Please don’t film me in 2023
theverge.com
theverge.com
Sure, it’s legal to film people in public in the US without their consent. But it’s also shitty. Those two things can both be true.
Maybe we might all be better off practicing DBAD: Don’t Be A Dick.
Of all our American flaws, "It's not illegal for me to be a dick and therefore I am going to be on" is perhaps the one we're proudest of. (Followed, perhaps, by "It's illegal for me to be a dick but you can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt and that's as good as legal" and "It's illegal for me to be a dick but nobody is going to bother prosecuting therefore it's as good as legal.")
It would be great if we all practiced Don't Be A Dick. But for those who are most harmed by people being dicks, we need to figure out ways to protect them legally, because otherwise people will be a dick to them as hard as they possibly can. And every time you try, people will say "Nobody is being a dick to me therefore nobody needs to be protected."
As a Canadian in the US I'm often asked the difference, and I've mostly held my tongue from saying "You're all pretty damn rude, and have fragile egos" but I think I might steal your description because it makes sense.
I don’t think that it’s always shitty to film people in public without their consent. This is not a black and white issue.
Do you feel that consent should be obtained from everyone who is visible in any video taken outdoors, regardless of whether those people are the intended subject of the video? Do you have a consent problem with surveillance videos? How about videos captured on car dash cameras?
Let’s say you are at a tourist attraction, capturing a video of the attraction. Another visitor asks that you stop filming, because they don’t want to be in your video. Dickish to continue? I’m not so sure.
It’s easy to say “don’t be a dick,” but that statement sidesteps the reality that reasonable people can (and do) disagree about what that means.
I am totally fine with the distinction that is enshrined in law in many places around the world: you can record everything in public, but you cannot publish what you recorded without consent.
The issue is that we have two extremes (as it often happens) that either react to the camera as if it's the devil eating their souls and freak out, or we have the tiktokers basically ignoring the second part (no publication without consent).
The problem is, if they politely ask someone to stop filming them, it won't have any effect.
It's a spectrum.
When someone is the subject of your video, like the AC/DC person in the article, then YES, you are a shitty person if you post that for the world to see without their permission.
Photo-journalism, particularly of politicians, would be greatly harmed by a permission requirement: is a journalist a shitty person for reporting the truth, even truths that a politician might not like? (And let's say it's something public, like capturing a politician giving a public speech that would appear to be whipping a crowd into a mob, not tabloid/paparazzi type stuff.) Someone photographing or videotaping police brutality?
Intent, I think, is what matters in determining if any one photo/capture is "shitty"; there are instances where you can be a good person while creating photos or videos that might be very detrimental to the subject. Some of the examples from TFA are good examples: creators looking to find people on the street to make a fool of.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candid_photography#As_an_art_f...
[2]: (I'd perhaps also add the last time I surreptitiously recorded someone was because the person was issuing death threats to those around him. AITA? But there are other, more artistic or journalistic cases that I think also have merit, which is why this is a footnote.)
I think if the picture/video is to be posted online or in a gallery, the person in the picture has a right to say how their likeness is being used, regardless of context. If someone's in the background of a video a I would say it's not as relevant, unless the background person becomes the subject unintentionally (as often seen in fail videos).
Surveillance is a different matter. You are notified you're entering a building with cameras, and those also aren't streamed online or displayed publicly.
As for public figures: there's usually separate laws for such things for public figures, AFAIK
Fan: How about... "Ballbreaker" ?
<crunch>
(Disclaimer: this story is fiction – and I'm sure that AC/DC do not actually advocate violence against most TikTokers.)
https://www.quora.com/Do-you-have-to-sign-a-waiver-or-other-...
There's a reason that appearance releases are a thing.
That is, you can film a crowd I'm part of; just keep it off google drive, whatsapp, tiktok, facebook, and youtube.
The reason so many conflate the two is because for most people they are not distinct activities.
When some jerk goes up to a girl with the intent to humiliate her for TikTok lulz by asking her to name 3 ACDC songs, that video no only should never be "shared with 3rd parties", but should never even be made in the first place.
On the other hand, I wouldn't even think about asking your consent to post a crowd pan shot of a music festival with hundreds (or thousands) of people in shot. And unless you happened to be one of the people right behind me and obviously recognisable in the clip, I'd consider you insane if you objected or asked me to take it down.
I've not fully thought this through, but there's a big difference between "active engagement" with a specific person like the TikTok jerk, and passive engagement like "look at the crowd here at SXSW!" And there's a hard line in the sand about the TikTok jerk's intentions of hoping to humiliate people publicly.
If that TikTok jerk had caught me on a bad day as I was coming back to my partner while he was pulling that shit, he'd probably be buying a new microphone and camera after I'd stomped them...
And yet here we are. You’re not in charge, and telling other people what they are and aren’t allowed to do just to meet some arbitrary desire of yours is being a dick. Do you really expect everyone not to take pictures and videos of games you’re at? Museums you’re in? Concerts you attend? Come on.
It's my right to demand that.
(This does not mean that everybody conforms to the law. But people that don't would be at least liable for damages.)
Edit, to clarify: Of course you can film in public. But you're required to cut out people who didn't give explicit consent before showing the material in public or handing it over to third parties.
All of this delightful nuance goes to my previous point; there’s plenty to debate and discuss here and the whole idea of an absolute right to privacy in public is comical.
But distributing or handing over such material is limited and requires usually consent.
Please pay special attention to the second sentence of the cited paragraph.
We're talking here about rights that are derived directly form the first sentence of the German constitution!
Such right is very strong. Only in exceptional cases it can be overruled by other constitutional rights.
Details can be found for example here: https://www.prigge-recht.de/wann-darf-ich-bilder-von-anderen...
Ubiquitous CCTV cameras certainly bring issues of privacy, as well as what they should be used for.
One example is Smart Streetlights, which were initially promoted as energy saving lights that would help to measure and manage traffic and pollution, but quickly turned into dragnet police surveillance systems, initially for solving violent crimes but ultimately including property crimes such as vandalism, illegal dumping, and destruction of city property[1], and for protest surveillance [2].
[1] https://voiceofsandiego.org/2020/02/03/the-mission-creep-of-...
[2] https://mashable.com/article/police-surveil-black-lives-matt...
License plate cameras tend to have similar mission creep - they start out for parking enforcement or for red light tickets and turn into a system for tracking citizens whenever and wherever they drive.
I can think of reasons why one might record a stranger in public, or a stranger might end up in a recording, but I thought it was pretty clear from the article that we're not talking about that—we're talking about content creators (any person making content) filming strangers without consent so they can create content using those strangers. These other things you're talking about are irrelevant to that conversation.
Sometimes however pushing the boundary causes positive change.
I am a photography enthusiast and a lot of very impactful if not world-changing photography in the past has been called unethical in their times.
Some examples are Robert Frank's "The Americans" (https://www.lensculture.com/articles/robert-frank-the-americ... https://www.nga.gov/features/robert-frank/the-americans-1955...), Dorothea Lange's "Migrant Mother" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migrant_Mother)" and Steve McCurry's "Afghan girl" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Girl) photos. All received harsh criticism, but also raised awareness of issues in transformative ways.
https://www.aapsonline.org/judicial/telephone.htm
https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/24/18015374/whyd-you-push-t...
Of course if the content somehow slanders or misrepresents someone, that’s another issue.
But, it is the law there and it is often enforced. As an example you can find public exhibitions with signs up "no photography". You'll even find these signs at trade shows at many booths where you'd expect the entire point is to show off to the public.
The point is, different cultures have different feelings about this.
IIUC, it was Japan that made Google Maps remove faces from streetview.
That's the problem: A US-centric "end of story, period" generalization. In general, you are not allowed to take pictures of other people in public without their consent in Germany and many other countries.
Try filming in a courtroom. There are also laws against filming upskirt, full or partial nudity even if in a public setting, etc in my state and in similar states. Since you brought up privately owned but open to the public spaces, owners can set their own rules and ask you to leave if you violate them.
The point is, circumstances matter. This isn't an absolute right and has some restrictions to it (as do pretty much all rights it seems).
You can see how quickly things get muddy if we start making distinctions.
For example, street photography is kind of a grey area, I don't think it has ever been brought to court
Wrong (as so often with people who assert things like 'period. end of story.')
*photography is permitted in public spaces, you don't have a right to not be photographed in public. but in many jurisdictions, including California, recording other people's conversations requires consent from all participants in the conversation. Doing so covertly is treated as equivalent to wiretapping and is a crime, as well as exposing you to civil liability.
Laws on this vary by state. Here's a brief explainer on California's laws, with reference to relevant statutes and court cases: https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law
Social media stuff has relatively ephemeral value compared to movies and TV series, and way simpler distribution.
(so like the YouTuber can pull the whole video or just chop out the segment that the person appears in)
TikTok assholes may not have any assets to make them worth suing (or even any identities you can point your lawyer at), but one thing that they do value is their following, if we can make this sort of shitty behaviour an existential risk to their TikTok clout, perhaps the behaviour will go away. Humiliating people in public for lulz should be a bankable offence on all social media platforms, with the only defence being pre-existing model releases if you're doing it with informed and paid actors.
> “It isn’t a criminal offense to photograph people’s faces in public, but it can be a civil offense if the person who has been photographed finds their likeness published anywhere. They can make a case against the photographer on the grounds of breach of privacy,” says Tia. “The threat of being identified in a creative’s work and suffering consequences for it is all the victim needs to prove in court.”
> That’s why on most Japanese blogs, YouTube videos, and television programs, the faces of bystanders are blurred, an arduous and artistically painful process for any passionate creative. Tia says it best: “As an artist, mosaics and bars over the face can be such an ugly mark on one’s work.”
Connoisseurs of Japanese art will know that legally mandated mosaics are not limited to faces.
"A connoisseur is a collector and/or art lover who is knowledgeable about works of art, in the sense of being able to recognise characteristic individual or regional styles.
This skill is based on familiarity with a large number of pictures, and the ability to retain a visual memory of them."
How does this law fit with the very alive and active community of publishing street photographers?
https://www.foxnews.com/auto/tesla-facial-recognition-camera...
But facial recognition on public data, yes, there are commercial facial recognition databases, but i dont' think they (yet?) have timestamped geocoded sightings.
> Australia and U.S.-based face biometrics provider VerifyFaces has unveiled its consumer-facing facial recognition service which can be used for background checks. Unlike image-only searches such as PimEyes, VerifyFaces combines facial recognition and text searches.
> From $11, individual users can conduct a search on the company’s website in four ways: by photo or video, name and birthday, phone number, and home address.
https://www.biometricupdate.com/202212/verifyfaces-unveils-f...
[1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/ne879z/i-tracked-someone-wit... [2] https://drndata.com/repossession/
Dash cam: The footage can not be published with faces and/or license plates legible (anything that can be linked to a person really). You are allowed to keep the footage for private purposes unedited.
I think there is a law regulating where and if such a camera is allowed to be positioned and how you are allowed to process the imagery.
It is also not forbidden to film out of my doorway, is it?
Law is certainly complex in this case.
Storing close-up videos of strangers indefinitely is hopefully forbidden, but not filming a street per se.
It is if you're looking at the public road out of your door. Cameras need to be angled so that they do not film public spaces. There was a case a few years back about police stations in Baden-Württemberg needing to shut down their cameras because one complaint found them to surveil too much of the sidewalk.
Privacy law can become pretty complicated.
Is there an exception for ATMs?
[edit] just to clarify, I said "certainly" because the idea of public space being unsurveilled is such a foreign concept to me these days. I do think there are valid safety use cases for private cameras on the street - cash machines being high on my list. Government cameras (or those accessible by government without a warrant) I think should require a much higher standard to be met. But for private use, for instance, my front door camera covers the area of sidewalk directly in front of my house. Where I live, I am liable for accidents that occur on that piece of sidewalk and the curb, should I not shovel my snow or someone slips on autumn leaves or if a tree limb falls on someone's car. I don't like the idea of the police accessing that camera, but I do like the idea of having a record of what takes place in a public area I'm personally liable for maintaining.
I don't know though.
In Germany, you're also partially liable for accidents that happen due to side-walk maintenance (which is a stupid idea imho because many people just don't care, so you end up with lots of icy sidewalks in winter). But Germany is generally cheap on damages, so if someone falls in front of your house and breaks their wrist and cannot work fully, you'd pay a few thousand Euros at most. Since you'd need to actually prove damages in court, and would need to actually break your bones etc, I haven't heard of scams in that regard. Might happen occasionally, but it's not a common thing.
AFAIK, smart doorbell like Ring have breached UK private laws/GDPR
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/oct/14/amazon-asks-...
In public spaces it's probably somewhat regulated, but it might be a small sign.
On private property with video surveillance there also always seems to be some signage, clearly visible.
The purpose of that is for sure also to prevent crime from happening in the first place.
Example sign: https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41WuyzXzgPL._AC_SY580_Dp...
Kinda like a dashcam, but worn by a person rather than a vehicle.
Image rights and rights for privacy are up there just below right to life, so for example in a court case, video evidence is only accepted if it's a murder or attempted murder case. If you film me stealing your stuff it's not admissible.
Main reason being that the constitution considers your right to go about your business in any place with whoever you want to not be disclosed without your consent.
Public cameras must adhear to strict data retention rules and signs must be posted. Additionally in cities like Zürich doing face recognition on public ground is forbidden and will most likely be nationwide soon.
Dashcams are a gray zone. What is for sure is that the footage can not be used in court unless it's a very serious case and you can not publish footage without anonymiezing it. What Tesla does with storing footage in a Dutch DC is probably illegal but so far the authorities have not done anything against it.
Culturally it definitely still works which is arguably the function of the law to begin with.
Unless it has some kind of "allmenn interesse", aka "general interest", where it's better for society that it's published vs your right for privacy. For instance if you're a public figure doing something bad in public and getting video taped, you can't stop that from getting out by not "approving" it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siegfried_Hansen_(photographer...
I think this is a good take, but I'd suggest the best response is to address the human being that is addressing you and say "no thanks".
And yes, I live in Manhattan and before that downtown SF, so I'd wager I've been confronted by strangers far more often than the average person.
One time I was in some sort of "soap opera" student project where I had to read some lines on tape. Another time a partner and I were confronted coming out of the Museum of Sex to be interviewed about our sex life. A video I was in at a park after Biden was announced the winner went semi-viral. One time at the corner of Polk x Post a man in a car tried to pick me up for sex work! I could go on.
This is why it's entirely okay to just shut the door on salesmen, or just hang up on cold callers. Indeed, that is actually the BEST way, because anything you say or do besides that will be used, by a skilled salesperson, to try and pry open a longer interaction.
These people are operating in bad faith, and should be treated accordingly.
They are not the problem, in my opinion, but they are also entitled to nothing that I do not choose to give of my own volition. Expecting a response, particularly a polite one, to an unsolicited interaction is on the same level of telling someone that "you'd look better if you smiled."
People are free to be in public but must also be aware of the consequences of their actions. One of those consequences may be that they are brusquely ignored.
If they want to be out in the world, go for it, but don't pretend the people engaging in their own activities are the problem.
If someone is approaching you in public with a mic in their hand, you don't owe them anything.
If someone cold-calls you for sales, you don't owe them a moment more of your time once you realize what they are.
If someone knocks on your door to sell knives or pots and pans or Jesus, you especially don't owe them anything.
This is a bait-and-switch; you're saying that the person intruded upon has a responsibility to conform their behavior to suit the person who intruded upon them. The poster above said nothing about wanting to hide from the world, you just made that up and ascribed it to them. You might want to review your approach to discourse.
Ignoring them is best, responding with swear words is second best, and pretending it's a normal human interaction is far, far down the list.
> You've[...] made it easier for the intrusive human being to continue to rudely intrude on others
If you have made them feel uncomfortable - perhaps forced them to stop and confront the discomfort that they are selfishly causing - then this is not, in fact, true. And if this happens repeatedly, they will stop.
Assuming you mean the USA, the problem is you need people to enforce those laws or succeed with lawsuits (and dodge endless appeals or ascension to the SCOTUS). We can't even begin address gun violence in this country, I highly doubt we'll get consent-to-be-filmed-in-public-laws passed.
You don’t watch the news much do you? This is the MO of reporters at every news agency chasing a soundbyte. Nothing illegal in the slightest.
Insofar as they’re both…objects?
https://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/10/06/bindra....
In Quebec, your image is yours.
If it’s brought by someone who makes a living by being obnoxious harassing private citizens in public, how much sympathy would that get from the judge?
From what I've seen they are pretty well defended by law, including when filming minor celebrities.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law
See also:
https://www.reddit.com/r/WalkableStreets/comments/u9jonf/for...
Edit: this may also be useful:
The law and courts need to acknowledge a third state beyond "in private" and "in public".
Call it "on stage" -- when large numbers of people can see you but you can't see them.
You can disseminate film of people on stage, but not in public.
It at one time criticizes the surveillance state and then also tries to connect it to the "man on the street" format.
Seems simply like a compilation of complaints by someone who doesn't like to be filmed in public.
Starting to sound like free surveillance to me.
[1] https://california.public.law/codes/ca_civ_code_section_3344
I guess it hinges on what is a product, or whether these videos are for the purpose of advertising or selling.
Whether a monetized video is "advertising" is a nice legal question.
[1] https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-right-publicity-...
I've worked on mapping projects that benefitted from ~3in resolution aerial imagery. When you study images with that level of detail, it's amazing what you can learn about an area. But having that amount of data collected on a regular basis would surely raise privacy concerns among citizens and governments alike.
We can't face new challenges with ancient laws
I remember a Scientific American "Amateur Scientist" article back in 1969 or 1970 that should have been titled "high school kids build death ray" (our high school had them bound by the year). It was a CO2 laser that involved blowing glass. Several watts. Infrared, which makes it rather dangerous as you might notice it from your hand burning (Danger! Do not look into laser with remaining eye!). For infrared, regular mirrors won't work. I seem to remember the article said that glass shatters immediately when placed in the beam.
To track the satellites, you need to check their orbital elements:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_elements
https://www.space-track.org/auth/login (space force)
https://orbit.ing-now.com/ (annoying ads)
Good luck!
The world didn't meet 'Corn Kid', whatever that is, the Venn diagram circle that is TikTok users may have.
The intersection with the circle that is 'people who think this behaviour is bizarre and vile' is small, but those in it should take comfort in the fact that that second circle is very large, and the first probably a lot smaller, perhaps a lot more ephemeral, than they may think.
You should only be scared of them if some Big Idea(tm) has them under their thumb
Governments and big businesses are far more willing to be adversarial
Else what's the point of Hollywood studios being so laser-eyed about making sure everyone signs releases?
Where are the real tech solutions?
The autofocus jammers?
The ultrasonic microphone overdrive scramblers?
The infrared iris scramblers?
When did we lose control over the space around us?
Take back our personal space!
I am reading this like this: When Verge is doing this, it is obviously legit and obviously not when it’s Tiktokers. Without backing this with any data.
Where is the video? At least provide a link.
I was eating and had my mouth full. So I just stared the main content creator in the eyes and preserved the awkward silence.
Kids don’t know how to deal with that. He ended up apologising, saying he’ll delete the thing, and walked away before I had finished chewing. :-)
I'm just not optimistic about the future at all.
Couldn't you have made this comment in any generation though? I could imagine someone making it while listening to a news story about Woodstock on the radio.
Almost every single citizen is now equipped with a surveillance device at all hours of their life, and they have incentive to use them and share the data they collect. This is little to no recourse for you if you don't want to be recorded. At least in the 60s it was a handful of news casters with huge equipment you could steer clear of.
I've edited the comment in an attempt to clarify.
Cameras weren't ubiquitous then but it was a major enough event that a lot of cameras were there.
The magic it Facebook, TikTok, et. al is that they figured out how to generate revenue from content that is just fractionally better than nothing at all. The algorithms can monetize content with a value that is just fractions of a cent less than zero and they do all this without having to pay real money for most of it.
An entire generation now aspires to make a living creating what is effectively content spam. Filler. Junk for the algorithm to promote. And what’s incredible is that they aren’t wrong. You can make a living doing this. The payouts and sponsorships are insane.
It won’t last forever though. Eventually we’ll just have AI created content. You’ll have an infinite stream of “Sick car, what do you do for a living” videos at no cost.
The TikTok of tomorrow is one where you just type in a few words about your interests and it generates an infinite stream of fake videos.
A lot of content that wouldn't have flown in the mainstream during the traditional radio era because it didn't capture the median demographic that the players were competing for can fly online because it captures the long tail and satisfies enough the interests or desires of a single content creator or small team to justify their efforts (where a studio organization can't survive without the kind of advertising revenue you get by being median popular).
A combination of lower costs and wider reach (allowing you to find more of the long tail) changes the mathematics on what is worth someone's time to publish.
And that's without getting off in the US-specific weeds regarding the fact that there was content that categorically could not be on the radio because the otherwise -assumed First Amendment right to freedom of speech / the press was curtailed in the United States by the FCC acting as arbiter on parceling up a finite national resource (whereas the internet is not considered such a resource and therefore there's no central US governing authority telling you what you can and cannot put online in the same way).
Every generation has had their asshole exhibitionists. Technology has just been pushing said assholes towards making TikTube content lately.
Boomers did the radio shock-jockey routine, X did deeply weird television and lately podcasts, Y did 1st gen/text+photo social media, and Z is doing 2nd gen/video+photo social media.
This isn't Gen Y/Z being somehow inferior, "we" (the readers of this community) did this.
The music, games and movies are very much similar from times of old (you might like it, you might not, you might just be getting old, that's the part that never changes or causes alarm). It's social behavior that's peculiar - in a bad way.
Then again, I wasn't around in 1970, so I can only judge that difference based on how it was recorded.
The quirks and preferences of the next generation that are different from my quirks and preferences are just different, not necessarily better or worse.
People have been complaining about the terrible thing the new generation does since there has been people. It's a bug / feature of our relatively short lifespan - on one hand our souls calcify a bit as we age and we start to see new as scary at the same time we are getting more powerful in society. On the other hand the reaction to the calcification of the soul that the newer generation has helps to push things into new and different directions, but at a time when those people are not very powerful in society.
It's an interesting balance, and its fun to think about how culture and society would change if that balance was tipped one way or the other.
Do you think this wasn't true among previous generations?
It was (whether the generation was self aware or not) mostly acceptably for people in America in the 1950s to be mildly racist towards black people (it's just, how they grew up, it was the status quo). That's not a get-off-my-lawn observation of that demographic. This was not a simple generational "quirk", it was a notable flaw.
Socially, I think somethings a little up with whatever is going on now days. But that's just me and history will sort this. Things are very hard to sort out as it's actually happening.
https://www.statista.com/chart/16100/total-number-of-hate-cr...
Reported hate crimes passed onto and recorded by the FBI.
These details matter in Understanding Data 101 .. consult your history for lynchings made public on newspaper front pages and sold as postcards yet not reported as hate crimes.
Go on thinking we’ve eliminated racism. You’re factually incorrect.
1) I don't think "we" 've eliminated racism (who's 'we' here?)
2) It is factually correct that an increase in reporting of hate crime doesn't logically correlate with an increase (or decrease) in actual hate crime numbers.
In recent decades in the US it is a sign that hate crime is being taken more seriously and being reported more often by local LEO's to the central FBI stats page.
As you yourself acknowledge the US has known past issues with the reporting of hate crime and there's good reason to suspect that a high proportion of past sch crimes have gone unreported, to either local LEO's or to federal tally sheets.
Note that from a crime stats PoV the US FBI database is barely adequate compared to crime logging in other G20 countries, it's riddled with issues and the FBI meta commentary acknowledges the shortcomings.
People have also been saying “it’s going to get colder” every summer as long as there have been people out of the tropics.
I know that is extreme but I hate the attitude that the quirks and preferences are neither better nor worse. Some quirks could be worse if it becomes society-disrupting.
Somehow, when you look at those "younguns are bad" rants from 50 or 100 years ago, pretty much every time it's over some issue that can only elicit laughter today. Especially when it comes to predictions.
However, this is not an example of that.
But who am I to label a vast swath of the 2023 global population pathologically fucked going forward. How far would I get explaining to people in the 1950s that they might be immoral racists?
I hope I'm wrong, but from what I'm seeing, things ain't slowing down.
I'd rather live in a world where people can be complete fucking weirdos without any consequence, except when their weirdness directly harms other people.
I wouldn't really care if they did it by themselves. For one thing I just don't want to be identified in the background of what is essentially softcore erotica and for another I don't want to be identifiable by Chinese AI or have some sort of weird profile set up that matches my features on their end (or anywhere).
These are real actual harms in my opinion and not just gripes about the next generation.
Their clothes are also extremely well made and have outlasted similar Puma, Nike, Adidas pairs.
Nobody comes home after a hard day and puts on lululemon to go to bed, or sit on the couch and watch movies. Baggy sweats are the opposite of lululemon; cheap, loose fitting, comfortable.
Women want to look good. There’s nothing wrong with that. Men do too. It’s ok to admit it.
I drop by the store for a protein bar before heading home and suddenly I'm the alpha in the room, dousing these poor shoppers in my manly musk and showing off how active I am, flirting a little with the cashier maybe, brain swimming in adrenaline. And then it's actually building confidence moment by moment instead of tearing it down.
Food for thought for anyone like me who loathes the gym and still is looking for good exercise.
One is completely within the realm of normal everyday interactions, and the other can come off as creepy in those situations.
Everyday interactions can feel flirty if you're high from adrenaline and the person happens to be attract(ive|ed) to you. The key is not to try, just be yourself, and interpret it as real flirting that could lead anywhere; they have a lot of these interactions on a daily basis so they usually forget them within a few days.
But the fact that's these interactions are so ephemeral doesn't mean you can't derive a little confidence from it. Small moments like this can make a substantial difference over time, just like even short regular walks with little to no incline have been proven to make a substantial difference to health, even if it won't turn you into an athlete.
Not unlike filming in a church, and capturing in the background normal people going in for confession.
If you haven’t said something to the management, you should. I can’t imagine they’d be thrilled: they should be scared of people wielding cameras within their walls for many reasons.
And I know at the more serious/smaller gym that we train at, since covid, quite a lot of people do remote training with a coach. This seems to be especially common among the powerlifting and olympic lifting sports. Remote coaching means the coach designs programs, and if you want to pay for more than the programming, you buy a tripod, and send the coach videos so that they can critique and correct your form.
That being said, I'm sure it's probably obvious when someone is doing what I'm describing, versus what you are seeing.
The group we are talking about, mostly kids, is beeing targeted by the industriy to consume. They are targeted by ads and even whole campagnes where a lifestyle is sold.
So with that in mind maybe the kids where never allright and we have to be suspect of some trends today. Personaly as someone who grew up in the dawn of social media, I am very against this trend of making everything to content.
It cant be good for the brain to be focused that hard on what other people are thinking
Most normie kids don't make any content.. they just don't.. you can still live a super-normal life and that is what most people do.
Another way of looking at it is that there have always been profit or power seeking activities that cause massive harm to entire generations, until the culture finally learns how to rise up and counteract it.
Usually the pattern is that something genuinely new comes along that we don't have a plan for, millions of people are terribly harmed, and then we sort of figure it out.
Industrialization brought great progress, but it blackened lungs and enslaved children until the progressive labor movement restored some balance. Mechanized warfare and the desire to dominate Europe laid waste to two entire generations, globally, before modern international cooperation brought it somewhat to heel. We poured toxic waste into all the rivers, we applied different laws to people who had different colored skin, we incinerated people who were unlucky enough to be born above oil deposits, all to make a few bucks.
And we've let tech media companies relentlessly commercialize and sexualize us, drive us to anger in search of "engagement" and disassociate us from each other and from our work and things that give us meaning, for at least two generations.
Hopefully we'll figure out how to move past this era too.
It's not a "kids are alright" kind of moment, it's just one of generations of examples of greed leading to people getting harmed.
When I grew up it was rude to call people at dinner time. If you called someone while they were eating it was either ignored, sent to answering machine, or it was answered with a curt "we're eating" before hanging up. This was the 1990s.
When I got my first cellphone, I made a point of excusing myself and leaving a room if it rang because that's how I was raised.
These days boomers seem to have forgotten this etiquette they impressed upon Gen X and Millennials. They answer their phones on speakerphone whenever without excusing themselves and and are completely unapologetic.
People in general today have no concern for walking around in public while having a phone call and get offended if you mistake their conversation and acknowledge them. As rude as it might seem to keep Airpods in all of the time, they have at least saved us from having to listen to other people carrying on and give a visual queue to ignore someone speaking around you.
Speaking of annoying quirks.
I like the awkward silence non-response. I might have ended up grabbing a handful of gadgets and smashing them on the ground. You have much more patience than I.
I call bs in your internet confidence/advise you not to do that. And not because it would be illegal, but because you don't know what the person on the other side is like. They might snap and give you life changing injuries.
One thing I have to say about (generalization) that group is that they don’t have much emotional intelligence - it does not have anything to do with technology. They are young and still learning life.
This shit doesn’t matter. We’re all very unlikely to be interviewed on the street like this by some influencer. Even if we are, tough shit, we’re in public, people are allowed to approach us and even film us. It happens. Be polite and decline and that’s it, story’s over. Nobody cares.
But no, the story is isn’t over! The Verge wrote a big long article about this stupid thing you and I have never heard of, and now here it is on HN.
Manufactured controversy: annoyingly, it’s controversy that feeds into the negative feelings that media and social media tend to propagate.
By reading and sharing this article, the original influencers get more publicity and follows, so they’re more likely to do this stuff more.
At least in the realm of sexuality, a fetish is acknowledged as a fetish (and fetishes are usually very private and should always require consent by all parties). I wonder how open people would be to the reality that they are indulging in a fetish by watching voyeuristic videos on /r/PublicFreakouts (sexual or not, and certainly without consent), or exhibitionism by constantly making videos of themselves.
> “I race cars, play golf and fondle big-breasted women. But I take weekends and major holidays off,” Blevins replied. “Also, if you’re interested, I’ve got a hell of a dental plan.”
Which, although being a very dated Dudley Moore reference, was said while the man was in good spirits on his day off.
You could argue he's paid to know better as an Apple executive, and you'd be right, and Apple was within their rights to fire him, but it's still an unfortunate circumstance of the times.
There's a definite power imbalance when someone with a camera and a plan uses unsuspecting pedestrians as content.
The dude wasn’t under any pretense of not being filmed. He was being directly interviewed not just being overheard or surveilled casually cracking jokes with friends.
The cherry on top is that he was likely filmed by his company’s own product, no less.
Dude can’t feign ignorance, he’s just another rich asshole who thought he could get away with anything. People like that aren’t used to being told no or having their words result in consequences.
There is some major irony in calling the act of a wealthy person being held accountable for the things he says as a power imbalance, especially because the only reason the dude was interviewed was because he was conspicuously displaying his wealth on purpose to get attention.
Come on, the guy was wearing a turquoise suit driving an SLR McClaren ($750,000+ car)