Hacker News Reader

Comment by politelemon | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

> 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.

Yes I realize that this part had a potential for a misunderstanding. I actually agree with you regardless of your post. I think the distinction with your example is that that review is actually not done our of selfish self promotion. Oftentimes this kind of review actually is a common good since it may actually protect others from a potentially hazardous outcome.

I do agree that in some cases the line between altruism and selfish desire is very fuzzy.

> 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.

>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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

> 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".

> 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.

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.

You can lodge a civil suit but generally broke people who are in jail are pretty judgement proof.

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

Too true.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

Fair enough, but bigwavedave here has a point. This isn't a simple binary.

For my part, I never go to 'touristy' places, and have never bought a touristy gifty thing in all of my travels.

Perhaps the gift shops cater to the uninterested family members who get dragged on tedious trips with their adventurous and enthusiastic family members!

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

> 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/...

> 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.

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.

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?

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com