| 'perfect' pictures it wouldn't have been such an issue. But
| that's not how it ever went.
| tjr wrote:
| As a hobbyist photographer (well, I do it less, now that
| everyone is taking pictures all the time), I do not at
| all like interrupting real life to pose a picture. I
| don't want that picture. I want a picture of actual real
| life. If the person I am taking a picture of changes what
| they're doing because I took a picture, then I have
| messed up.
| hef19898 wrote:
| This so much! Sure, a photographer has a presence and
| influences shots of people. But tgat influence can be
| minimized. It is hard so, maybe a reason why I largely
| prefer landscapes and architecture!
| floren wrote:
| Now imagine being a child today, when it doesn't cost
| anything to take a picture and you have your camera on
| you at all times.
|
| Five year olds now have practiced photo poses and a
| ready-to-go fake smile, because _every goddamn day_ is a
| photoshoot.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Used to annoy me as well. Now those are most of the only
| photos I have covering several decades.
| akudha wrote:
| Some years ago I went to see the ball drop at NYC. It was a
| terrible experience. Every single person I saw had their phone
| out, the only thing I could see was flashes, everywhere. Nobody
| was seeing anything with naked eyes, just through their
| cameras. It was weird.
|
| If you live/work in tourist spots, you can't walk 10 feet
| without getting interrupted by a tourist taking their stupid,
| duck face picture. It is near impossible to enjoy anything in
| peace these days. I blame it all on social media. I can't wait
| for all social media to die, but that's not gonna happen, Is
| it?
| withinboredom wrote:
| Mid-summer, 2020, we hopped in the car and drove to Nice,
| France. It was in a lull of COVID so we were able to walk
| around without masks for the most part. It was amazing to go
| to the "hip" tourist spots and be one of the only ones there,
| just enjoying the view. <sigh> now the tourists are all over
| the place in my own city and it is annoying af.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Off season travel is great for exactly this reason. Well,
| being bound to school holidays limits your options. One
| thing worth to remind ourselves of when travelling or
| seeing tourists were we live: We are either locals, but at
| much more places we clearly are the visitors. The trick is
| to behave like a visitor and not like tourists being only
| that many letters removed from a terrorist.
| donohoe wrote:
| To be fair, regardless of that, spending New Year's Eve in
| Times Square is my idea of hell.
|
| I (and I'd argue most New Yorkers) cannot see how that would
| be in any way a good experience.
| akudha wrote:
| I agree. I went because it was novelty to me, I had moved
| to NYC and wanted to cross it off my list.
|
| Cops, huge crowds, bone biting cold, long waiting times...
| not worth it. But worst of all is still camera flashes, in
| my opinion
| dhdsznbszd wrote:
| maybe when we are all wearing always recording AR glasses
| people will no longer need to take pictures and post them all
| the time
| xwdv wrote:
| Social media _is_ dead. We're just burning in the hell of
| vapid content feed machines with ads interspersed.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| How does it interrupt you for someone else to be taking a
| photo of themselves?
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| Does it interrupt the photographer when I pay them no mind
| and walk in front of them? Their muttered curses say yes.
| Therefore, photographers interrupt everybody else in the
| area who, unlike me, feel compelled by some social
| convention to give photographers a cone of exclusion in
| front of the camera.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Politeness goes both ways, photographers should try to be
| as discreet as possible. And others should pay some
| attention to what others do around them, including
| photographers.
| throwaway675309 wrote:
| Calling them photographers is being generous and this is
| not the place for your personal photo shoot. Sorry but
| after the 200th time of trying to walk down a crowded
| street in New York and waiting for someone to finish
| taking a group selfie, I'm done with that.
| yardstick wrote:
| I used to work down the road from a big tourist attraction
| in London. Every lunch hour, I'd need to walk past a mass
| of people congregating outside the building taking photos,
| among other things (like forming a circle around a busker,
| taking up even more space).
|
| I could try wait for a dozen people to finish taking photos
| (and it's never just one photo, selfie or otherwise).
|
| Or, after a couple weeks of this, I just stopped caring and
| would walk past them irrespective of interrupting someones
| shot. Now if they made an effort to leave an easily
| navigable gap behind the photographer so I could walk past
| without interrupting, sure, I did that. Most didn't.
|
| There's still a lingering uncomfortability knowing I might
| be recorded forever in someone's social media feed or
| whatever they do with the photos. Yes I know, it's a public
| space and all.
| ghaff wrote:
| For me, I _try_ to be polite and not get in the way of
| someone trying to take a picture of someone on a bridge
| across a sidewalk for example. But it can get to the point
| where I 'm just rude and pretend I don't see them. At least
| selfie sticks seem to have become less common--probably
| because smartphones are often available with wider lenses
| today.
| GameOfFrowns wrote:
| >How does it interrupt you for someone else to be taking a
| photo of themselves?
|
| Blocking one's path for once, even more so with telescope
| sticks and of course taking pictures with one in the
| background without consent. I live near one such touristic
| area where there's a rather narrow sidewalk. In the summer
| it is like running the gauntlet. I'm too often too nice by
| first letting people finish their posing and taking
| pictures, only that frequently even 5 selfies seem not
| enough because they didn't get that perfect angle right for
| the 'insta'.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| They've got as much right to be there as you do!
|
| > taking pictures with one in the background without
| consent
|
| They don't need your consent!
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| How to make people like you: _" The law doesn't forbid me
| from doing this to you!"_
|
| Right up there with _" I'm not touching you!"_
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| Well, yes. I'm not touching you _right now_.
|
| And if you're offended by that, you are being egregiously
| unreasonable. Exactly the same is true of the picture-
| taking "concern".
| ghaff wrote:
| It's one thing to shove a camera in someone's face. It's
| another for people to have any reasonable expectation of
| not getting into even the background of a photo when
| walking down a city street or in some other busy place.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| You're not 'doing' anything to someone by taking a photo
| in public with them in the background. You don't have
| reasonable expectations and it's fine for reasonable
| people to disregard them.
| alistairSH wrote:
| _They've got as much right to be there as you do!_
|
| Can do vs Should do.
|
| Yes, you can stand in the middle of a narrow path and use
| a selfie stick to take photos. No, you shouldn't do that
| if it inconveniences everybody around you. Doing so
| anyways makes you a self-centered dickhead.
| mithr wrote:
| Multiple examples from the article:
|
| > Making TikTok by playing loud music creates a nuisance
| for pilgrims from all over the world who come to the
| birthplace of Gautama Buddha
|
| > Over recent months, there have been reports of TikTok
| creators storming farms and trampling crops, and even
| causing traffic jams while shooting. Chamomile farmers in
| Morang in eastern Nepal were forced to harvest their crop
| early, as some TikTokers trampled on their crop. In
| Kathmandu, a popular street that was decorated with
| colorful umbrellas to attract tourists after the Covid-19
| slump went viral on TikTok, and authorities were forced to
| shut it down as creators flocked to the area, leading to
| traffic congestion.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Was aimed at the person I was replying to about people
| simply taking selfies.
| akudha wrote:
| On New Year's Eve at NYC, the streets are jam packed.
| There is barely any space to move. Everyone around you
| has their camera out, trying to take photos of the ball
| drop. The _only_ thing you can see are flashes. Then
| you'd curse yourself for waiting for hours in the cold,
| only to see flashes.
|
| On a normal day in NYC tourist areas, it is common for
| tourists (especially younger women) to take pictures
| every few feet. Initially you'd be polite and not walk
| into their frame, but this gets old super quick. You're
| irritated, they're irritated (because you didn't pause
| for their dumb photo shoot)... ruins everyone's day. All
| you wanted was to walk uninterrupted.
|
| I used to live and work in upper east side. Took me a
| while to get used to it
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| > but that's not gonna happen, Is it?
|
| Something's gotta give. I don't think we can take it much
| further. I hope it's a passing fad. Once everybody shares
| everything it's not special anymore so how do you stand out?
| Having no online presence might become a new flex.
| googlryas wrote:
| What percentage of the time at the festival do you think the
| average person was taking selfies?
| rumblerock wrote:
| While the percentage of time is surely low, the high
| concentration of people per area means the frequency with
| which you encounter it can be quite high. I personally don't
| care much about being in random people's selfies, but having
| to constantly dodge people taking random pictures is
| definitely an annoyance when you're already trying to
| navigate a crowded space.
| googlryas wrote:
| The easiest thing to do would be not care if you are in a
| random person's selfies at some big public event. They
| surely don't care.
| majormajor wrote:
| My "old man rant" is that I sometimes see photos from 10, 20
| years ago that bring back memories that otherwise I hadn't
| thought of in years.
|
| It makes me wish I had _more_ photos from the 80s and 90s too,
| in the pre-digital years.
| slothtrop wrote:
| I don't like photos of my past, just everyone else's.
| kalleboo wrote:
| I live in Japan now and live performances tend to have somewhat
| strict no photography rules. I believe the same is true in
| Korea/with K-pop acts.
|
| Most foreigners are pretty taken aback when they encounter
| this, but I really like it. Not only do you not have to stare
| at everyone else's smartphone screen but it also removes any
| temptation to yourself to "preserve a memory"
| woweoe wrote:
| The reasoning is just based on super strict copyright rules
| though.
| decafninja wrote:
| First culture shock when I visited Japan in 2015 was when I
| pulled out my phone to take a snapshot of the airport express
| train arriving. Every Japanese person in my line of sight
| either darted away or covered their faces with their hands.
| That day I learned it was taboo to take snapshots like this,
| even if your subject is some inanimate object like a train if
| there are people around.
|
| Seems this is Japan specific, as I have not encountered this
| in Korea or Hong Kong.
| ghaff wrote:
| Really? I can't say I have ever noticed this in Japan and
| I've been there a number of times. And pre-digital it was
| Japanese who were notorious for snapping pictures of
| anything and everything.
| ghaff wrote:
| In the US, live theater usually has very strict rules about
| any sort of recording. I've seen ushers on Broadway rushing
| to block people from even taking a picture of the empty stage
| before a show or shooting a selfie at curtain call. Live
| popular music is more of a mixed bag.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| I think the biggest difference is just that American
| culture encourages ignoring rules to an extent where
| Japanese culture expressly forbids that.
| TheNewsIsHere wrote:
| When I was young, concerts here in the States almost _always_
| had a strict no photography/recording policy. Is this no
| longer common?
| stubish wrote:
| The bans became untenable in all countries when phones with
| cameras became ubiquitous.
| elzbardico wrote:
| Not in places where people actually are civic minded and
| respect rules, e.g., japan, corea...
| MomoXenosaga wrote:
| Cultures are different. In my country it's common
| courtesy to mind your own business and don't tell other
| people what to do. Personal freedom versus conformity. If
| you're the kind of person who gets annoyed easily at
| others instead of ignoring them as we are taught you
| won't last 5 minutes.
| mh8h wrote:
| Some venues would have you put your phone in a bag, lock
| it, and give it to you. It will be unlocked on your way
| out.
| acomjean wrote:
| I saw chapelle in NYC years back (the before pandemic
| times), they really did this. You can hang onto your
| phone, its just locked in a neoprene type bag.. On the
| way out they have a device to open it (kind of like
| security tags on clothes..).
| 0x0000000 wrote:
| No longer common since the ubiquity of mobile phones. You
| usually still can't bring any cameras with interchangeable
| lenses (e.g. a DSLR), or a high quality audio recorderdeg,
| but IME the only shows that do anything to prevent all
| recording are stand-up comedy acts.
|
| deg jam bands still tend to allow these
| volkl48 wrote:
| I tape (audio) fairly openly at a lot of shows, most
| venues (or at least those who work for the venues) don't
| appear to care these days as long as it's not taking up
| space/getting in the way.
|
| And a lot of artists are also pretty tolerant at this
| point of it. For example, The guy who runs the excellent
| (unofficial) live archive for NIN, got an invite to meet
| the band rather than a cease & desist.
|
| (Edited for wording).
| ravenstine wrote:
| Same usually happens at any metal show I go to. I remember when
| people actually immersed themselves in the experience. Now they
| stand completely still, mouth a gape, and film the whole thing
| on their phones as if no one else will do so and upload it to
| YouTube later.
|
| Given how supposedly unhappy people are, I think society really
| needs a spiritual awakening.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| well the out of touch thing is not realizing that theyre
| broadcasting to their friends, its not about pretending that
| they'll watch it at a future date
|
| the interactivity is leaps and bounds higher and more
| fulfilling
|
| I don't record more than a couple 15 second videos, at an
| event, choosing to consciously "be present", but from those
| broadcasts I get friends trying to find me there, I get
| introductions to their friends, I get dates from people that
| want to share in the energy at a future event, I get hookups
| - I sold an extra ticket at a festival by posting w/ the
| right hashtag and the girl was attractive and liked me and I
| hung out with her squad all day and into the morning
|
| There was nothing unhappy about it
|
| in a big crowd everyone is doing this at different intervals
|
| even another commenter's interpretation about "broadcasting
| that you're having fun means youre not having fun" is way off
| the mark, its a beacon for other people to come be part of
| the fun. at least there is some self-awareness here about old
| man yelling at clouds.
|
| people here are extrapolating reasons that are wildly
| incorrect, instead of just nonjudgementally asking people to
| get a wide variety of modern answers.
| slothtrop wrote:
| I go to a lot of metal shows and don't share that experience.
| There's always a pit. Maybe one or two guys taking a
| picture/video, but that's it.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| I do this at concerts, but mostly because I feel like a lot
| of venues I go to are flat, and as a short person there is
| almost always a sea of taller people blocking my eye-level
| view.
| withinboredom wrote:
| Ugh, you just reminded me of a random concert in a park I
| went to a few weeks ago. Everyone was just chilling on
| their blankets watching the show. As more and more people
| showed up, they just started standing around all the people
| with kids on the blankets, blocking our view.
|
| We ended up leaving pretty early because it became
| pointless once people literally started standing on our
| stuff. I swear, venues oversell things to the point where
| it is too crowded to actually enjoy it.
| SomeBoolshit wrote:
| But wouldn't you like to watch all those concerts again today,
| just to reminisce?
|
| We have the technology now and I can't really fault people for
| using it.
|
| Selfies I could go without, especially when the subject of the
| photo is something else and the only reason for putting
| yourself into the shot is proving it really happened.
| kuratkull wrote:
| Is this something you actually do? Watch a crummy video of a
| song you know, with the sound distorted to cracks and pops? I
| never understood the appeal, knowing I was there is, and
| should be, enough. Also, someone remembers your phone in
| front of their view.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| I think you're begging the question by describing it up
| front as 'crummy'.
|
| A band I like play very differently when live to when
| recording, almost like a different vibe. It's great that
| some people have recorded it as otherwise there wouldn't be
| any way to remember it.
| kuratkull wrote:
| My main gripe is with disturbing the attendees who paid
| for a ticket and went to the live show. You getting to
| see the show through other peoples phones is not
| something the paying guests care about, but have to
| suffer for anyway.
| lancesells wrote:
| I find the phone screens distracting my view with their
| light to be pretty annoying at a live show. I try not to
| be too judgemental as I typically will record about 15
| seconds of a band that I'm seeing to send to my son and
| someone else in the crowd could be doing the same thing.
| People have become content creators for better or worse.
|
| Maybe there could be a "concert" mode on your phone that
| turns down brightness to a low percentage and cuts the
| view down to a quarter of your screen.
| pdntspa wrote:
| This is why everyone should follow the lead of Dead &
| Company and offer places to patch in to the sound system so
| people can record high-quality bootlegs
| ctvo wrote:
| > I never understood the appeal, knowing I was there is,
| and should be, enough.
|
| The video captured that couple in front of you who were
| ridiculous, and that nudged you to remember talking about
| them afterwards with your friends. You wouldn't have
| remembered it otherwise because memory is not very durable
| or accurate at the best of times.
| tssva wrote:
| Not the OP but as someone who has attended many concerts and
| music festivals I can say I have no desire to watch any of
| them again. I have my memories of them and would rather spend
| my time making new ones.
| elzbardico wrote:
| I call this FOFI - Fear of Forgetting It Like its relative,
| FOMO, a perfectly irrational feeling.
| [deleted]
| ninth_ant wrote:
| In my experience, photos taken with the intent to remember an
| event later are more interesting when they have people in
| them.
|
| I don't feel like I need to "prove" I attended an event but
| years later it makes the recollection more visceral -- at
| least for me.
| ivanche wrote:
| Another old man's rant - if you need to broadcast you're
| enjoying, you're not really enjoying.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| I don't broadcast anything either, but I send a lot of photos
| and sometimes short videos to my elderly relatives, who
| actually like them.
|
| For example, they loved a short video of an elephant shower
| in a ZOO.
|
| Unfortunately, this requires the same hardware as a
| broadcast, so it would be covered by the same no-pictures
| policy.
| [deleted]
| flipchart wrote:
| Obligatory xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1314/ :)
| zwaps wrote:
| I like to take a couple of photos for my album when I am doing
| some activity I'd like to remember (say, visiting a place on
| vacation). It's pretty important to me.
|
| However, I dislike two things 1.) Doing it for every small
| activity 2.) Broadcasting it on social media
|
| For 1.), I find that I don't really benefit from every walk
| around town or whatever in my albums. It's more enjoyable to
| remember significant moments - and there are quite enough I
| think.
|
| For 2.) I find that to find a good representation of what is
| happening, I need to alter my behavior. Instead of taking two
| to five pictures, I need to take videos and hundreds of
| pictures etc. As others have mentioned, this kills the actual
| thing. Instead of "I visited place X and did Y", it becomes "I
| took photos and videos at place X pretending to do Y".
|
| So the sweet spot is in between. I am very happy to have taken
| some photos - even selfies - in the past, and I wish I would
| have taken slightly more photos (or better ones, or videos) in
| the past, before we had such nice phone cameras.
|
| Pictures are great to remember moments. For that, we need
| enough pictures of these moments - but we also need to have
| made memories. We need to have experienced the actual thing.
|
| Pictures that go on social media are marketing. They have a
| different purpose.
| WalterBright wrote:
| > content creators
|
| I suppose as a programmer I am a "content creator", but, like,
| gag me with a spoon.
|
| I've seen a handful of those popular clips on youtube, always
| with a 20-something presenter with coke-fueled loud yelling into
| the camera, too-bright colors, quick clips, kindergarten
| animations. Always the blaring pitch to subscribe. Barf. Yeah,
| I'm an old man, so I'm immune to the attraction of it.
| smcl wrote:
| Nahh don't worry I don't think you qualify as "content
| creator", even if you create code that could be thought of as
| "content" or to be honest even if you're a streamer who live-
| codes or something.To me what this usually refers to is video
| produced by "influencers" (or wannabe influencers), produced to
| a schedule purely to drive clicks and engagement. (edit:
| originally I tried to work in a fast-food metaphor here, but it
| did not land at all)
|
| I wonder if you're like me at all - I kinda recoil when I
| encounter these people talking about creating "content" or
| selling "product". Just sounds like people are creating slop
| for their hogs to consume.
| jstarfish wrote:
| > Just sounds like people are creating slop for their hogs to
| consume.
|
| I've always been put off by the concept of Facebook's "feed"
| [trough], but my wife pointed out that the whole
| "influencer"/"follower" dichotomy mirrors the power dynamics
| and verbiage of a cult.
| bena wrote:
| I think because the term "content" has become a little
| nebulous.
|
| As programmers, we are content creators, we are creating
| content. Programs are content. But it's a specific type of
| content. Actors, directors, writers, singers, songwriters,
| butchers, bakers, and event the candlestick makers. But they
| all create specific types of content.
|
| Due to the ubiquitousness of recording equipment, the
| availability of publishing platforms, and the ability to
| transmit globally, the future where everyone will get their
| 15 minutes of fame is here.
|
| But it's really hard to pin down what kind of content is
| being created. Pretend I am a "content creator". I took a
| picture of my lunch. But it's not serious enough to be
| "photography". The picture isn't designed to be high art.
| It's ephemeral. It's taken to demonstrate that I am having
| this for lunch. And while I may take pains to shoot it well,
| there are limits. The goal isn't to say anything about the
| food or society at large. The burger is just a burger. But
| it's got to go up. The feed must be fed. Gotta keep up
| engagement. So what the fuck did I just create? "Content".
|
| The persona of my social media is the goal of the content
| creation. I am essentially selling you a parasocial
| relationship with me. Come hang out on my feeds. Watch me
| live my life, engage with my posts as you would a friend.
| That's the disconnect you're feeling. You're not buying into
| the parasocial relationship these people are trying to
| foster.
| ask_b123 wrote:
| https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-
| avoid.en.html#Conten...
| RGamma wrote:
| The word _content_ has been mangled so much it merely means
| "audiovisual stimulus" now. No substance needs to be involved.
| satellite2 wrote:
| No, as a programmer usually you're a container creator, not a
| content creator.
| bawolff wrote:
| My local movie theatre has programs where they "go to" historic
| places (mostly aimed at the eldery).
|
| Is it really that different?
| missedthecue wrote:
| Travel programs are made with necessary permits, filmed with
| local approval, done by professionals, and often during off-
| peak times/seasons both to avoid issues with overcrowding and
| improve program quality.
| mikewarot wrote:
| The first thought I had was that this was a Chinese Government
| imposed policy to stop anyone from discussing non-Han history and
| culture. I'm surprised to learn that, at least in theory, Tibet
| is still a separate country from Red China.
| groffee wrote:
| I hate that "influencer" is even a thing.
| teddyh wrote:
| They used to be called "celebrities". But words die out and are
| replaced with the generations, like the word "rave" replaced
| "disco", even though they are essentially the same thing.
| mod wrote:
| I doubt the GP is taking offense to the term influencer.
|
| I'm also disappointed influencers exist (in their current
| social media state, anyway), but I'm glad we have a term for
| it. I don't especially care which term we use.
| ausbah wrote:
| I don't think so. the audience size most influencers cater to
| is miles smaller than anything you'd consider to be a
| celebrity's stuff in the range of 10k-1M IG follower tops or
| something
| bcraven wrote:
| Would you prefer "advertiser"? I would suggest there's no
| boundary between the two terms.
| Karupan wrote:
| "Marketing shill" sounds better
| vidanay wrote:
| Is "douche bag" not accurate?
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| It's accurate but imprecise.
| aaron695 wrote:
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-08-12 23:02 UTC)