6 ms·

Many nightclubs and parties have rules against photos to avoid embarrassment, and they can do this because they are private. But when people decide to behave i

Many nightclubs and parties have rules against photos to avoid embarrassment, and they can do this because they are private. But when people decide to behave indecently in public places, then I don’t think those sorts of norms should apply. An inebriated person on the street has decided to accept that people will see them in a compromising situation. Ofc publishing photos expands the scale of how many people see them in this situation, but that doesn’t change the fact that they choose to let people see them this way. It is good for society that people are aware of problems, and taking photos is the best way to communicate the reality of the problem. However I don’t think Paparazzi should be allowed to harass people, because they take photos of people living normal lives. There isn’t any benefit to society to share such photos.

15155 3y ago
> and they can do this because they are private They can bar policy-breakers from reentry, nothing more, as the original photographer retains rights to the images they've captured.
- brutusborn 3y ago
  For seriously private events, security confiscate the phone and/or beat the perpetrator until they delete photos. Talking about the photographers “rights” is an academic exercise. I’m not saying the reality is moral, I’m just explaining the reality as opposed to then ideal.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - 15155 3y ago
    Thankfully iCloud, Dropbox, and a dozen similar services with automatic upload capability exist? 0.5kg or less drones with rotor guards are A-OK as well in most locales. Carry concealed where possible.
haswell 3y ago
> But when people decide to behave indecently in public places, then I don’t think those sorts of norms should apply. Why should they not apply? The more unfortunate aspects of the human condition haven't changed very much throughout history, and only recently is it possible to make a poor decision that may be the laughingstock of millions of people tomorrow. If anything, the social media landscape makes those sorts of norms more important than they’ve ever been. > An inebriated person on the street has decided to accept that people will see them in a compromising situation. An inebriated person by definition isn’t making that decision knowingly. And that’s the point of a stance towards decency. When someone is in a compromised state and unable to fully take care of themselves, it seems especially shitty to take advantage of them in that state. I’m not saying that being publicly intoxicated is something that deserves no concern. But taking photos/videos and/or publicly shaming people isn’t the answer. Picture yourself on your worst day. A day that you would strongly prefer never happened. And ask yourself if it’s helping anything if people record you and turn you into social media fodder. Theres a moral/ethical bankruptcy at the center of this.
- brutusborn 3y ago
  You are assuming that addicts have no agency, which as a former addict I reject. It is a pernicious idea because it feeds into beliefs of hopelessness. I’m not saying their choice is easy, but they have a choice. I wish I had footage of me on my worst day. I would prefer it not be broadcast, but I would accept that my public actions are public.
  - haswell 3y ago
    I’m not assuming there’s no agency. I’m saying that they are operating in a compromised state. As a former addict, you should know well the steep hill to climb to exert any kind of control. My point is that people get stuck in very unfortunate situations, often for reasons more complex than any of us can understand. Addiction is not something to ridicule, and compassion seems the most ideal baseline. And I appreciate your personal perspective on this, but don’t think it confers much to the appropriateness of recording other people who don’t share your views.
aaplok 3y ago
> An inebriated person on the street has decided to accept that people will see them in a compromising situation. Not necessarily. At the very least the person may have been drugged against their will - it happens, even if it's not the majority of cases. Then there are many grey situations like addicts who are homeless. Given the possibility, a share of these people would likely choose not to be homeless, not to be addicted, or to be neither. Taking a photo or a video of a person in a vulnerable situation when they can't protect themselves is abusive and it is not OK, no matter what this person's behaviour was at that time. Your comment comes awfully close to blaming the victims.
- brutusborn 3y ago
  Drug addicts are not drugged against their will. In fact they are drugged due to their will. Homeless people may be victims of outside forces and we should support these people unconditionally. Some homeless are victims of their own bad decisions based on wrong beliefs and should be supported too, but let’s stop pretending they are being forced to take drugs.
  - haswell 3y ago
    This is an extremely simplistic assessment of addiction, and the factors that drive it. Setting aside the likelihood and tangent that we probably don’t have free will the way we like to think of it, it’s incredibly reductionist to summarize two symptoms/outcomes (homelessness, addiction) this way without understanding the systemic factors that lead to them. I’d highly recommend Anna Lembke’s work on Addiction. You’re boiling something very complex down to “shame on them”.
    - brutusborn 3y ago
      Thanks for the reference. Do you know if Lembke has had much success in treating addiction? That is how I usually filter authors like this, there is too much content and almost none of it actually helps addicts. In my experience the mainstream view of addiction is harmful, so I feel the need to push back to help others who have fell into the trap of “it’s a disease so I don’t have a choice”. Of course I am simplifying, this is a comment thread and not a dissertation.
pharmakom 3y ago
I think it’s time to revisit those rules. They were developed in an era where: 1. Very few people had a camera on them at all times 2. Photos would take time and money to develop 3. Sharing a photo across the entire world was basically impossible

15155 3y ago

> and they can do this because they are private They can bar policy-breakers from reentry, nothing more, as the original photographer retains rights to the images they've captured.

brutusborn 3y ago
For seriously private events, security confiscate the phone and/or beat the perpetrator until they delete photos. Talking about the photographers “rights” is an academic exercise. I’m not saying the reality is moral, I’m just explaining the reality as opposed to then ideal.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- 15155 3y ago
  Thankfully iCloud, Dropbox, and a dozen similar services with automatic upload capability exist? 0.5kg or less drones with rotor guards are A-OK as well in most locales. Carry concealed where possible.

haswell 3y ago

> But when people decide to behave indecently in public places, then I don’t think those sorts of norms should apply. Why should they not apply? The more unfortunate aspects of the human condition haven't changed very much throughout history, and only recently is it possible to make a poor decision that may be the laughingstock of millions of people tomorrow. If anything, the social media landscape makes those sorts of norms more important than they’ve ever been. > An inebriated person on the street has decided to accept that people will see them in a compromising situation. An inebriated person by definition isn’t making that decision knowingly. And that’s the point of a stance towards decency. When someone is in a compromised state and unable to fully take care of themselves, it seems especially shitty to take advantage of them in that state. I’m not saying that being publicly intoxicated is something that deserves no concern. But taking photos/videos and/or publicly shaming people isn’t the answer. Picture yourself on your worst day. A day that you would strongly prefer never happened. And ask yourself if it’s helping anything if people record you and turn you into social media fodder. Theres a moral/ethical bankruptcy at the center of this.

brutusborn 3y ago
You are assuming that addicts have no agency, which as a former addict I reject. It is a pernicious idea because it feeds into beliefs of hopelessness. I’m not saying their choice is easy, but they have a choice. I wish I had footage of me on my worst day. I would prefer it not be broadcast, but I would accept that my public actions are public.
- haswell 3y ago
  I’m not assuming there’s no agency. I’m saying that they are operating in a compromised state. As a former addict, you should know well the steep hill to climb to exert any kind of control. My point is that people get stuck in very unfortunate situations, often for reasons more complex than any of us can understand. Addiction is not something to ridicule, and compassion seems the most ideal baseline. And I appreciate your personal perspective on this, but don’t think it confers much to the appropriateness of recording other people who don’t share your views.

aaplok 3y ago

> An inebriated person on the street has decided to accept that people will see them in a compromising situation. Not necessarily. At the very least the person may have been drugged against their will - it happens, even if it's not the majority of cases. Then there are many grey situations like addicts who are homeless. Given the possibility, a share of these people would likely choose not to be homeless, not to be addicted, or to be neither. Taking a photo or a video of a person in a vulnerable situation when they can't protect themselves is abusive and it is not OK, no matter what this person's behaviour was at that time. Your comment comes awfully close to blaming the victims.

brutusborn 3y ago
Drug addicts are not drugged against their will. In fact they are drugged due to their will. Homeless people may be victims of outside forces and we should support these people unconditionally. Some homeless are victims of their own bad decisions based on wrong beliefs and should be supported too, but let’s stop pretending they are being forced to take drugs.
- haswell 3y ago
  This is an extremely simplistic assessment of addiction, and the factors that drive it. Setting aside the likelihood and tangent that we probably don’t have free will the way we like to think of it, it’s incredibly reductionist to summarize two symptoms/outcomes (homelessness, addiction) this way without understanding the systemic factors that lead to them. I’d highly recommend Anna Lembke’s work on Addiction. You’re boiling something very complex down to “shame on them”.
  - brutusborn 3y ago
    Thanks for the reference. Do you know if Lembke has had much success in treating addiction? That is how I usually filter authors like this, there is too much content and almost none of it actually helps addicts. In my experience the mainstream view of addiction is harmful, so I feel the need to push back to help others who have fell into the trap of “it’s a disease so I don’t have a choice”. Of course I am simplifying, this is a comment thread and not a dissertation.

pharmakom 3y ago

I think it’s time to revisit those rules. They were developed in an era where: 1. Very few people had a camera on them at all times 2. Photos would take time and money to develop 3. Sharing a photo across the entire world was basically impossible