17 ms·

How does monetizing a public good for your own selfish social standing to the detriment of everyone else become freedom of expression to begin with? I'd like to

How does monetizing a public good for your own selfish social standing to the detriment of everyone else become freedom of expression to begin with? I'd like to know who those campaigners are. It's a person expressing "a public good" - not themselves - for their own selfish gain. When an influencer runs through a super market recording everyone and every item (s)he's not expressing (it)self. Nobody asked for a review of that place(unless they were specifically invited to that which is rarely the case), nobody asked to be recorded by those people, and most of the times the people this is broadcast to, won't ever set foot in that country or the store. I think there is bright red line between "I love this place/item and I want to share it with my friends and family and hopefuly I can show it to you in person one day" and "I don't care about this place, but I want all of you guys all think I'm amazing". Somehow this has become blurred. I once was told that my personal freedom ends when I put everyone else's personal freedom at risk. It seems that people understand this fact only in very few parts of society. Otherwise you could argue that it's wrong to remove a bloodsucking leech from your leg, because you would infringe on its freedom of expression.

watwut 4y ago
> How does monetizing a public good for your own selfish social standing to the detriment of everyone else become freedom of expression to begin with? I'd like to know who those campaigners are. Freedom of expression includes that and it was done for years. Photographs taking pictures or videos of public spaces and monetizing them is nothing new nor outrageous. There are local limitations, in Europe often about your ability to center other people in your pics or videos. But afaik, in USA you are free to take pictures of people or public spaces full stop. > Somehow this has become blurred. This was never as clear as you make it up to be. The primary difference is that too many people do it in current form and they do a lot of repetitions or include music. Freedom of expression or speech or whatever never included the requirement to "not be selfish". Also, the limitations that EU or USA tend to put on places basically never deny specific platform. You might have to pay extra for ability to take pictures. You might be unable to use flash. It might be flat out denied to play music at some place (requirement to be silent). These are fairly normal restrictions, that dont care whether you are personally outraged over tik-tok or youtube - which is actually what makes sense.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  >Freedom of expression Even in America, you need permits in many places to film for commercial reasons. People who are making a job out of being an 'influencer' are obviously filming commercially, so I don't see anything wrong with making them get permits.
  - hef19898 4y ago
    And follow all the other rules aroind commercial content creation, e.g. getting model consent before publishing. Something all pros do, and again a way where disruption is actually just another way to say that rules don't apply to you. The trickey question is so where the threshold for "commercial" activities lies.
    - watwut 4y ago
      USA has looser rules around taking photos of strangers then other places (like European countries tho rules there differ). In general, if it is public space, you can legally take pictures of people and use them even when they are fairly prominent in pic. The privacy limits tend to be stricter in EU, usually to Americans comains on HN. But, in the article in question, other people were not issue. More of too many repetitions and activity changing feel of the place.
  - watwut 4y ago
    So? How does that contradicts anything I wrote? Freedom of expression is name of a group in Nepal pushing for their things. America is utterly irrelevant (but actually public photography in America allows quite a lot). Note also how those permits literally never state "your intentions must have pure interest in place itself" as person I responded to assumes. Instead, they tend to be commercial and protecting monetary value of the place. Once you pay for permit you do whatever you please with it, unless it divides between commercial and non commercial. And they never limit platform - there are rules around flash or noise or time spend etc - you are quite clear on them from the start. Which is literally what the disagreement in article is about. Note also I disagree primary with nonsensical comments that projects their outrage over media not targeted at them existing and young people putting serious effort in them then with Nepal authorities trying to trial-and-error rules that will work.
michaelt 4y ago
> Nobody asked for a review of that place(unless they were specifically invited to that which is rarely the case) I agree with a lot of what you've said - but you don't need the seller's permission to review a car or a video game or a washing machine or a hotel room. 'Invited' reviewers are basically all shills, who know they'll never get invited again or gifted free review units if their review is anything less than glowing.
- rjzzleep 4y ago
  Yes I realize that this part had a potential for a misunderstanding. I actually agree with you regardless of your post. I think the distinction with your example is that that review is actually not done our of selfish self promotion. Oftentimes this kind of review actually is a common good since it may actually protect others from a potentially hazardous outcome. I do agree that in some cases the line between altruism and selfish desire is very fuzzy.

watwut 4y ago

> How does monetizing a public good for your own selfish social standing to the detriment of everyone else become freedom of expression to begin with? I'd like to know who those campaigners are. Freedom of expression includes that and it was done for years. Photographs taking pictures or videos of public spaces and monetizing them is nothing new nor outrageous. There are local limitations, in Europe often about your ability to center other people in your pics or videos. But afaik, in USA you are free to take pictures of people or public spaces full stop. > Somehow this has become blurred. This was never as clear as you make it up to be. The primary difference is that too many people do it in current form and they do a lot of repetitions or include music. Freedom of expression or speech or whatever never included the requirement to "not be selfish". Also, the limitations that EU or USA tend to put on places basically never deny specific platform. You might have to pay extra for ability to take pictures. You might be unable to use flash. It might be flat out denied to play music at some place (requirement to be silent). These are fairly normal restrictions, that dont care whether you are personally outraged over tik-tok or youtube - which is actually what makes sense.

MichaelCollins 4y ago
>Freedom of expression Even in America, you need permits in many places to film for commercial reasons. People who are making a job out of being an 'influencer' are obviously filming commercially, so I don't see anything wrong with making them get permits.
- hef19898 4y ago
  And follow all the other rules aroind commercial content creation, e.g. getting model consent before publishing. Something all pros do, and again a way where disruption is actually just another way to say that rules don't apply to you. The trickey question is so where the threshold for "commercial" activities lies.
  - watwut 4y ago
    USA has looser rules around taking photos of strangers then other places (like European countries tho rules there differ). In general, if it is public space, you can legally take pictures of people and use them even when they are fairly prominent in pic. The privacy limits tend to be stricter in EU, usually to Americans comains on HN. But, in the article in question, other people were not issue. More of too many repetitions and activity changing feel of the place.
- watwut 4y ago
  So? How does that contradicts anything I wrote? Freedom of expression is name of a group in Nepal pushing for their things. America is utterly irrelevant (but actually public photography in America allows quite a lot). Note also how those permits literally never state "your intentions must have pure interest in place itself" as person I responded to assumes. Instead, they tend to be commercial and protecting monetary value of the place. Once you pay for permit you do whatever you please with it, unless it divides between commercial and non commercial. And they never limit platform - there are rules around flash or noise or time spend etc - you are quite clear on them from the start. Which is literally what the disagreement in article is about. Note also I disagree primary with nonsensical comments that projects their outrage over media not targeted at them existing and young people putting serious effort in them then with Nepal authorities trying to trial-and-error rules that will work.

michaelt 4y ago

> Nobody asked for a review of that place(unless they were specifically invited to that which is rarely the case) I agree with a lot of what you've said - but you don't need the seller's permission to review a car or a video game or a washing machine or a hotel room. 'Invited' reviewers are basically all shills, who know they'll never get invited again or gifted free review units if their review is anything less than glowing.

rjzzleep 4y ago
Yes I realize that this part had a potential for a misunderstanding. I actually agree with you regardless of your post. I think the distinction with your example is that that review is actually not done our of selfish self promotion. Oftentimes this kind of review actually is a common good since it may actually protect others from a potentially hazardous outcome. I do agree that in some cases the line between altruism and selfish desire is very fuzzy.