No-one's saying that, those are two bold, unsupported assertions. Point number 1: Even if you stretch hard, the closest I can get is 'it wouldn't be permitted

No-one's saying that, those are two bold, unsupported assertions. Point number 1: Even if you stretch hard, the closest I can get is 'it wouldn't be permitted to take pictures of public spaces with people in who don't consent to being photographed and then share those on Twitter'. Point number 2: It is true that in some countries, you have no (legal) expectation of privacy in a public place. However, it's not universally true. Where I am, for example, in Hungary, actually something very similar to Twitter's new policy is the law[0]). Although there may be no LEGAL constraint where you live, perhaps you wouldn't want someone standing outside the local reproductive health or women's shelter photographing everyone who goes in and out. I certainly wouldn't. What I'm saying is that if someone has a photograph of me which I didn't consent to being in, then I think it's reasonable that if I object to them sharing they photo, then they should have the 'burden of proof' that they have a right to share. I don't think that 'burden of proof' needs to be particularly high, and 'oh, they're just in the background in my photo of the street' or 'I thought it might be interesting that they were snorting cocaine on the main street' is OK. The problem is that 'public spaces' and 'benefit of privacy' are terms that date back to before the internet. The trivial difficulty and cost of creating, processing, distributing, and cataloguing data through facial recognition, geolocation, etc. today means it's at least worth considering whether these laws are the best fit for our modern lives, rather than throwing out criticisms as though one specific law is both written in stone and applies everywhere. [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/14/hungary-law-photography-permission-take-pictures https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/14/hungary-law-ph...