4 ms·

Am I the only one who sees this as kids today using the iPhone for the same thing we used to use the Polaroid for? The technology has changed, but adolescent b

Am I the only one who sees this as kids today using the iPhone for the same thing we used to use the Polaroid for? The technology has changed, but adolescent behavior hasn't.

jariel 7y ago
You did not use your polaroid to take naked pics and send them to friends. Moreover, those polaroids were not viewable by the entire world on the internet.
mikepurvis 7y ago
A 4" square blurry Polaroid picture that can be shown to a select few friends and eventually lost or destroyed has nothing to do with a high resolution image that is trivially forwarded to the entire school by the recipient, acquired via hacking or social engineering, and can be manipulated with photoshop.
- jseliger 7y ago
  This thing that the doer perceives as harmless could be harmful. How will you know it's harmful? Because we arrest you for doing it! That's how you know it's harmful, because of the consequences we impose.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  A polaroid, or the artful b&w 10x8 developed in photography class can just as easily be passed round half a school in one break or lunch time, or left on teacher's desk. Or sent in to a 1990s Reader's Wives magazine, then publication would have come down to whether they looked school age or not. That it can spread wider, go viral, or be manipulated is a case against any electronic communication in place of paper or film photography. The choice to send it further is the problem not the medium.
  - mikepurvis 7y ago
    Right, but every student getting a glimpse of it as it goes by is completely different from everyone having the full-fidelity copy on their device permanently. And a magazine's editorial board being the gatekeeper on wide distribution is completely different from anyone who has it being able to pull the trigger at any time. If you really think these are in any way the same, you'll be shocked to hear what record companies thought about Napster in the early 2000s. Turns out sharing a digital file and sharing/copying a physical artifact are not even remotely the same. As tech people, we don't get to just wash our hands of these consequences and say that it's down to individual human choices any more than car companies can avoid building in safety features by saying they'd be unnecessary if only people were better drivers.

Am I the only one who sees this as kids today using the iPhone for the same thing we used to use the Polaroid for? The technology has changed, but adolescent behavior hasn't.

jariel 7y ago

You did not use your polaroid to take naked pics and send them to friends. Moreover, those polaroids were not viewable by the entire world on the internet.

mikepurvis 7y ago

A 4" square blurry Polaroid picture that can be shown to a select few friends and eventually lost or destroyed has nothing to do with a high resolution image that is trivially forwarded to the entire school by the recipient, acquired via hacking or social engineering, and can be manipulated with photoshop.

jseliger 7y ago
This thing that the doer perceives as harmless could be harmful. How will you know it's harmful? Because we arrest you for doing it! That's how you know it's harmful, because of the consequences we impose.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
A polaroid, or the artful b&w 10x8 developed in photography class can just as easily be passed round half a school in one break or lunch time, or left on teacher's desk. Or sent in to a 1990s Reader's Wives magazine, then publication would have come down to whether they looked school age or not. That it can spread wider, go viral, or be manipulated is a case against any electronic communication in place of paper or film photography. The choice to send it further is the problem not the medium.
- mikepurvis 7y ago
  Right, but every student getting a glimpse of it as it goes by is completely different from everyone having the full-fidelity copy on their device permanently. And a magazine's editorial board being the gatekeeper on wide distribution is completely different from anyone who has it being able to pull the trigger at any time. If you really think these are in any way the same, you'll be shocked to hear what record companies thought about Napster in the early 2000s. Turns out sharing a digital file and sharing/copying a physical artifact are not even remotely the same. As tech people, we don't get to just wash our hands of these consequences and say that it's down to individual human choices any more than car companies can avoid building in safety features by saying they'd be unnecessary if only people were better drivers.