4 ms·

Don’t post articles like this. You’re feeding the beast. Hear me out: This shit doesn’t matter. We’re all very unlikely to be interviewed on the street like th

by dangus 4y ago

Don’t post articles like this. You’re feeding the beast. Hear me out: This shit doesn’t matter. We’re all very unlikely to be interviewed on the street like this by some influencer. Even if we are, tough shit, we’re in public, people are allowed to approach us and even film us. It happens. Be polite and decline and that’s it, story’s over. Nobody cares. But no, the story is isn’t over! The Verge wrote a big long article about this stupid thing you and I have never heard of, and now here it is on HN. Manufactured controversy: annoyingly, it’s controversy that feeds into the negative feelings that media and social media tend to propagate. By reading and sharing this article, the original influencers get more publicity and follows, so they’re more likely to do this stuff more.

lamontcg 4y ago
Some of us don't think it is healthy for people to be consuming that media either. Doesn't matter if you're personally going to be in the video its the consumption that bothers me. People hanging out on r/PublicFreakout getting very angry at other people probably does a lot more harm than good to society.
- jesuscript 4y ago
  It's a form of voyeurism (exhibitionism and voyeurism are porn categories, they are fetishes). I do catch a few of those /r/PublicFreakouts, and they are often intense breakdowns of flawed people. Most of them are of the entitled/racist bunch. We know who the antagonists are immediately in those videos, but the principle of filming a breakdown always felt dirty to me. At least in the realm of sexuality, a fetish is acknowledged as a fetish (and fetishes are usually very private and should always require consent by all parties). I wonder how open people would be to the reality that they are indulging in a fetish by watching voyeuristic videos on /r/PublicFreakouts (sexual or not, and certainly without consent), or exhibitionism by constantly making videos of themselves.
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    Usually it is a bunch of entitled/racist/etc people watching a public breakdown of an entitled/racist/etc person. Watch enough of them and you might get angry enough to wind up in one of them.
throwing_away 4y ago
It's not mentioned in the article, but an Apple exec recently lost his job over this quote: > “I race cars, play golf and fondle big-breasted women. But I take weekends and major holidays off,” Blevins replied. “Also, if you’re interested, I’ve got a hell of a dental plan.” Which, although being a very dated Dudley Moore reference, was said while the man was in good spirits on his day off. You could argue he's paid to know better as an Apple executive, and you'd be right, and Apple was within their rights to fire him, but it's still an unfortunate circumstance of the times. There's a definite power imbalance when someone with a camera and a plan uses unsuspecting pedestrians as content.
- dangus 4y ago
  I’m not sure how you can watch that video and think it was an example of a power imbalance. The dude wasn’t under any pretense of not being filmed. He was being directly interviewed not just being overheard or surveilled casually cracking jokes with friends. The cherry on top is that he was likely filmed by his company’s own product, no less. Dude can’t feign ignorance, he’s just another rich asshole who thought he could get away with anything. People like that aren’t used to being told no or having their words result in consequences. There is some major irony in calling the act of a wealthy person being held accountable for the things he says as a power imbalance, especially because the only reason the dude was interviewed was because he was conspicuously displaying his wealth on purpose to get attention. Come on, the guy was wearing a turquoise suit driving an SLR McClaren ($750,000+ car)

by dangus 4y ago

lamontcg 4y ago

Some of us don't think it is healthy for people to be consuming that media either. Doesn't matter if you're personally going to be in the video its the consumption that bothers me. People hanging out on r/PublicFreakout getting very angry at other people probably does a lot more harm than good to society.

jesuscript 4y ago
It's a form of voyeurism (exhibitionism and voyeurism are porn categories, they are fetishes). I do catch a few of those /r/PublicFreakouts, and they are often intense breakdowns of flawed people. Most of them are of the entitled/racist bunch. We know who the antagonists are immediately in those videos, but the principle of filming a breakdown always felt dirty to me. At least in the realm of sexuality, a fetish is acknowledged as a fetish (and fetishes are usually very private and should always require consent by all parties). I wonder how open people would be to the reality that they are indulging in a fetish by watching voyeuristic videos on /r/PublicFreakouts (sexual or not, and certainly without consent), or exhibitionism by constantly making videos of themselves.
- lamontcg 4y ago
  Usually it is a bunch of entitled/racist/etc people watching a public breakdown of an entitled/racist/etc person. Watch enough of them and you might get angry enough to wind up in one of them.

throwing_away 4y ago

It's not mentioned in the article, but an Apple exec recently lost his job over this quote: > “I race cars, play golf and fondle big-breasted women. But I take weekends and major holidays off,” Blevins replied. “Also, if you’re interested, I’ve got a hell of a dental plan.” Which, although being a very dated Dudley Moore reference, was said while the man was in good spirits on his day off. You could argue he's paid to know better as an Apple executive, and you'd be right, and Apple was within their rights to fire him, but it's still an unfortunate circumstance of the times. There's a definite power imbalance when someone with a camera and a plan uses unsuspecting pedestrians as content.

dangus 4y ago
I’m not sure how you can watch that video and think it was an example of a power imbalance. The dude wasn’t under any pretense of not being filmed. He was being directly interviewed not just being overheard or surveilled casually cracking jokes with friends. The cherry on top is that he was likely filmed by his company’s own product, no less. Dude can’t feign ignorance, he’s just another rich asshole who thought he could get away with anything. People like that aren’t used to being told no or having their words result in consequences. There is some major irony in calling the act of a wealthy person being held accountable for the things he says as a power imbalance, especially because the only reason the dude was interviewed was because he was conspicuously displaying his wealth on purpose to get attention. Come on, the guy was wearing a turquoise suit driving an SLR McClaren ($750,000+ car)