3 ms·
It seems like the right word in this context. It sounds like you have an issue with the word for some reason, but I can't work out what the issue is, much less
by chc 9y ago
It seems like the right word in this context. It sounds like you have an issue with the word for some reason, but I can't work out what the issue is, much less how it shows a lack of journalistic integrity.
- tw1010 9y agoIt is definitely not a grammatically incorrect use of the word. I have nothing against it per se. But the word is almost exclusively associated to negative emotional content, and that fact primes the reader to feel a certain way about the issue before they have even read the piece. See Russell conjugation: https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27181 https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27181
- chc 9y agoHow would you phrase it that communicates "without consent" without that sounding like a potentially bad thing?
- tw1010 9y agoA more neutral candidate could be just: "Is It Legal to Swap Someone’s Face into Porn?" (It delivers the same information since it wouldn't be a legal question if all participants agreed to the act.)
- Slansitartop 9y agoI kinda see where he's coming from. There's a lot of negative charge around the phrase "without their consent," to the point where it primes and automatic "no" response that might cloud a discussion of the actual issues. There a lot of stuff that people should rightly be able to do without an affected person's consent (such as leaving a negative review of their work), but having framing that centers on "consent" obscures that.