> This is nonsense, for a number of reasons. Clearly, one should be able to exist in society, including going outside one’s own home, without needing to accept

> This is nonsense, for a number of reasons. Clearly, one should be able to exist in society, including going outside one’s own home, without needing to accept this kind of thing. I find these kinds of argument somewhat odd, as they imply that "this kind of thing" is some unacceptable violation of clearly pre-established rights. Rather, one must realize that existing in society always had the implication of being visible to society, and that public spaces are just that: a place accessible to all, where if you chose to be you must also accept being observed by its other attendants. Some physical public spaces might be crammed so full of people that it's hard to breathe, while others will have them few and far in between. Some virtual public spaces might be breaking records with their viewer counts, others will never be graced with the presence of an eyeball. Streamers just connect a physical public space with a virtual public space. Being recorded and published in a final edit of an on-demand video is slightly different (and not implied in streaming), but that is a much older dilemma that we have had more time to adjust to and hammer out rights regarding, and few would really pay attention to someone recording on the street with anything other than slight curiosity. So no. I believe this is the society you must accept being a member of. The only thing that has changed with time is the medium (memory and word-of-mouth, paintings, photos, video recording and finallys livestreaming), not the actions. But as important, being caught on rando streamer's camera will by default only contribute about as much to your internet fame (and loss of privacy) as going to the local grocery store. (For those curious if age contributes to the standpoint, I'd fall in the 30-40 bucket.)