3 ms·
Eh, it really doesn't do much but smooth skin. I'd rather a client/vendor/coworker not be distracted if someone on the call has big nasty pimples, and I'd rath
by fjp 7y ago
Eh, it really doesn't do much but smooth skin.
I'd rather a client/vendor/coworker not be distracted if someone on the call has big nasty pimples, and I'd rather have a coworker with big nasty pimples feel more comfortable getting on a video call.
- godelski 7y agoI think there's hard to draw boundaries. Small burnishes I think everyone would be okay with a touch-up. But on the other hand large changes people will feel deceived if they meet that person irl. The difficult is in the middle, which is going to have some distribution of perception of deception. I think this is different than touching up models because we never end up seeing their true form. Though I remember when the fappening happened a lot of people mentioned how they felt better about themselves after seeing these people's true selves.
- aloer 7y agoThe existence of the feature is not a problem, that’s just where technology is heading. For individual use it could be enabled, if desired But it being made default and thereby de facto saying that everyone needs it is absurd. There is no way that something like this is not damaging to society in the long run
- zimmund 7y agoI wonder, however, if smoothing skin makes for a lighter (compressed) image, resulting in bandwidth savings. We don't need to see skin details in a work conversation, just expressions. Perhaps the feature should just be renamed/rebranded to something like "smartly reduce image details to save bandwidth"?