4 ms·
I don't like the idea of everything now being centralised under the control of Instagram/Facebook/Zuckerberg, but the concept of giving the control away from th
by rkachowski 7y ago
I don't like the idea of everything now being centralised under the control of Instagram/Facebook/Zuckerberg, but the concept of giving the control away from the paparazzi and their invasive up skirt photography and back to the people they harass is a pretty nice switch.
There's something to be said about the desire for celebrity news being better satiated with a direct line to the person rather than a third party tabloid. I guess fake news and outrage based clickbate is now the modern incarnation of the tabloid trying to shift copies with celeb photos and gossip.
- Quarrelsome 7y agoI'd imagine the switch will be temporary at best. It won't take long for powerbrokers to put up shop yet again in another decade or two once they find a USP.
- senorjazz 7y ago> It won't take long for powerbrokers to put up shop yet again in another decade or two once they find a USP. just like the radio power players of the 20century?
- Quarrelsome 7y agoif we're talking about talk-radio then that's somewhat similar. But I'd imagine some of the pioneers of insta-celeb today will translate into gatekeepers of tomorrow.
- zozbot234 7y agoI have to assume that the "invasiveness" of paparazzi is greatly overstated - a game that some tabloid stars and celebrities are willingly signing up for, in exchange for free publicity of sorts. Because if that weren't the case, you'd see people being sued for harassment, invasion of privacy etc. all over the place, and that just doesn't seem to happen.
- toyg 7y agoLaws in most countries allow for "public interest", more or less precisely defined, so even people who want to opt-out of the game are typically unable to do so. Even the UK royal family, who do often sue, are not always able to stop the paparazzi. The UK phone-hacking story resulted in a massive trial but didn't really stop anyone from hammering the likes of Emma Watson.
- laumars 7y agoIt does happen a lot however it's usually from celebrities who can afford to have a separation of a personal and private life. ie people who's career might be in the public eye but they're career isn't solely based on the fact they're famous (eg sports personalities, actors, musicians, businessmen of household brands). Where as celebrities who's day job is being a celebrity (eg appearing on "reality" or celebrity game shows) need the publicity because their fame is their product. So for all but the most extreme cases, suing paparazzi would be a bit of a footgun move considering they're often dependant on that free advertising to remain in the public conciousness.
- C1sc0cat 7y agoReally you know what "monstering " is some celebs think the tabs will hack your pc and upload CP. And the tabloids killed Diana, an they're going after Her son and Meghan at the moment
- watwut 7y agoFree speech and public interest laws prevent those lawsuits. Paparazzi do know where enforced legal line is exactly.
- laumars 7y ago"Fake news" and outrage based headlines have existed long before Instagram was a thing.
- 9nGQluzmnq3M 7y agoTikTok is exploding worldwide and already claims 1.5B users. We may yet find ourselves pining for the benevolent dictatorship of Zuck if its successor is controlled by the Chinese state...
- te_chris 7y agoWhich would be just another one of his own character failures if, due to not taking criticism seriously, he let that happen.
- concordDance 7y agoI don't think much of the criticism directed at Facebook has been about them not putting in enough effort to expand their market share. Am I wrong?
- te_chris 7y agoComment I was replying to mentioned that we'd be swapping Lord Zuck for the CCP as our unaccountable overlords, was replying to that.