12 ms·

I wonder if it's a generational or cultural difference present in the comments here. I am sympathetic to the author, and I also find video a bit invasive of pr

• muzani 1y ago
  Yeah, I feel like the new generation are recorded and published to the world literally on their first breath, right up until their funeral. We had this idea that privacy violation is like pollution. But now it's like how our generation is used to plastic in the ocean and never seeing all the stars. It's just life.
• spicyusername 1y ago
  My kids are in elementary and middle school and there was an occasion where they were at a birthday party where an older sibling was live streaming the event. Both my kids (and me) found it very off-putting, so there's some anecdata that at least some young kids still feel it's an invasion of privacy. Maybe not all is lost.
  • siva7 1y ago
    There are lots of young people who have some conception and respect of privacy and there are people who haven't. That's not a generational thing.. It's just that those without awareness of boundaries have now all the tech that screams in their face to stream everything to the world without consent. I can assure you that still lots of young folks are annoyed by those people.
    • RajT88 1y ago
      Agree. I went to a family gathering recently, and my wife's cousin was walking around live streaming. People were pissed once they figured out that private conversations were uploading live to the internet. The same guy did similar when his mom was on her death bed. Jesus Christ.
      • lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
        > People were pissed once they figured out that private conversations were uploading love to the internet. Audio is different from video. This is technically illegal, as consent is explicitly required in the law for audio recording.
        • greenavocado 1y ago
          Most states in the United States allow one one-party consent for audio recordings.
          • lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
            They're not party to others' conversations.
            • lotsofpulp 1y ago
              As long as someone is not hidden, or trying to be deceptive, then they would be considered party to the conversation. Someone walking around live streaming would become party to all the conversations.
          • jon-wood 1y ago
            And most states also allow you to leave a bar thirty seconds after your friend you arranged to meet there arrives, it would still be considered rude to do so and probably you wouldn’t be welcome in the future if you kept doing it.
  • AlecSchueler 1y ago
    My own anecdotal experience is that the generational gap is actually the inverse of what was described above. Younger people seem to be very much moree acutely aware of the dangers of publicity and much more guarded about what they do in public if it could potentially end up online.
    • Gigachad 1y ago
      Everything has moved to private spaces now. Friend discord groups, private social media accounts, etc. The age of posting on Facebook under your real name with privacy settings public is long gone because of the numerous obvious risks. But just being seen in a small segment of a YouTube video with no name is a pretty minor risk.
      • deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      • angiolillo 1y ago
        > just being seen in a small segment of a YouTube video with no name is a pretty minor risk It might become a slightly larger risk when image processing and face recognition get cheap enough that anyone can search to find every video/livestream/photo containing your face.
        • AlecSchueler 1y ago
          Yeah, it just happened to a woman I know recently. She took part in some naked protests like 20 years ago and photographs of them went up on various sites like Flickr from a host of different photographers and no one ever thought about it. Recently she was targeted in a revenge porn incident by someone who had used facial recognition search engines to gather dozens of nude photographs of her before distributing them by name on porn sites.
          • scarface_74 1y ago
            You don’t need to find nude photos of anyone anymore if you want to do revenge porn. If you have any picture of someone there are “nudity sites” for years and years ago wasn’t there an open source one that was on GitHub? (please no one reply with the name - seriously - no need to give it any publicity on HN).
• detaro 1y ago
  I don't think its so much an age thing. Plenty in the younger generations are more careful what they put online than older people, because they have grown up/are growing up in an environment where it's a thing actually happening and they see the problems, and "I (believe I) can legally do this, so I will do it and don't care what you think" is a common attitude in older generations too, combined with lack of belief in the harms.
• Gigachad 1y ago
  I’m Gen Z and I get how someone could be annoyed by this, but it’s also just part of life. I get annoyed when people smoke in public or pointlessly honk horns at night. But you have to accept that being around other people means some people do things you aren’t a fan of.
  • andersa 1y ago
    That's a completely ridiculous comparison. Pointlessly honking or smoking does not create a public record of your activities shared globally without your consent.
    • Gigachad 1y ago
      No, it just smells like shit, subjects you to a small risk of cancer, and the other disturbs your sleep resulting in a number of mental and physical health issues. I’d much rather be shown on YouTube playing a sport.
      • ljlolel 1y ago
        Smoking also disturbs sleep
        • card_zero 1y ago
          Difficult to do both at once, certainly.
  • aeve890 1y ago
    >but it’s also just part of life. Yeah? Who said that? Any selfish person can say the same about anything. "Yeah my dog shat your lawn but that's just part of life. Deal with it". What's part of life is different for everyone. >I get annoyed when people smoke in public or pointlessly honk horns at night. Yeah that's annoying, but neither the smoke or the honk are records of your private life published without consent on the internet, forever. So apples and oranges.
• mothballed 1y ago
  Every airsoft event I've been to has been on private property. Solution here is to use a private airsoft field then make no filming a condition of entry. If they violate the rule, trespass.
  • scotty79 1y ago
    That's the solution. You don't want to be recorded? Attend "no-recording" event. If there are no such events, tough luck. Market is not obligated to serve your particular needs. If you thing enough people care, organize it yourself.
    • soiltype 1y ago
      This comment doesn't engage with the topic at all - you've just used "the free market" as a pass to avoid any meaningful discussion of privacy, consent, and social contracts in the digital age. If your "solution" is literally "tough luck" (we both know "no-recording" airsoft events are extremely unlikely to exist) - what has this added to the conversation?
      • scotty79 1y ago
        > we both know "no-recording" airsoft events are extremely unlikely to exist Let's assume it's true. What does it mean? That pretending to ruthlessly murder people while not being recorded is a niche kink and society doesn't owe this guy any special accomodations. Thanks to the internet, which publishing prowess he abhors, I'm sure, this guy will still be able to find group of fellow degenerates so he can have fun with his exact perversion down to a T. Or he can relax his requirements and perhaps attend swingers club instead of airsoft, because they don't usually record their hobby. Or keep doing pretend murders but relax his stance about recording it towards more mainstream sensibilities. Is this sufficient engagement with the topic for you? Or do I have to spell out that privacy is not special. You aren't organically owed anything when you are with other people, except for what current societal sensibilities dictate.
        • 1y ago
• 2d8a875f-39a2-4 1y ago
  Sounds about right. These kids have been on camera since they were in the womb. The delivery had a pro videographer. Parents had baby monitors with a video feed, later a nanny cam. Schools had cameras in the classrooms and busses from before first grade. Higher grades onwards all their peers had smartphones and social media accounts. Some middle aged dude who doesn't want to be on video makes no sense to them, like that weird uncle of yours who in 2010 had no phone or email address.
• squigz 1y ago
  > There's also a big difference in my mind between, "You might be filmed on occassion" and, "A recording of this goes up on youtube every single week". And there's such a focus on the law and expectation of privacy in public places in these comments. There's a huge difference between someone complaining about being recorded in a small hobby community and complaining about being filmed on a public street.
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• gms7777 1y ago
  I’m currently wedding planning and regularly visit a wedding planning forum. I was left flabbergasted the other day when someone posted if it would be ok to ask guests to not post pictures of the couple on social media. They’re ok with guests posting pictures of themselves or of the venue and decor, they just don’t really want pictures of the bride and groom. The response ranged from “you can ask but you can’t prevent people from posting” to “it’d be rude and inconsiderate to even ask”. One person even argued that it would be rude and other people would judge them if they went to a wedding and didn’t have a picture of the bride and groom. I don’t think I ever felt the generational divide as acutely as in reading those responses, and I’m not even that old, I had social media when I was in high school.
  • siva7 1y ago
    It could be more that those hanging around on wedding planning forums aren't really representative of the younger generation. If it's a wish of the couple, they should clearly communicate this on the invitation.
  • squigz 1y ago
    If someone asks you not to record them at their own event, and you do, you're an asshole.
    • literalAardvark 1y ago
      Not even to not record. Just to treat the pictures as private, which is an entirely reasonable request.
    • carlosjobim 1y ago
      A wedding is one of the most fundamentally public events that have ever existed. The purpose is so that as many people as possible should know that these people are taken. Asking guests to not take photos is such a faux pass that the couple has destroyed their reputation completely. They can have a quiet and private ceremony instead if they have stage fright.
      • 1y ago
• latexr 1y ago
  > I also find video a bit invasive of privacy in a way that photos aren't. I’d argue photos can be more invasive. If someone makes a 10 minute video and you’re somewhere in the background for 5 seconds, no one may ever notice. Furthermore, with compression artefacts for motion you may become difficult to recognise. But if you’re in a photo, people will be looking at it for longer and are thus most likely to notice you and possibly zoom in on you with all the quality the static sensor provides. Furthermore, photographs have greater potential to create false narratives. A snapshot taken at the wrong millisecond can easily make you look like a creep or weirdo when a video would’ve made it clear you were just turning your head or starting a yawn.
  • filoeleven 1y ago
    > A snapshot taken at the wrong millisecond can easily make you look like a creep or weirdo when a video would’ve made it clear you were just turning your head or starting a yawn. Taking a screenshot from a video for exactly this reason is incredibly common. Look at any photograph accompanying a political story about a figure from "the other party". See for example this Reddit post about the "triggered" meme origin: > Ironically, if you ever get a chance to see the video of this incident, this woman and the man she's speaking with are actually having a polite discussion. But... She has very animated facial expressions and the photographer just happened to catch this frame at an inopportune moment. So it seems to me that since a video is simply thousands of photographs with a soundtrack, video is strictly more invasive than photography. https://www.reddit.com/r/memes/comments/adyt1d/comment/hvp04l1/ https://www.reddit.com/r/memes/comments/adyt1d/comment/hvp04...
    • latexr 1y ago
      It is precisely because the video exists that you have the opportunity to correct the misconception, which is exactly what happened with the discussion in your example. Had it been a photograph, that context would have been lost and no one could refute it. The compression artefacts help there, because they make it very clear this was taken from a video, meaning one should look up the source because it probably exists. That is a perfect example of how a photograph could be worse than a video.
• agedclock 1y ago
  It is not a generational thing at all. There were plenty of TV shows centred around candid camera / security camera / home video footage back in the 1980s/1990s well before digital cameras or the internet was ubiquitous.
  • card_zero 1y ago
    Or look at newsreels, or news reports from ... any time up to the 2010s. Obviously people's faces weren't blurred before we had the tech to do it. It's some entirely new, modern prissiness. It screws up the documenting of social history when you can't see any faces. There's been an internet fad for restored film of street scenes from 1915 or so: imagine if all the faces were blurred to protect the privacy of people who no longer care, that would suck.
    • onetokeoverthe 1y ago
      [dead]
    • cal85 1y ago
      The difference is that social media now exists. The fear of an embarrassing or compromising moment causing social embarrassment at an unlimited scale or affecting future employment prospects indefinitely is not based on nothing - we have all seen examples of this. Even an unlikely scenario is worth considering if the stakes are that high. This situation compounded very gradually. In the late 90s, it was extremely common for young people to make each other laugh by doing dumb things in public (sometimes knowingly on camera) that they’d never expect to be seen by a wide audience. Then in the early 00s, the experience of going a little viral (just within your college Facebook community, before the word ‘viral’ was a thing) was actually pretty common and this started to make people just a little more guarded about being photographed. So those who got filmed doing something drunk/dumb would be more likely to go more viral, as it was now a rarer sight. And so on. It’s a recursive effect that made us all duller and more image-conscious and anxious in public. This process took a couple of decades to end up where we are now. It’s not just some new modern prissiness.
• lenors 1y ago
  I'm from Gen Z and the idea of being filmed and published online without my consent sounds like a nightmare. It is my belief that it's an invasion of privacy (even in a public space) and questionable from a (cyber)security perspective. In France we got the Droit à l'image (Right to the image) which makes it illegal to post images or videos of people online without their consent, so that may be why that feels very strange to me.
  • ghaff 1y ago
    And yet it happens thousands (or more) times a day. Even in the US there is the idea of publicity rights--I can't use an easily identifiable photo of you in an ad or other marketing materials. But posting on Flickr or wherever where someone hasn't shoved a camera in your face but you're easily identifiable? Happens all the time.
  • hdgvhicv 1y ago
    Aside from the Eiffel Tower what actually benefits from that right? In many ways an unenforced right is worse than no right at all.
    • ghaff 1y ago
      The Eiffel Tower situation is a somewhat complicated matter. You can (of course) publish a photo of the tower on your social media account. But the nighttime illumination is apparently copyrighted and it's not clear to me if the prohibition about publishing extends beyond commercial purposes anyway. I agree with your broader point. Recognizable people get their photos published on social media every second of every day and, while someone can probably find an outlier example where someone got prosecuted for doing so, it's incredibly rare at the least--even in countries where it's technically a violation of some law.
      • sdoering 1y ago
        In German, we also have a "Right to the image". It is based on our constitutional rights. But, if you are a public figure, as in you are a media person, a celebrity or politician. As in you are actually searching for publicity, the situation changes. Here the beauty of shades of grey and work for lawyers begins. Because while you have lost the clear cut black or white, there are still things that will get the person publishing into trouble. When I started my career in online journalism this was a very long discussed topic while we had our course at the Academy for Journalism in Hamburg. But for ordinary people, the right to your image is a quite strong protection.
• weinzierl 1y ago
  It is primarily a cultural one. You won't find many countries with the "well, if you don’t want to be in photos published online, don’t be in public spaces" opinion outside the anglo-saxon world. The UK is a special place because culturally it belongs to the anglo-saxon sphere but legally it inherited the strict EU personality rights.
  • OJFord 1y ago
    > The UK is a special place because culturally it belongs to the anglo-saxon sphere I hear US culture is fairly dominant in the USA, too?
    • detaro 1y ago
      you should read the entire sentence before replying
      • OJFord 1y ago
        I did, have again, and still have no idea what you mean.
        • detaro 1y ago
          It's special because both parts apply to the UK, not just the one you quoted.
          • OJFord 1y ago
            And I said nothing to the contrary? I just thought it was funny to describe the UK as 'part of the Anglo-Saxon sphere', like Rome is 'among the cities with Roman influence'.
        • kgwgk 1y ago
          >> The platypus is a special animal because it lays eggs but nurses its young with milk. > I hear chickens lay eggs, too?
• ____mr____ 1y ago
  I don't even understand how photos are less invasive of privacy. I try not to be too weird about it, but overall I dislike getting photos taken of me. Why should I put up with that if I want to participate in a hobby?
• Applejinx 1y ago
  I'm a youtuber to support my programming project, and I see many people in my situation being a lot more shy about doing that. It's a lot of work to do it properly and takes dedicated attention to not have your parasocial community turn sour or vicious on you: it's no joke. I wonder how much of this is people expecting that ANY media presence will throw them into the troubles people experience when they have all the media presence. I know if I blow up big enough (not much of a threat right now) that someone will come to hurt me, no matter how I am. That's not about me, it's about statistics. If I blew up that big I could probably afford security… I think some people assume you'll be confronted with that sort of problem right away just by appearing on youtube etc. Sure you will… eventually. Or if you're staggeringly unlucky.
  • ghaff 1y ago
    From a professional perspective, I never worried much and I'm pretty sure it helped me. But I totally understand if there were/are people who are very concerned about putting themselves "out there" when there is at least a remote possibility of some offhand remark or paragraph costing them their job.
• jmuguy 1y ago
  I'm also old enough to remember not having to worry about this and what irritates me more is - I don't want to be part of someone else's "content".
• eloisant 1y ago
  It is very much cultural. In the 2000's I moved from Japan where they're very strict about public filming/taking pictures (it's something you don't do, period) to the US where people were uploading photos to Flickr and tagging people there. Completely different worlds, and we're not even talking about Gen Z because none of them were old enough to be even teenagers.
  • ghaff 1y ago
    That seems weird to me. I remember in the pre-smartphone days when Japanese were the nationality whose tourists were snapping pictures everywhere and group photos in business settings was the norm when Americans at least were sort of thinking weird but whatever.
• ryandrake 1y ago
  I think there is an age range where all this "posting" has been normalized, but outside of that generation it's not appreciated. I'm old enough that this kind of shit is still taboo to me, and I know my young kid and her friends are all deeply aware of who's being photographed, and what to share online and what not to. All the kids seem to deliberately distinguish between photo/video of objects and of people around them, when they go to post things. They're definitely aware and careful. It's this middle age range of maybe 25-45 year olds (?) where a sizable number of people are just careless or even accept casual posting of other people's photos and video.
• lynx97 1y ago
  My theory is that those "you just have to accept it" people are unwilling or unable to confront their own wrongdoing. Out of principle, and also triggered by the recent "AI uses all data available" situation I've tried to voice my disagreement when someone was talking a foto of me. The reactions were all around the same: Nobody was willing to just say "Sorry, of course thats your choice". everyone had some lame excuse or was trying to pressure me socially. "But my brother is deaf and just wanted to show it to his friends". As if I care if someone has a disability or not, especially since I am blind myself. To sum it up, in my experience, people are just not willing to respect your boundaries if you make them aware they overstepped yours. They will always go for some excuse, instead of just accepting they erred.
• tiahura 1y ago
  I think the generational fracture may cut the other way. My impression, consistent with the polls, is that the younger generations are much more willing to embrace authoritarianism when it advances their personal values and interests. They think that the threat of violence from the state to prevent others from forming an opinion of them based on information they don't control is perfectly acceptable. Laissez-faire is passé.
• suyash 1y ago
  Sadly the problem is only going to become bigger with upcoming smart glasses once masses adopt it, everyone will be recording each other without consent.
  • lotsofpulp 1y ago
    In the event of litigation (in court or in the public sphere), one would be at a disadvantage if they don’t have video of their side. Like how you should have a dash cam for your side in a vehicle collision. Although, maybe sufficiently convincing fake videos will make it a moot point in the future.
  • scotty79 1y ago
    I think it'll just desensitize people. Long time ago a kiss on a movie theatre screen was enough to make people protest and leave in indignation. Now everybody is few taps away from hardcore porn all the time and not many people care.
  • onetokeoverthe 1y ago
    [dead]
• brudgers 1y ago
  you risk becoming a side character in someone elses' parasocial relationship Your perception of this as a risk probably suggests cultural and/or generational differences. But for the actual circumstances of the fine article’s author, video is a norm of the community the author seeks to join. Within the community, video is an established practice and making a video rig signifies a higher degree of commitment to the community. Not accepting the use of video, is at least a partial rejection of the community values. Accepting video is a tradeoff for participating in community practices. The practical alternative is usually to find or build an alternative community. [0] To put it another way, joining the bird watching community means keeping lists. Yes, of course you can just watch birds for your personal pleasure, but documentation is a core community activity. [0] sure logically it is possible to change a community, but marginal members (e.g. new, casual, low status) are rarely in position to overturn established practice and run the risk of being set up for the agendas of established members.
  • brailsafe 1y ago
    > To put it another way, joining the bird watching community means keeping lists. Yes, of course you can just watch birds for your personal pleasure, but documentation is a core community activity. How do you define community? Seems like a bit rigid of a implied requirement. The whole idea of conflating community and publicity or some documentation requirement seems a bit silly to me, and it's definitely not rare, but an individual is perfectly within their right to go about engagement in their hobby with other people who have similar interests on whichever terms they like, which seems like community to me, as long as some form of commonly understood communication is present. Likewise the people who do want to establish certain requirements, gates if you will, have the right to do so, but not as a whole. Country clubs don't and shouldn't have exclusive domain over golf, and I don't give the slightest fuck about recording myself at the bouldering gym or skateboarding, but that shouldn't prevent me from being part of either culture or community unless a specific club within those forms around publication. I'd concede that it's possible that a community could exist in such a way that the act of documenting is the exclusive basis for which people are able to communicate at all, in which case perhaps that defines the boundary, but again it seems like it would be rare for that to be so pervasive as to encapsulate the entirety of a hobby.
• al_borland 1y ago
  I find photos and videos to both be invasive and unwanted. I’ve been a member and gyms where the owner will start taking videos and pictures of the class that ultimately end up on social media or in marketing material. I’m not ok with it and I get incredible uncomfortable when I’m in some weird position to do an exercise and a camera starts heading my way. Any time an unwanted camera is around there is some level of anxiety that starts creeping up. Maybe this is, in part, why so many of today’s youth have anxiety disorders. How can anyone just relax if they have to worry about anything they might say or do being on camera, and then posted for the world to see. I was at a party not too long ago where most people were 45+, and some kids that were too young to have phones. No one was on their phones, and people seemed free to dance and whatever. The second one person took out their phone to take a picture/video the vibe shifted drastically, and the owner of the house told them to put it away, so people could go back to enjoying themselves instead of being worried about an embarrassing picture of video that might surface later. I’ve seen so many good times destroyed by cameras.
  • lynx97 1y ago
    I am assuming you have no good alternatives regarding your gym? Because if you feel uncomfortable with the behaviour of the owners, you should really vote with your wallet.
    • al_borland 1y ago
      I don’t go there anymore. The owner has been texting me on and off to try and get me to go back. I’ve been looking for other options, but am having trouble finding one that looks decent for me. It’s a bit of a paradox. When I’m looking for a gym, I find pictures incredibly helpful, but I don’t want them taken of me as a member there.
      • detaro 1y ago
        Most gyms it shouldn't be that hard to take useful pictures without people in them though? Do pictures of classes add anything?
• port11 1y ago
  I'm not sure about generational. We take our baby to swimming classes where it is forbidden to take photos or record video — except on the family day. It's always the millennial or boomer parents/grandparents recording stuff and breaking that simple rule. I think it's a matter of rudeness or carelessness about other people's rights and wellbeing. I want to record this so screw the rules and other babies' privacy. The classes are pretty mixed, it's Belgium after all. If anything perhaps the next generation is so exposed to TikTok that they might find things less compelling to record? I can't say. I wish respect and treasuring things without video evidence were on the rise.