31 ms·

Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent

• kingofthehacker 4y ago
  let me know whne u need help # brozaza cpt jsisnsinu sbnsun sjusnmudj[fyghgp9drhgerrhierfierf
• egberts1 4y ago
  “Clickbait”, spoken by a someone who has no social media account. Yeah, right. Something smells.
• savolai 4y ago
  I feel the wheel of consent is a wonderful tool for making sense of such situations. Who is actually giving and who is receiving? Did both parties agree to? https://www.wheelofconsent.coach/what-is-the-wheel-of-consent/ https://www.wheelofconsent.coach/what-is-the-wheel-of-consen...
  • bloopernova 4y ago
    508 resource limit reached. https://web.archive.org/web/20210801103538/https://www.wheelofconsent.coach/what-is-the-wheel-of-consent/ https://web.archive.org/web/20210801103538/https://www.wheel...
• vmchale 4y ago
  Depictions of oneself are part of your identity, but the only way to control such things is via copyright, which is assigned to the person filming. Could really use some new laws here.
  • hef19898 4y ago
    If a person is the main subject of a picture, the photographer (or videographer) needa consent of the model to use that image or vidoe. Already under current law in most places. And most legitimate publishers ask for proof of consent when buying, before publishing such pictures. That social media firms don't care is not a big surprise. Edit: And that influencers think they are above existing laws when it comes to consent ain't a big surprise neither. I agree with the woman here, handing stuff to people that don't want it, lying to them about being filmed and using the footage for petty self promotion and monetary gain is the opposite of kindness. In fact it is borderline abbusive.
    • throwaway0a5e 4y ago
      "Just enforce the existing laws in a reasonable manner" seems to be the solution to a lot of problems these days.
      • mysterydip 4y ago
        "We're going to do what we already should be doing" doesn't get re-election votes the same way "I made a new law to address this" does.
        • JumpCrisscross 4y ago
          > "We're going to do what we already should be doing" doesn't get re-election votes the same way "I made a new law to address this" does In most systems, legislators have smaller constituencies than the executives. No President or Prime Minister will swing meaningful votes by prioritizing enforcement of consent-to-be-photographed laws. But an MP or Congressperson with an off-year primary projected to be within a 1,000-vote margin might find those 50 or 60 extra votes helpful. That said, the ordinary course would be for said legislator to compel the executive to enforce. Not to write more laws. (The latter being easier to do, easier to message and less prone to backfiring.)
    • Dracophoenix 4y ago
      I can't speak for Australia, but in the United States, there is generally no right to privacy in a public area. The model consent forms are more of a CYA than a legal requirement. It's useful as evidence to dismiss charges rather than go through the hassle and expense of a full trial. In addition, requiring the consent of people in public places would make it difficult for individuals to record illegal conduct committed by others, especially law enforcement.
      • pessimizer 4y ago
        > make it difficult for individuals to record illegal conduct committed by others, especially law enforcement. The states have had no difficulty in specifically making it illegal to record law enforcement, so they understand exceptions. You can easily require consent from people while as an institution giving consent for law enforcement to be filmed.
  • docdeek 4y ago
    It depends on the country. Filming someone in public where they are the subject of the video (or photo) without their consent is illegal in France. If this had been recorded in France instead of Australia, the rights of the subject (the woman) to her image would trump any right to film in a public place of a Tiktok creator.
    • hirundo 4y ago
      Derek Chauvin would appreciate that.
      • makoto12 4y ago
        I don't think the solution to police brutality is to sacrifice the the privacy of an entire nation.
      • brokenodometer 4y ago
        This law does not apply to filming the police. See the authoritative French government interpretation here: http://www.montpellier-journal.fr/fichiers/circulairephotospolice.pdf http://www.montpellier-journal.fr/fichiers/circulairephotosp... And see here where the French Constitutional Council struck down a law that would have criminalized filming with the intent to cause harassment of officers: https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210520-french-court-blocks-police-filming-ban-in-macron-security-law https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210520-french-court-...
        • hirundo 4y ago
          What would the legal status of the video be if it also contained images of George Floyd?
    • shikoba 4y ago
      I have recently checked and it's absolutely legal to film someone in public. You're just not allowed to diffuse it.
  • jeroenhd 4y ago
    In the Netherlands there's such a thing as "portretrecht" that gives people the right to not be depicted in public. Recording in public areas is usually allowed, but you can't just distribute your recordings centered around people without their consent or making them unrecognisable. More often than not, though, this law is only applied after the damage has already been done. Adding some hefty fines to these cases might convince the Tiktok/YouTube crowd to stay clear of the risk, though. It's far from a clear cut law, if you just appear in the corner of a frame or in the background you'd have a hard time winning any lawsuits, but in this case I think the deck would be stacked against the Tiktoker pretty unfavourably. Personally, I think it's offensive how often these social media posters will use other people for their profits. Doing tricks in front of the camera is a fine way to make some cash or get famous, but when you start filming interactions with other people just for social media clout it's disgusting, narcissistic behaviour. This isn't some fun event that happend spontaneously, this is a planned, well thought out video shoot that puts a stranger in the center of attention in world where any moderate amount of attention can result in death threats from strangers across the globe.
• autaut 4y ago
  I don’t know if it’s news but she’s kinda right in calling it out for how fake and sinister these trends are and how these people profit from them
  • highwaylights 4y ago
    It's the TikTok-effect in action I guess. I had a fun experience with the Instagram-effect recently. I tried to visit an arboretum earlier this year (don't judge me, it's interesting!) and I couldn't get near the viewing platform because someone had a crew lighting their shots for Instagram. They asked me to wait for a couple of minutes to get finished, which I did. Ten minutes later a crowd had built up on the ramp and I just pushed past and said "all right good work today everyone we got what we need that's a wrap!". It's nuts. It's also weirdly disturbing to me that the presence of someone with an expensive looking camera was enough for a lot of them to just walk on past instead of enjoying the day out they paid for.
    • yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
      > I tried to visit an arboretum earlier this year (don't judge me, it's interesting!) Why would you be judged for that? Botanical gardens are great.
    • mihaic 4y ago
      I've actually become a bit of a dick in these situations since a trip to Italy, and every time I see a large camera in a public place I walk in front of it on purpose. I'm a naturally nice guy, but these people were making my vacation less enjoyable for no reason, and I felt an instinctive urge to ruin their experience as well.
      • hef19898 4y ago
        There is a difference between the social.media selfie photographers and those people trying to take nice pictures of beautiful places. A big camera usually points at tue latter, phones and lighting and whatnot at the former.
• CPLX 4y ago
  It’s not that hard to just say that the idea of creating huge monetary incentives to harass, interrupt, or just distract people in public was a bad idea.
  • dwringer 4y ago
    To me it just seems like a lighthearted prank which resulted in giving flowers to someone who appears in need of cheering up. It's something that could easily have been on any comedy TV show of the last 30 years. And I think there's always been a monetary incentive; Candid Camera first aired in 1948.
    • soylentcola 4y ago
      But I'd imagine that Candid Camera required "participants" to sign a release. Same for those "Funniest Home Videos" and even stuff like Borat (and Tom Green, etc. before him).
    • ABoredBirb 4y ago
      Were they also in need of being filmed and put in front of a large audience against their wishes, whilst being portrayed as old and sad?
      • deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    • PeterWhittaker 4y ago
      The filming may be candid, but to air, the subject must sign a waiver. Whether the subjects were compensated for agreeing to the airing of the footage is a different Q.
    • prepend 4y ago
      Candid Camera acquired consent and revealed the cameras as part of the joke. It would have been such a sinister show if they never revealed it was a joke and never got permission to distribute the video.
• chrisseaton 4y ago
  > the video was “designed to spread love and compassion” Hmmm.... seems more likely designed to get engagement. Presumably he doesn't love the woman, as he doesn't know anything at all about her, so that one is a lie for a start. And I guess he doesn't feel any compassion for her either, as he hasn't taken it down without forcing her to contact him, which she probably doesn't want to do.
  • titzer 4y ago
    The irony is it that shows the exact opposite of love and compassion. Self-aggrandizement and no regard for others, motivated only by the needs of self, and didn't even spend an extra second with her beyond what was required to execute this vapid stunt.
    • highwaylights 4y ago
      I don't want to tar an entire generation with the same brush, but I have noticed that younger people seem to be really taken in with these very shallow like-farming operations on YouTube and TikTok. Mr Beast is incredibly successful at this, in that his stunts produce massive numbers for very little outlay. A friend's kid in his teens was telling me about how he's the most generous person he's ever seen and it make me wince a little as I really don't want to be that guy and wade into it with a "well, actually". Social media has made the world an incredibly vapid place.
      • YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
        I don't think it's a generational thing, but a social media thing, and I think it looks like it's representative of "everybody" when in truth it's representative of the people who are more active on social media, which should be a small proportion of the general population. I hope anyway.
      • Nextgrid 4y ago
        This has also decreased the quality of content online in general since everything appears to be optimized for idiots with a 5-second attention span. Whether it’s TikTok videos with that awful TTS voiceover reading the caption (I can read it myself, thanks) or YouTube videos that now always start with a ~5 seconds extract which spoils the entire video, or gaming videos with insufferable personalities. Oh and don’t forget to subscribe and hit the notification bell!
• unsupp0rted 4y ago
  > “It’s the patronising assumption that … older women will be thrilled by some random stranger giving them flowers.” > She said she had ask whether she was being filmed, and was told “no”. She also said she offered the flowers back to Pawluk.
• Waterluvian 4y ago
  TikTok and Instagram are fascinating to me. I got on the latter less than a year ago and seem to have “used up” all the decent content. There are some content generators that still do a good job. But it’s loaded with a whole spectrum of operators who are simply trying to game the system. Yesterday on my timeline was a video of a machine in a factory in China that rotates a drum 180 degrees. It had a million views and 30k likes. I’ve never seen the signal to noise ratio anywhere this terrible for any other social media app.
  • the_only_law 4y ago
    > I’ve never seen the signal to noise ratio anywhere this terrible for any other social media app. Sign out of YouTube and see what's "popular".
    • toastercat 4y ago
      Ha, don't remind me. I went as far as adding custom styles via Stylus to hide all "recommended" videos as well.
  • Graffur 4y ago
    > and seem to have “used up” all the decent content What does this mean? Instagram is used for current content.
  • preommr 4y ago
    > I’ve never seen the signal to noise ratio anywhere this terrible for any other social media app. Is the tide finally turning? Even a few months ago people were making superlative claims about how insanely good tiktok's recommendation system is. People claiming it's never-seen-before levels of addictivness. My experience has been a lot more mediocre.
    • kcb 4y ago
      Every post about TikTok seems to have a very similar comment about how all the content is positive and it makes them feel great. And it's recommendations are perfect not like those western social media apps that are bad and negative. It's weird.
• macns 4y ago
  > He wholeheartedly apologises to Maree if she was offended by what he did and urges her to contact him privately so he can personally apologise. > If she requests him to take down the video he will do that. The video should've been taken down already.
  • scotty79 4y ago
    Honest thing to do would be to disclose the profits from the video and share it with her.
    • starfallg 4y ago
      The honest thing to do would be to donate any profits to charity and make a real apology. Sharing profits would just encourage this type of distasteful behaviour that social media seems to be encouraging.
    • fastball 4y ago
      Aren't the profits from TikTok videos still approximately "fuck all"?
      • fragmede 4y ago
        Who knows how much the average TikTok star makes, but the higher end are making bank. Like $500k/yr https://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-money-tiktokers-make-real-creator-examples-2021-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-money-tiktokers-mak...
  • usrusr 4y ago
    You assume that she would request the video taken down. But she might have realized that from her perspective, the damage is already done and she would gain nothing from the video being taken down. And would very much prefer him to get his share of unwanted attention as well (e.g. making it all the way to the hn frontpage)
    • Closi 4y ago
• drakonka 4y ago
  The video itself was quite off-putting when I first saw it. He didn't even just kindly offer her flowers. He _tricked_ her into taking them by making it sound like he just wanted her to hold them for him. She was actually being kind to him by doing him a favor, and then he basically ran away and stuck her with them. That's not kind at all, it's pushy and exploitative. As someone who doesn't usually like to accept gifts from random strangers, I'd be really put off and uncomfortable; and that's before taking into consideration the fact that it was filmed and put online for people to gawk at.
  • naillo 4y ago
    It's funny how these videos say they're intended to spread love and encourage random acts of kindness, but the actual effect of them is decreasing trust in strangers (that they might be filming us for their tiktok). This makes me not trust anyone that goes up to me in the street.
    • headsoup 4y ago
      I would like to ask this tiktok guy how often he does his random acts of kindness without the camera rolling...
      • hef19898 4y ago
        His spokespeople will be happy to answer that question for him.
        • ushakov 4y ago
          why the hell does a TikToker need a spokesperson at all? ego boost?
          • powerhour 4y ago
            Same reason I have someone change my oil -- I don't want to spend the time myself, I can afford it, and they'll probably do a better job.
• whitecrow90 4y ago
  the cringe level of him going there and disturbing her for a video , i would have a panic attack if i was recorded like this
  • i_like_apis 4y ago
    I also cringed, at the implication that she must have been having a bad day ... why? Because she was eating alone? Or visibly suffering in some way? Such a rude thing to "help" someone minding their own business.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• prepend 4y ago
  I thought media releases were required for image rights before video could be commercialized? I always find these videos cheesy and fake and assumed they had received legal permission (if not hired actors to pose). If these jerks are filming and posing unwilling participants in their product, that seems pretty easy to remedy. I remember a few years ago pornhub had a decision to get positive consent from people in videos to prevent revenge porn and other types of content. I guess TikTok needs something similar for videos with1M+ views. It seems TikTokpays out between 2 and 4 cents per thousand views [0]. So if this video has 59M views it seems the creator made between $1,180 and $2,360. So should be a simple small claims lawsuit. Maybe add in treble damages. What would be really fun is to use the messed up class action lawsuit apparatus to create a class of victims that are in these videos that are uncompensated and just sue TikTok directly. I like how the creator offered to take the video down, if asked. No apology and no offer to give back the money he made from the video. [0] https://www.thetealmango.com/technology/how-much-does-tiktok-pay/ https://www.thetealmango.com/technology/how-much-does-tiktok...
  • naillo 4y ago
    If you film in public places (depending on the country) it's often legal. Still really rude though and should be socially discouraged.
    • strogonoff 4y ago
      Public spaces like malls require a permit/location release for a commercial shoot on the property, and social media is increasingly commercial. I would be surprised if there were no lawsuits to this effect yet.
      • nkozyra 4y ago
        I don't think there's much case for a lawsuit. The mall has a right to kick you out for doing so but once it's done there's not much legal recourse in the U.S.
        • 4y ago
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• ls15 4y ago
  > “So far Harrison has only encountered gratitude for what he has done, however it is clear in this case someone is upset. He wholeheartedly apologises to Maree if she was offended by what he did and urges her to contact him privately so he can personally apologise. If she requests him to take down the video he will do that.” 59m views. What about the money?
  • hef19898 4y ago
    Money? It's all about love and gratitude, Harrison clearly isn't interested in such shallow things as money.
  • dr_orpheus 4y ago
    This statement from the spokesperson just reads to me as "we are doing as little as possible about this". If this...if that...not actually proactively doing anything unless they really get pressured to do it.
• megous 4y ago
  I wouldn't hold any flowers or anything really for any stranger in public. I've been to touristy places before and learned this lesson just by observation. High likelyhood some pressure style selling tactics would follow. Really, putting things on the groud or some other higher surface to free your hands should be a basic human skill by now.
  • groovybits 4y ago
    Very common in NYC. Someone on the street will ask you to "have something" or "check out something I'm giving away for free", acting as if it is a gift. As you walk away with said thing, that person will accuse you of stealing and use it as means for a physical altercation.
    • turdnagel 4y ago
      I'm not sure why someone would do this just to start a physical altercation which seems more likely to get someone in trouble for seemingly no reason. What I've actually seen in NYC is people offering something like a "mix CD" and then ask you for money once you take it.
      • dymk 4y ago
        I see this often in Seattle, especially near the tourist attracting areas. I had a friend get sniped by it and they ended up arguing with the scammer for 20 minutes. Absolute waste of everybody’s energy, I’m surprised it’s not treated as a form of harassment by the authorities.
  • MandieD 4y ago
    "Don't accept roses from strangers in Italy" was travel wisdom at least back as far as the mid-Oughts - the gambit there was a seeming well-wisher (often a child) handing a woman a rose, and then an accomplice badgering her male companion to pay for it and then resentfully yanking it back when he refused.
• nonrandomstring 4y ago
  The reason this act breaks a moral boundary is that it subverts a principle of "ends" [1]. A genuine random act of kindness cannot occur if it's being filmed. Filming the act turns it into a virtue display. It also turns the subject into an object of utility, a means and not and end in themself. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Ends https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Ends
  • TheDudeMan 4y ago
    Even liking and sharing these videos is virtue signaling.
  • duxup 4y ago
    I dunno I disagree. Something can be kind and filmed. The issue here is how it plays out the person gifted isn’t more than a prop.
    • IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
      I think the wikipedia article from OP makes a strong point that you may have missed. Notice the wording "ENDS" That would modify your statement as follows : Something can be kind and filmed (provided.. ENDS). OR restating your sentence: "Something can be kind and filmed provided filming was not the goal of the kindness, and in fact filming was entirely unintended and unexpected"
      • silicon2401 4y ago
        I agree much more with your wording of the idea, though I still believe 100% it's possible to do something kind with the intention of filming it. If someone wants to donate a million dollars to me they're welcome to film it on a million cameras if they want
        • phpisthebest 4y ago
          The flip side here is agreement on both sides, for me that is the moral question. Not that it was filmed, but that all parties should agreed to the filming. Prearranging to film giving you a million dollars, is very different from just showing up an putting camera's in your face with out your foreknowledge or consent
• taylorius 4y ago
  She should have chucked them in a bin, and given the finger while the camera lingered to capture the "love and kindness". Now there's a viral video.
  • hef19898 4y ago
    Maybe that's a new trend! Like punching scary clowns and scare pranksters...
• baxtr 4y ago
  I feel for this women. It is not right to do something like that without her consent. Then again I wonder: Is this a new phenomenon? Weren’t these kind of jokes normal for certain TV shows? And now they have made their way into social media?
  • sjamaan 4y ago
    AFAIK the "candid camera"-like TV shows would approach the people afterwards and ask for permission to use the footage. They probably did it only because otherwise they'd get sued into oblivion.
  • schroeding 4y ago
    But there is a difference: There were only so many "street comedy" shows, but there is a way bigger pool of potential social media content creators. And, at least here in Germany, they always got permission after the bit and either did not send it if permission was refused or at least blurred the face. Ain't so for social media comedians. :/
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • hef19898 4y ago
    Those TV shows asked for written consent afterwards and didn't (usually, sure there are exceptions over all those years) air footage without it. Wouodn't kill influencers and the like to do same would it?
  • upupandup 4y ago
    Virtue signaling has taken off after the me me me culture took off on social media.
• Invictus0 4y ago
  Nothing wrong with the video imo, if people think it's stupid that's just their opinion. When you're in public anything goes. The place this went wrong is that they lied to her about being filmed and didn't get her consent: but on the other hand, no one expects security camera operators to get consent either.
  • micromacrofoot 4y ago
    There might be a case for calling this kind of video "commercial use" to help someone profit off of views. In many places that requires a signed release from the subject of the video. Security footage isn't generally used to advertise a product or person.
  • justin66 4y ago
    > When you're in public anything goes. There's a rule of thumb I hope doesn't catch on.
    • Invictus0 4y ago
      What's your stance then? That it should be illegal to speak to people in public?
      • strix_varius 4y ago
        What an absurd take. Are you really so confused?
        • Invictus0 4y ago
          Quite confused. Please explain.
          • strix_varius 4y ago
            Sure: > That it should be illegal to speak to people in public? The error here has nothing to do with people speaking to one another in public. Of all the strawmen you could choose for why people find fault with this behavior, that's the least realistic.
• jonnycomputer 4y ago
  I sort of feel compelled to quote the Bible here, though I'm not religious. "So when you give to the needy, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do ... to be honored by men. Truly I tell you, they already have their full reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." Matthew 6
  • Graffur 4y ago
    Reminds me of when I was a child and my very religious Aunt and Uncles would slip me a 5 pound note without saying anything and without it being obvious to my parents :)
    • JackFr 4y ago
      I had an aunt and uncle felt it was crass to give money as a gift, and that also it was bad luck to give someone a wallet or purse that was empty. I remember getting a wallet from them every year for my birthday from like the age of 5 through 15. But the deal was that the gift was the wallet, and any of the cash inside was immediately spendable and didn't need to be put in the bank like other birthday money. Weird family traditions I suppose.
  • curiousgal 4y ago
    The corresponding Qur'an verse (because they're all faces of the same coin): "To give charity publicly is good, but to give to the poor privately is better for you, and will absolve you of your sins. And Allah is All-Aware of what you do." Al-Baqarah 272
    • jonnycomputer 4y ago
      Thanks for this.
    • protonbob 4y ago
      I don't think that the bible says that giving to the poor will absolve you of your sins. So maybe not the same coin.
• ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
  Reminds me of this scene, from Tintin: Flight 714: https://youtu.be/mYLsRTKhyYM?t=100 https://youtu.be/mYLsRTKhyYM?t=100 [EDIT] Added a start time (1:40).
  • tablespoon 4y ago
    > Reminds me of this scene, from Tintin: Fight 714: https://youtu.be/mYLsRTKhyYM https://youtu.be/mYLsRTKhyYM Did you mean to link to a particular time? That link is just to a whole episode.
    • ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
      Oops. Forgot to include the start.
• Graffur 4y ago
  I fully agree with this woman. It is crazy how much support these invasive videos get online. The owner of the TikTok is not doing this to be kind. They are doing it for Content.
• yoda97 4y ago
  It's funny that I have never seen a negative review of that video on the internet until the woman spoke up, shows you how fake most people are.
  • that_guy_iain 4y ago
    Different audiences have different opinions. Most of the places you would have seen the video were places where it was being upvoted and liked. So everyone was positive and those that weren't were downvoted and drowned out. This is something that isn't positive so all the negative opinions are here and positive opinions will probably be drowned out.
  • toomanyrichies 4y ago
    If the woman hadn't spoke up, how would anyone have known the truth of what happened /her side of the story / the the immorality of the video creator's actions?
• the_biot 4y ago
  You think viral exploitative TikTok videos that cater to the lowest intellect are the worst thing in media right now? You'd be wrong. Writing articles about those videos is outright the lowest rung on that ladder of shit. Another low for the guardian, once a newspaper, now a propaganda/outrage rag of no news value whatsoever. Don't fall for the clickbait, and do yourself a favor: don't click on guardian links. It's all garbage.
  • hef19898 4y ago
    Actually, I see that article as the only way for that woman, and anyone else being in a viral video really, as the only means to get their voices heard as well. Hard to stink against millions of views and likes otherwise.
    • the_biot 4y ago
      All it does it get that video more views. Are you so far gone in the horseshit the guardian peddles that you're willing to defend their cheap practice with arguments you invented yourself? Can you really not see how their aim is exclusively to sell more clicks?
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• jasonhansel 4y ago
  It's also particularly annoying that the gift was a bouquet of flowers. If the woman wants to enjoy her gift, she needs to get a vase, go home ASAP, immediately put the flowers in water, and then keep taking care of them for the next several days. That's all fine if you're expecting it, but really annoying if it's an inconvenient time.
• schroeding 4y ago
  I honestly dislike it so much that social media normalized filming or making pictures of random people (in the "they are the (sole) motive" way, not random crowds) and publishing it without their permission. Doesn't help that everyone always has an unsuspicious camera on them. :/
  • Pakdef 4y ago
    TV has been doing the same for much longer, but the difference is that they get your approval before posting it.
• crikeyjoe 4y ago
• wodenokoto 4y ago
  This is basically a hidden cam prank. These have been on TV for ages and as far as I know they require written consent from the victims. If that is the case, she might have a case in court.
• dchftcs 4y ago
  While I don't like what happened to her, we should call it for what it is and not more. The filmer was a jerk and she had to right to not be disturbed or filmed. "Dehumanised" is a bit too far.
  • powerhour 4y ago
    Turning someone into a prop for your entertainment and profit without permission seems like a dictionary definition of dehumanizing.
    • dchftcs 4y ago
      "Turning someone into a prop" is a metaphorical statement. To conclude the act matches a dictionary definition of something is taking rhetoric way too seriously. Any act can be metaphorically described in a way that sounds like that but if you want to attach moral judgment you really ought to focus on original facts and not the projection onto a metaphor. The woman is clearly still treated as a human being, even if not given enough respect. If the filmer did something like forcefully moving her body and limbs for posing to achieve dramatic effect, or deliberately humiliated her with insulting commentary, you may have a point that it's "dehumanizing", but he didn't go that far.
  • strix_varius 4y ago
    Copy->pasted from Merriam-Webster: > to address or portray (someone) in a way that obscures or demeans that person's humanity or individuality
• ushakov 4y ago
  the "random acts of kindness" narrative is bullshit you can be kind and helpful without camera rolling not this guy though, he's desperate for attention and validation (watch me, i'm a good person), and wants that ad money to not work a regular job
• wufufufu 4y ago
  A significant amount of TikToks are simply video proof of harassment/bullying but I guess it's not a priority to them to detect and remove those.
• omega3 4y ago
  What a despicable human being. He even lied about her crying and being grateful after he left her the flowers. https://youtu.be/BU6PlJmGNkM?t=75 https://youtu.be/BU6PlJmGNkM?t=75
  • ActionHank 4y ago
    Mirror of this video for metric homies - https://streamable.com/upza7t https://streamable.com/upza7t
  • exo-pla-net 4y ago
    He may or may not have lied. The lady could have been grateful at first and changed her mind in hindsight (e.g. after learning it was just a stunt). Asserting that he's lying without knowing that he's lying is a mild form of libel. In the scale of moral wrongs, calling someone "a despicable human being" and a liar is arguably worse than giving a woman flowers for views.
• anotheryou 4y ago
  If you don't even ask before publishing you're an asshole and it's rightfully illegal.
• kache_ 4y ago
  I really can't believe people fall for engagement bait Meanwhile: I'm responding to a hnews post about engagement bait because it makes me upset
• User23 4y ago
  Ah, the classic “here, hold this” and walk away. Is it effective and even perhaps funny? Yeah. Is it kind? Not so much. Still, it’s a fairly benign prank in and of itself. Posting a video sure changes things though.
• V-2 4y ago
  This is a form of douchebaggery, sure, but "dehumanised" seems a bit out of proportion here. I'd reconsider such phrases out of respect for all the people who have been genuinely dehumanised throughout history, if nothing else.
  • password54321 4y ago
    Used for profit without consent can very well feel dehumanising.
    • V-2 4y ago
      If this headline went: "Woman used for profit without consent", wouldn't you consider it a bit of a clickbait upon examining the actual content of the article? (Not technically untrue, I give you that)
      • kzrdude 4y ago
        I wouldn't, that sounds accurate. 58 million views or whatever - she's being used for profit.
  • giarc 4y ago
    I agreed until I read that news stories covering the video described her as an "elderly woman" and a "heartbreaking tale". She might be "senior" by definition, but it doesn't mean she would describe herself as "elderly".
    • dwringer 4y ago
      That seems almost to be the crux of the issue. From the article: > A friend contacted Maree that evening, sharing the uploaded video. At the time, Maree “didn’t think much of it”. > But after seeing the TikTok video featured in media reports describing her as an “elderly woman” with a “heartbreaking tale,” she said she “felt dehumanised”. > “I feel like clickbait,” she said. It really sounds like she agreed until she read that as well.
  • 4y ago
• throwaway2016a 4y ago
  This is not the case with this video (as it was a stunt) but a larger issue here is how Tik Tok creators feel it is OK to film everyone. It may be legally allowed but ethically it is a very gray area. I spend some time on the platform and frequently see videos of random people just having a bad day and being filmed without their consent for the internet to laugh at. It's voyeurism. This problem existed before Tik Tok but the platform makes it so insanely easy to go viral doing it.
• password54321 4y ago
  These people really see others as NPCs. No you are not the main protagonist. No we are not all just a lonely sad bunch living in your tale. And no we don't give a fuck who you are and what you have to offer.
• sschueller 4y ago
  I am glad that filming someone here (Switzerland) without consent is not legal even in public. You can film in public but if a person is the center attention in your footage it becomes illegal and you need their consent especially if you publish it. Only exceptions are large public events where privacy can not be expected. Same goes for identifiable information like license plates. For example if you film a parking lot at a cancer hospital. You need to obfuscate the plates. If you install security cameras the some law applies, you can only film your own property and must make sure you are not filming neighbour, street or anything else. You must also post a sign indicating that a security camera is installed. Public security cameras (train etc) all require posted signs and have a strict retention policy as well as how footage is released. Same law applies to drones or any other way you could make a photo or film so it automatically makes it illegal to film into windows or get close enough to specifically identify people on the ground. In extremely rare and extreme cases the police may publish someones foto or video footage if it helps solve a case but it's an exception because even criminals have the right to privacy.
  • throwamon 4y ago
    How do you determine if someone is "the center of attention"? Could someone record ultra high res video using an ultra wide lens, then privately crop the video at will?
    • sbf501 4y ago
      I think society will need to start coming to terms with this. The concept of "it is public, so it is fair game" can no longer be applied.
      • fastball 4y ago
        I feel like you kinda have it backwards though, at least in regard to the parent comment. The objective standard of "you're in public so it's fair game" doesn't care if you have ultra-high resolution footage, if you're hiding in a bush, if you're doing X or Y so it's very easy to apply. Meanwhile "someone can't be the focus without consent" is a somewhat subjective standard that could easily become hard to apply.
• icare_1er 4y ago
  After the lolcats, we definitely are in the area of rubbish staged fake videos with nobodies.
• robg 4y ago
  Why don’t these folks have to get a signed release to use footage of a model? I get that it’s a public place, seems like that still applies on the commercial interest. Couldn’t she seek damages for use of her image without her consent?
• cm42 4y ago
  My loathing for TikTok knows no bounds. It's always the most vapid, narcissistic stuff, like a modern-day Tumblr but with sound. All of the uninformed bad takes of Twitter and Reddit, but as dance videos. This is the Bad Place, frens.
  • jpindar 4y ago
    TikTok is known for having a very good recommendation algorithm. Whatever you watch, you get more of. My TikTok is entirely people demonstrating arts and crafts and DIY projects. Oh, and some cute animals. If your TikTok consists only of things you don't like... that's your choice, I guess.
• devd00d 4y ago
  I'm yet to ever see what TikTok looks like.
• nixcraft 4y ago
  I looked into the comments posted on Video. It went viral because kids thought she cried and was lonely (something that many teens have in common, and with many comments, likes and shares, it went viral). The video title said, "I hope this made her day better". So basically, he tricked her, and the Video cuts at the right time with clever video editing, giving a false sense to the viewer that he was kind to her. It is about pumping numbers to get sponsorship while exploiting people's personal lives. The Video is still up and counting. He could have taken it down, but fame is more important than helping a fellow person who is his grandma's age. The battle for privacy was lost a long time ago :(
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• analyst74 4y ago
  > A friend contacted Maree that evening, sharing the uploaded video. At the time, Maree “didn’t think much of it”. > But after seeing the TikTok video featured in media reports describing her as an “elderly woman” with a “heartbreaking tale,” she said she “felt dehumanised”. Not trying to support the tiktoker, who is obviously a douchebag. But it's interesting that the negative emotions didn't trigger until it becomes news.
  • strix_varius 4y ago
    > it's interesting that the negative emotions didn't trigger until it becomes news. This doesn't seem to accurately reflect Maree's own description of events. Given that she said he interrupted her quiet time and then left her with an annoying problem to solve (what do I do with these flowers I don't want?), it's clear that this interaction started with negative emotions. Just the scale of negative emotions increased when the scale of the interaction increased. Which makes sense - imagine being reminded dozens of times over a period of days about what started as a minor negative experience.
  • slx26 4y ago
    Receiving the flowers is one thing. Then having a video shared about it is another thing. And even beyond that, the second can also affect the perception on the first: maybe you thought it was something random at first, but then you realize it wasn't. It's not like something changed magically for no reason because humans are weird.
• cratermoon 4y ago
  The sad reality of our world https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWKzVxMzvxg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWKzVxMzvxg
• havblue 4y ago
  "It’s the patronising assumption that … older women will be thrilled by some random stranger giving them flowers." This reminds me of when high schoolers get the "generous" idea of nominating an unpopular girl, who they never talk to and only talk about, for prom queen. There's nothing nice about it.
• rychco 4y ago
  Filming someone directly without their consent should be illegal. Full stop.
• HellDunkel 4y ago
  This is TikTok. Complete waste of time and and absolute douchebaggery.
• xwdv 4y ago
  I do not want an act of kindness, the kindest thing a person could do is just to leave me the fuck alone, especially since most “acts of kindness” are done for some other motive these days such as viral Tiktoks.
• FollowingTheDao 4y ago
  Social media dehumanizes everyone who touches it.
• zenron 4y ago
  While I agree that this type of online content is questionable for the reasons said in this thread, the 'dehumanized' moniker is clearly sensational. No-one in that video has been dehumanized. This is rhetoric and nothing more. A person received an unsolicited gift and was filmed. If it was in a location where there is need of consent to be filmed by another party she can file a lawsuit. If it was in a location that doesn't require consent then them is the breaks and viewers of the video can make the conclusions of motives and ENDS for themselves.
• prionassembly 4y ago
  At one point my nihilistic consumeristic 20s got me in the hobby of "Lomography", which was basically using up ("shoot from the hip!) expensive film without care and seeing what kinds of random stuff turns up, if any at all. Turns out shooting from the hip produces a lot of creepy angles on callypigian figures you were honest-to-god not trying to do. (Would a creepster use film?)
• tengbretson 4y ago
  I feel sort of compelled to quote Kanye here: “I hate when I'm on a flight and I wake up with a water bottle next to me like oh great now I gotta be responsible for this water bottle” Kanye West
• golemotron 4y ago
  It seems like the video humanized her rather than dehumanized her. It showed her vulnerability. People don't like that. Many people have a wish about how we should appear to others. When that breaks down, they feel bad. Being able to laugh one's self and accept one's imperfection is a good remedy.
• pcmoney 4y ago
  Dont film people without explicit consent. An act of kindness you show others is not an act of kindness. Its a negative on your character. This lady should sue if possible. So sick of these vapid, self obsessed “influencers”. So tacky. So worthless.
• wafriedemann 4y ago
  A lot of online content creators still think all of this is some legal grey area, although it's not. This perception will clear pretty quickly once a couple of them get heavily sued.
• frankbreetz 4y ago
  While certainly demonstrative of an issue with our current society, I think it is important to remember that the video creator, while misguided, didn't do that much wrong. He is just trying to make something of himself, in fairly harmless way. In my opinion, not worthy of being burned at the stake. Perhaps being told that some of his acts of not appreciated and are in fact causing people discomfort will cause him to be more thoughtful and maybe go a different path. The women in the article is seemly experiencing something of Streisand effect and instead of being a no name in mildly viral tik-tok video is now in an international news article. Maybe she is passionate about the issue and the notoriety is a side-effect she is willing to bear, maybe she likes the attention. I think this entire problem would go away if all participants were just ignored. One thing this article does demonstrate is just as you should be suspicious of rich pastors, convincing you to give to the lord, you should also be wary of people who are making money spreading "random acts of kindness" and an online persona is perhaps entirely different then the a real persons morals. I don't know if that is the case with the creator in the video, but I that is my current exception with all people similar to this. Overall my takeaway from this article is: Annoying young person annoys grouchy old person, a tale as old as time.
  • EForEndeavour 4y ago
    > I think this entire problem would go away if all participants were just ignored. Ignoring people? In this attention economy?!
• gumby 4y ago
  This article confused me with the phrase, “TikTok creator Harrison Pawluk”. I looked it up and though I still don’t know who this guy is, I do know he did not write TikTok.
  • dr_orpheus 4y ago
    "TikTok content creator, Harrison Pawluk" would be a better way to phrase it. "Creator" has ended up as a term like "influencer" or "maker".
  • khazhoux 4y ago
    There are millions of TikTok creators, but only one person (Zhang Yiming) created TikTok.
• amtamt 4y ago
  > He wholeheartedly apologises to Maree if she was offended by what he did and urges her to contact him privately so he can personally apologise. If she requests him to take down the video he will do that. Is this really how one apologizes these days.
• sarkron 4y ago
  I guess it's fair to say that many people agree with Matthew 6, no? "So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full."
  • khazhoux 4y ago
    Maybe that's part of it, but the other key thing here is that she was not in any way actually needy. He made a random person out to be a pathetic weepy loner, to an audience of millions.
• LatteLazy 4y ago
  I am forced to ask: who cares? The whole thing is a dumb stunt. But there is no harm and no reward for bad behaviour. If you're worried about privacy, give Google or the NSA some attention. If you don't want to be bothered by people, avoid people. This whole story seems like it's purpose made for people to argue over. And "news" like that is just a huge waste of time and actively distracts from our societies real issues.
• balderdash 4y ago
  When would this become an unlawful use of her name and likeness? Seems the given the views he’s likely monetizing his account?
• xxr 4y ago
  I can't tell whether TikTok is really that much worse than Instagram, Twitter, FB, MySpace, etc., or whether it's just the first major social platform to explode after I turned 30.
• omar12 4y ago
  If filming is done in public for the intent to be published, should there be a release form signed by any people that were filmed? Anecdotally, many years ago I was at an outdoor park and they were filming a fitness reality show. The fitness coach was making the participant do random workouts throughout the park. In one of those random workouts, I was in the background of the filming. Immediately as I was out of frame, a production assistant provided a release form to authorize the use of my likeness in a broadcast.
• incogitomode 4y ago
  She articulates the exploitative nature of this sort of viral / influencer charity incredibly well. His actions, while I'm sure well-intentioned, are sexist, ageist and absolutely dehumanizing. I hope the article helps him and the millions who liked the video check their assumptions and offers a lesson in moral complexity and subjectivity.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• bergenty 4y ago
  • onemoresoop 4y ago
    > She’s still enamored but her secondary abstractions are preventing her from truly accepting those feelings. Hence the cognitive dissonance and lash out. I love how you think you can read other people's minds. > Everyone knows the reason she’s up in arms about.. Sorry to break it to you but not everyone is making random assumptions about people they have never met in their real life.
  • jamiek88 4y ago
    This says way more about you than it does her.
  • elliekelly 4y ago
    This comment is even more disgusting than the video and it's exactly the type of invasive public commentary she's speaking out against. Who are you to make an assessment about this woman's mental state? Or how attractive she is or isn't? Or how "enamored" she is or isn't? What makes you somehow more capable or better suited to assess how she's feeling and what she's thinking than she is herself? The absolute audacity of it is appalling. Good for her for speaking up and shame on you for your misogynistic and conceited attempt to speak for her.
    • bergenty 4y ago
      Why? Psychologist go out of their way to publicly diagnose people and it’s just considered analysis with the entire field being crock with almost no reproducibility for any claims. Is the truth in the comment above rubbing you the wrong way? There nothing misogynistic about it, this is an actual instance of “telling it how it is” and you can’t stand it because of how real it feels.
  • sriram_malhar 4y ago
    It seems like you are keen to put a chip on her shoulder.
• onemoresoop 4y ago
  I hope we'll turn a page on this type of behavior sooner than later. Self made media is a relatively recent phenomena and the etiquette and decency hasn't yet had time to catch up with it all. I'm extremely turned off by forcing unconsenting individuals participate in pranks and other videos, and being made money on their behalf but seeing none of the benefits but unwanted attention.
• apeace 4y ago
  The woman's reaction to feeling patronized is a valid one. But at the same time, I think we probably want to make room for this kind of content online. The internet is so full of hatred and vitriol. I had to leave Instagram because I couldn't stand the constant political diatribes, gotcha-style quotes and clips, etc. It just brought so much negativity into my life, and I'm much happier without seeing it anymore. I do see the point[0] that this video is more of a virtue display than a random act of kindness. But, I think the real point of the video is to make viewers happy when they watch it, and I think that's a good thing, even if the creator has some sort of profit motive behind it. The creator was wrong to lie to the woman about being filmed. He forced her into a situation where she felt patronized and dehumanized. He could've deleted the video and done it to the next person he saw, who maybe wouldn't have felt the same way and would've wanted to participate. But that doesn't mean that this type of content is vile and disgusting as a category, just because it's not a "true random act of kindness." A lot of us want to see content that just, well, feels nice. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32095418 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32095418
  • watwut 4y ago
    The simple thing that was missing was to come back and ask for permission. She would either said "yes" or "no". If no' he can try again.
• jnsaff2 4y ago
  I find a very stark contrast between this discussion and the one on dominos couple of days ago [0]. There most people thought it was all well and good to spend 50M to advertise a 100k kindness. This is just business. Here people (IMO correctly) see this a virtue signaling and not kindness. To me there is really no difference, Dominos did not do kindness, neither did this tiktok douche. All calculated to mislead people into thinking you are better. Vile scam artists. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32070067 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32070067
  • exo-pla-net 4y ago
    And people donate to get parks built, largely for the plaque with their name on it. At the end of the day, the public still gets a park. Good has been done. Fixating on motivates is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There aren't "good people" or "bad people". There are just people, and motives are almost always mixed. The people who are smearing this kid are acting worse than the kid himself. I'll drink your downvotes. Yes, I think you're being nastier than the kid, who was doing some boring grifting. He was unemphatic, but you're being downright cruel. "Vile scam artist" "TikTok douche". He's a human being, and what he did was wrong, but I nevertheless think he's morally superior to most of you, who are dehumanizing him much more thoroughly than he dehumanized the woman. His behavior was bad, and yours is worse.
    • jnsaff2 4y ago
      With the park and a plaque the ratio of good (park) to a I guess dopamine boost (plaque) is decidedly in favor of the good, orders of magnitude better. Let alone that the plaque is often in memory of someone close to the one making the donation. In case of dominos the ratio is so much out of whack that the profit motive completely drowns the good. In case of this tiktok dude what good was being made at all? Some emotional buttons were pushed in watchers? Do it hundreds of times and they are desensitized to actual goodness. All in the name of what, a few bucks to be made?
    • jnsaff2 4y ago
      Also, if society does not shun bad actors, how would we not degenerate rapidly? So bringing your park example to extreme: someone murders, is bad, but vilifying him would still be worse? I'll leave you with a quote from Batman: "criminals thrive on the indulgence of society's understanding".
• aunty_helen 4y ago
  The comments in this thread are a great example of how affraid of each other we've become. How upset we get when someone is "profiting" How things we don't like or understand become something that automatically has a negative reaction. Really, what is our role in this situation? We're the flowers.
  • khazhoux 4y ago
    Who's afraid? She was portrayed as a pathetic loner in front of tens of millions, simply for briefly holding flowers as a favor. You don't see why she's pissed off?
• shapefrog 4y ago
  Its just a prank brah
• pacomerh 4y ago
  What gets me about these "random acts of kindness" like someone giving away $100 after they ask for $5, etc. Is that most people actually believe they are good intentions. Let's see if they'd do that without a camera in front.
• isitmadeofglass 4y ago
  There should be some easy way to report the content with proof that your the main subject of a video, and unless the creator proves concent the victim gets any and all proceeds plus a “publicity” fee. This will stop these horrible “acts of kindness” that are nothing but attempts at going viral and making money with blatant disregard for their victims.
• smarri 4y ago
  Consumer Web2 is trash.
• FunnyBadger 4y ago
  Seriously? Apparently no one knows or has seen Alan Funt's Candid Camera. This was no worse than hundreds of situations that Funt created, filmed and put in TV over decades.
  • guilhermeasg 4y ago
    I can’t believe people are talking about a thing, when clearly there also exists another thing!
  • davesque 4y ago
    I remember Candid Camera. I don't think the general comparison with Candid Camera really lines up. I'm not sure I can explain why exactly. Maybe there was just a different general attitude that people had about that sort of thing back then. Maybe people were given the opportunity to sign consent forms before the video was broadcast. Perhaps it was less of a problem because it had to be more carefully orchestrated; not everyone had a video recording device in their pocket. However, in this specific case, I think the biggest problem was that falsehoods were being spread about this person without her consent. From the article: But after seeing the TikTok video featured in media reports describing her as an “elderly woman” with a “heartbreaking tale,” she said she “felt dehumanised”. The woman's response: “It’s the patronising assumption that … older women will be thrilled by some random stranger giving them flowers.” Seems totally fair to me. She now has to feel like she's an object of pity. And the original gesture was clearly self-serving. If you check out the rest of this guy's TikTok videos, they're all like this.
• a-dub 4y ago
  am i alone in finding tiktok to be the single most obnoxious pop culture phenomenon to exist ever? also, we need new rules. while it makes sense to have no expectations of privacy in public, i think an expectation of not being an unwitting participant in someone else's self-promotional quasi-commercial activities where your picture and voice may be broadcast to millions is reasonable.
• StanislavPetrov 4y ago
  This was crass and an invasion of privacy but I think, "dehumanised" is a bridge too far. It isn't helpful to use maximalist rhetoric for every slight.
• fleddr 4y ago
  If filming a "genuine" act of kindness isn't suspicious enough, the "hold this" move removes any benefit of the doubt. It's maddening that a "creator" (read: grifter) does this but what I find even more upsetting is how well it works. Millions of likes and comments celebrating it. There was a time where these kind of actions were more pure and we didn't need to be this cynical. It's probably already more than a decade ago, but I remember a video series themed "being nice to men". The idea being that men live in an emotional desert and rarely receive compliments or acts of kindness, often not even from their very own friends. So when they do receive it, it's a system shock. For example, the main character would attend an old guy in the park and say how cool it is that he feeds the pigeon daily. And then walk away. You could see the old man processing it. First puzzled, then delighted. It made his day, but probably his decade. Middle-aged men were even more puzzled and initially perceived it as an attack. Wtf does this guy want from me? Why would anybody do anything nice for me, what's the agenda here? Legend goes they're still thinking about what happened that day. Anyway, it was a cool theme (almost a social study), no monetization, and the participants were later informed and asked for permission to publish. I don't think it's possible in today's landscape to do this the genuine way, the incentives have changed too much.
• debrice 4y ago
  I’m puzzled why he didn’t take the video down while he acknowledged that Maree is upsets about it, instead asking that she contacts him and requests the video to be taken down. The strange perspective and sense of entitlement of a successful TikTok influencer…
• lbrito 4y ago
  I saw kids sneakily tacking a sticky note on a stranger's back a store a while ago. The person noticed (their stealth level was negative. It was embarrassingly obvious) and they awkwardly took it off and ran away. I'm pretty sure it was some TikTok idiocy. I get that adolescents have always been pretty nasty, but I don't think this licentiousness with random (and older) strangers was ever this prevalent.
• jazzido 4y ago
  Reads exactly like an Onion article.