Hacker News Reader

Comment by parallelist | Hacker News Reader

It still demonstrates a lack of concern for the privacy of the people you overheard

what? People talking in public places have privacy?

I’m not sure if you are being ironic but just in case you aren’t:

Imagine you’re in a store, waiting at the checkout, having a conversation with your SO that has revealed some key difference of opinion on a topic that affects your relationship. You’re having the conversation in a public place not because the subject matter is public but because that’s where you happen to be at the time and the conversation is important to you and your SO. Now imagine the person who has been standing behind you in line doing something on their phone interrupts you and says "Your conversation is hilarious, I’m live tweeting it as you speak, please carry on" with a big grin on their face. How would you feel about that?

I actually knew a guy who used to do exactly that, back before he got his nose broken. I was curious about that; he was awfully vague about the circumstances, but allowed as how it'd happened in a Safeway checkstand line. As may be, the experience did wonders for his circumspection and consideration of others. Didn't help him much, of course, this being the same fellow who used to say that enforcing other people's marriage vows was no concern of his, which worked great for him right up until he got shot. Quite a funeral, that was -- I never in my life saw so many flower arrangements around a casket, or so few with cards attached.

Thank you for the example, it's hard to understand that so many people cannot come up with such scenarios. They are proving a total lack of empathy.

I would feel extremely embarrassed and stupid at having carried out such a private conversation in a place where people could obviously overhear me, and would take care not to do so again.

Why? The purpose of embarrassment, as I understand it, is to create emotional significance for something that negatively affects others. So unless you are talking about something vulgar or being offensive you haven’t done anything socially remiss.

This isn’t to say I condone live tweeting of behavior that is socially remiss. In those instances one should think carefully about how to influence that person to do better. Humiliating them on social network is not it. You lose any moral high ground the second you do that. Personally speaking I also think very carefully about whether it is worth my time.

Of course, it can be embarrassing, but sometimes you are too emotional to not carry it out instantly. This display of humanity should not be frowned upon, but sympathetically ignored. If a real mental breakdown occurs, we should even get involved and help each other instead of posting it on twitter. Your victim blaming doesn't make it right, it just shows a lack of empathy.

Are you calling the woman abusing a flight attendant and the couple loudly breaking up on a rooftop "victims", or are you just referring to the more mundane events?

Of course they are victims. Only because somebody does something, which might be annoying or in case of Diane offending (for the flight personnel), does not mean they become outlawed and can be rightfully, publicly and globally punished for their missteps by anyone who likes to do so.

I think you only see black and white instead of the whole spectrum of the human condition.

I really don't get it, so: victims of what?

I'm guessing the answer is something like "public shaming", in which case this does not make sense to me. It's like saying that a person who hits himself on the thumb with a hammer is a victim of assault and battery. They caused their own public shaming when they made a public spectacle of themselves. The tweeters just magnified it. It would have happened even without them.

In your example the hammer is controlled by yourself, while there are always other people behind public humiliation. When somebody hits you with the hammer (humiliates you in public), is this your own fault? You really blame the victims here. You say it's their own fault for being picked on, but this is simply not the case. They had a bad day, that does not justify anything. The state is for punishment. Do you blame rape victims for being attractive and for wearing "risky" clothes?

Well, I'll explain my thinking and maybe you can tell me where you think I got it wrong without resorting to bad analogies involving rape.

Public shaming requires two elements: a shameful act, and an audience.

The shameful act is usually provided by the person in question. I say "usually" because there are cases where people are shamed for rumors or outright lies. I think we can both agree that, in this case, the person provided it themselves.

The audience, in acts usually considered to be "public shaming", is provided by a second party. That is, the shameful act would have been private, but then another party brought it to light by providing an audience.

In this case, the audience was already there by virtue of the environment in which the person carried out their shameful act. The tweeters enlarged this audience, but they did not provide it as might have been the case if they had been tweeting a private conversation. Even without them, these people would have still shown their shame to a couple hundred other people.

Note that I am not saying they "deserved" this treatment or anything like that, I'm just saying that they made it happen themselves. The people everybody is getting angry at for posting the events weren't even necessary for it.

In the case of the couple who talk about their relationship on their balcony, there is no audience they realize and no shameful act. Just a private conversation _made_ public. Like somebody photographing you (just you) pissing on a tree without your knowledge. When the photographer publishes this photo in a newspaper it is illegal and unethical.

  I'm just saying that they made it happen themselves.
  The people everybody is getting angry at for posting
  the events weren't even necessary for it.

This is were I disagree. Diane behaved badly, but she didn't pick a fight with the whole world. The people who publicize the events are necessary for it. They are essential for the public shaming. Without them it would be just a short story some passengers would have told their families and friends. Something Diane would probably be ok with. By tweeting this, it is like Diane has acted in front of a dozen journalists who take photos while laughing at her. It's a malicious act, like a hidden camera to make everybody laugh at her.

Shouting on a balcony is not something a reasonable person thinks cannot be overheard by huge numbers of surrounding people.

As for the rest, I guess that's that. You see a qualitative difference between embarrassing yourself in a crowd and embarrassing yourself in a crowd and online, while I only see a quantitative difference.

@Shouting on a balcony: They even thought about this possibility loudly (see the article). It is pretty unethical to not say anything when you know they don't want you to hear them, especially when it's about private stuff and you are planning to post it on twitter.

@Quality of shame: I think it's more about the audience you as a person expect. Everybody would behave differently when we know we might be watched by the whole internet. Did you ever watch "The Truman Show"?

Another thing I don't get: how is it possible to "know they don't want you to hear them" when they're shouting in public? The very act indicates that they don't care about being heard. If they didn't want you to hear them, they would have gone inside.

From #roofbreakup:

"I don't think we need to talk about this up here with some random guy over there." -guy (uh oh, I'm that guy over here)

"He's just sitting on his fucking phone he doesn't care (talking about me). Answer my question." -girl

But he does care, he sneakily extends the audience to such an extent, both persons obviously wouldn't agree with. He is one reason why it will be more and more uncomfortable to have conversations in spaces, that are originally meant for people and their human needs.

see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6827715 & https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6827592

Of course they do, just as people walking around in public can have a sensible expectation of not being filmed or photographed randomly.

Interestingly, (to me) this is not an expectation I share, nor is it one I expected others to have. I assume my actions in public are captured by any number of shop cams, police cams, and tourist videos/photos and just straight iPhones being used for whatever.

I'll note, that unlike others I this conversation have speculated, I'm not young, but I do live in a city - Seattle.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com