3 ms·

I think they describe it pretty accurately. The idea here is that the face is fake and propped up and pretty identical between “top” users of instagram. That’s

I think they describe it pretty accurately. The idea here is that the face is fake and propped up and pretty identical between “top” users of instagram. That’s a bit worrying.

klodolph 7y ago
It may be worrying but it’s not new. What we got from magazines in the 1980s and 1990s is found on Instagram and YouTube in 2020. Now, what’s fun is digging up an old magazine and making fun of it with some friends. You can occasionally find one on Imgur or the Internet Archive.
- illinx 7y ago
  It doesn't seem like you read the article, which is about two specific technologies which did not exist in the 80's and 90's.
  - campee 7y ago
    So instead they just hired people who looked a specific way instead of using technology to make them all look a specific way.
  - klodolph 7y ago
    I read the article. We obviously have very different interpretations, but I’m unsure why you think my comment doesn’t make sense. Could you clarify?
  - dang 7y ago
    "Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."" https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - ossworkerrights 7y ago
      I didn't comment on wether someone read the article. I stated that the description is accurate enough for it not to mandate a picture.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - dang 7y ago
        I was not replying to you, but rather to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21776078 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21776078. Probably you were confused by that comment being [dead], and assumed that I was replying to your adjacent one instead. This happens from time to time, and I'm not sure how best to eliminate the confusion.
- ossworkerrights 7y ago
  I agree, the reason i find it worrying tho is because of the lack of diversity. the massive reach means even more people will have a uniform set of standards.
- cafard 7y ago
  Years ago, Esquire put Michelle Pfeiffer on the cover, with the headline "For the Woman Who Needs Absolutely Nothing". A little later, Harpers published the retoucher's bill for that photograph, to the great amusement of many. You could look it up at https://harpers.org/archive/1991/01/what-michelle-pfeiffer-needs/ https://harpers.org/archive/1991/01/what-michelle-pfeiffer-n..., but you'll have to pay.

I think they describe it pretty accurately. The idea here is that the face is fake and propped up and pretty identical between “top” users of instagram. That’s a bit worrying.

klodolph 7y ago

It may be worrying but it’s not new. What we got from magazines in the 1980s and 1990s is found on Instagram and YouTube in 2020. Now, what’s fun is digging up an old magazine and making fun of it with some friends. You can occasionally find one on Imgur or the Internet Archive.

illinx 7y ago
It doesn't seem like you read the article, which is about two specific technologies which did not exist in the 80's and 90's.
- campee 7y ago
  So instead they just hired people who looked a specific way instead of using technology to make them all look a specific way.
- klodolph 7y ago
  I read the article. We obviously have very different interpretations, but I’m unsure why you think my comment doesn’t make sense. Could you clarify?
- dang 7y ago
  "Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."" https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - ossworkerrights 7y ago
    I didn't comment on wether someone read the article. I stated that the description is accurate enough for it not to mandate a picture.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - dang 7y ago
      I was not replying to you, but rather to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21776078 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21776078. Probably you were confused by that comment being [dead], and assumed that I was replying to your adjacent one instead. This happens from time to time, and I'm not sure how best to eliminate the confusion.
ossworkerrights 7y ago
I agree, the reason i find it worrying tho is because of the lack of diversity. the massive reach means even more people will have a uniform set of standards.
cafard 7y ago
Years ago, Esquire put Michelle Pfeiffer on the cover, with the headline "For the Woman Who Needs Absolutely Nothing". A little later, Harpers published the retoucher's bill for that photograph, to the great amusement of many. You could look it up at https://harpers.org/archive/1991/01/what-michelle-pfeiffer-needs/ https://harpers.org/archive/1991/01/what-michelle-pfeiffer-n..., but you'll have to pay.