Technology

59605 readers

6078 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[Tech Ethics] They Didn’t Ask to Go Viral. Posting on Social Media Without Consent Is Immoral (web.archive.org)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by Elephant0991@lemmy.bleh.au to c/technology@lemmy.world

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Summary

The article discusses the problem of non-consensual sharing of strangers' images and videos on social media platforms.
It highlights how people sometimes exploit strangers for viral content without considering the potential harm caused.
The author emphasizes the need for consent before posting someone's image or video and calls for a shift in societal norms regarding online privacy.
There is a French law that entitles child influencers to demand that platforms scrub all trace of them once they turn 16.
The article suggests that platforms could implement tools to obtain consent from strangers before posting content featuring them.
Ultimately, the author argues that treating strangers with respect and obtaining their consent should become the standard in online interactions to foster a more ethical and civil internet culture.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Marsupial@quokk.au -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

When you’re in public, the understanding is that you’re not in private.

It’s been this way for almost a century of photography now.

So much contemporary world history would not exist without photographs being taken without consent.

[–] Delphia@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Theres some ragebait youtuber who goes up to strangers, stands about 4 or 5 feet away and just starts filming them. If they tell him not to he keeps filming, if they walk away he follows them, if they go to a cop he just walks off and if they smack him in the face he presses charges and sues... and he posts their reactions to his filming as his content.

The existing laws on photography in public are like you said, about a century old. They arent written with almost the entire first world having a hd camcorder on them at all times. They predate any form of mass communication short of the newspaper.

Id argue that something has to be done, im not sure what but the laws are out of date, it should not be legal for youtube "pranksters" to not blur peoples faces without getting release forms and then profiting off the content.

[–] Marsupial@quokk.au 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's literal harassment.

It's pretty disingenuous to ban one action because of a separate behaviour; Like saying we shouldn't allow people to eat food in public because there's a youtuber who eats meat in front of vegans.

[–] Delphia@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah I agree that example borders on harassment. But also the line on just how much filming of someone in public, what they are doing, why the filming is taking place, etc, is currently not very well defined from a legal perspective. Thats the point. At what point does someones right to film or take photographs in public become harassment or a violation of the privacy of other people? Thats what needs to be examined.

[–] Marsupial@quokk.au 1 points 1 year ago

It’s not about a point, it’s about the intent.