98 ms·
That's a nice innovation that I'm not that happy about, as there would be even less privacy... Maybe on the other side it's good news as ppl are usually their
by taosx 2y ago
That's a nice innovation that I'm not that happy about, as there would be even less privacy...
Maybe on the other side it's good news as ppl are usually their best selves when they are being watched.
- mandmandam 2y ago> ppl are usually their best selves when they are being watched. I don't think that view holds up. A, it very much depends on who is watching, what their incentives are, and what power they hold. And B, it also depends on who is being watched - not everyone thrives under a microscope. Are they the type to feel stifled? Or rebellious?
- Scarblac 2y agoAlso, whose definition of "best self" are we using, that of the person being watched or of the person controlling the camera?
- hypeatei 2y agoUnless you're in your own home, I think it's basically a guarantee at this point that you're being recorded. Could be CCTV, trail cameras, some random recording a TikTok, etc...
- ninalanyon 2y agoThat will only hold while being watched is rare. See Clarke and Baxter's Light of Other Days for an examination of the consequences of ubiquitous surveillance.
- krunck 2y agoThe watchers would be able to blackmail/control anybody who engages in private activities that they don't want to be public. So who watches the watchers? And who watches them? No. Privacy is 100% required in a free society.