This was a great commentary on the current state of society.
I know “hypocrisy” always sounds triggering but when people broadcast their lives and actively relish in the private lives of others and THEN scream about getting their privacy, there’s no other word for it.
Plus I loathe the word “trigger” anyway.
Your comments are pure, reasonable and appreciated
It amazes me that anyone would believe that they have a right to privacy in public places. The two things literally do not go together.
Do I have an expectation of privacy on my own property? Of course. I can’t just walk into someone’s home and start taking pictures of them, nor would I stand on the (public) street and take photos of someone on their private property. (On the flip side, if my front porch is visible from a public place like the street, I’m not going to do anything there that I would not do in public either.
As for social media, I stay off most of that these days because there is no polite discourse any more (substack seems to be an exception to that, but people here seem to be of the more thoughtful and nuanced inclination). I mean, yeah, the internet has always been bad in that regard; I’ve been online long enough to bear the scars of more than a few Usenet flame wars, but back then it was the domain of highly opinionated nerds with differences of mostly well-informed opinion. Not today where it’s based on misinformation and a total lack of critical thinking or fact checking in most cases.
I agree with you on every point except one. Gilden does NOT get an exception. There is never any excuse for being a willful, obnoxious asshole toward other people.
In some cases I simply agree that I am all of those awful things I was just called, suggest we set that aside as a non-issue, and suggest we discuss the issue at hand with facts and citations of sources. Often things stop right there. What one finds out is that we end up dealing with someones opinion, based upon whatever, but held close as a part of ego. It's hard to have an exchange in that scenario.
As for shooting in public; it's tricky. We have laws and manners, not the same thing.
A premise about online discussions is that there’s only one way to converse: one makes an assumption and the others comment in that. That means disagreeing leads to a confrontation between A, the one posting and B the one commenting. Real doesn’t work that way: there are real conversations where ideas can be interchanged not only that way, opinion currents etc. Beyond that, theories about street photography doesn’t solve the topic because it’s not only about the right to take photos and the one to not be bothered by a photographer. It’s also about social behavior no just about regulations
It has been stated, "Whatever I can legally see with my eyes, I can photograph." The idea is that you cannot trespass someone's eyes from a public place; therefore, you cannot stop someone from taking photos from that same space.
This applies to people in public or buildings standing in public view, as you noted in your The Permission Trilogy essays.
Imagine standing at the foot of the Gateway Arch and demanding no one take a photo of your likeness.
I no longer have social media, and I am much happier for it. The dipshittery was overwhelming, at times. Sadly, I sometimes feel that SS is falling into the trap of allowing itself to become Social Media *Light*. Lack of critical thinking skills is always self-evident.
While reasonable discussion is always valued, and a cogent argument against your own beliefs is valuable as grist to sharpen your own thinking, SM is not the place to engage in reasonable discussion.
I think that the best way to view SM is to think of it as a world-wide experiment, with an unknown (unknowable) thesis, but with the opportunity of extended longitudinal observation; in 100 years, we might have some conclusions to draw, but the experiment is still in the early stages.
Mark Twain, has two views on arguing with fools that I have found enlightening, and that I employ, personally.
1.) Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
2.) Never argue with a fool, onlookers might not be able to tell the difference.
I read once that Socrates, when trying to educate the youth of Athens, would occasionally find an individual who could not be reasoned with; I believe he called them Asshats, and ignored them.
This is all very good. Thank you. I was conversing about Twain just this morning and referred to the first of those commentaries about stupid people. You have articulated the issue well. I think it’s just a shame that almost no space is left for reasonable people to have reasonable discussions. As I heard someone say yesterday, “almost every single space has become a space for screaming at each other.”
Everything breaks down when you can argue with impunity, because you are anonymous. Solve that problem and make everyone sign their scrappy posts, and a lot of the dipshits go away, if not all of them!
I wish that were true but Facebook is a good example of people being shitty to each other even when their full name and profile is linked to their comments. Anonymity makes it worse, though.
I believe it’s more the case that when you’re in an exchange online, it seems less “real”. You aren’t looking the other person in the eye, seeing any of the body language and other nonverbal cues that would be there face to face. And for a lot of people that abstraction is enough to make them forget that it’s an actual real person they’re arguing with. Or maybe they really don’t care and they only act “nice” in real life because real life has real potential consequences.
I have never been on Facebook, which probably makes me an odd duck, but I have read things online, which nobody would dare say to my face, and I am no Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime! I do take your point though. I do think signing your name at least makes you think first. Though a brain - even a small one - is required for this step. 😆
The courts have held that photos in public are akin to free speech, but we’re now seeing free speech threatened. These are both dangerous erosions to our fundamental freedoms. Both are ethical issues. Making maliciously awkward photos of people in public is inexcusable as is saying irresponsible things on (anti)social media. Both are ethical matters, and more than ever ethics don’t matter, and this has terrifying long term consequences for society.
This was a great commentary on the current state of society.
I know “hypocrisy” always sounds triggering but when people broadcast their lives and actively relish in the private lives of others and THEN scream about getting their privacy, there’s no other word for it.
Plus I loathe the word “trigger” anyway.
Your comments are pure, reasonable and appreciated
As are yours. Thank you!
It amazes me that anyone would believe that they have a right to privacy in public places. The two things literally do not go together.
Do I have an expectation of privacy on my own property? Of course. I can’t just walk into someone’s home and start taking pictures of them, nor would I stand on the (public) street and take photos of someone on their private property. (On the flip side, if my front porch is visible from a public place like the street, I’m not going to do anything there that I would not do in public either.
As for social media, I stay off most of that these days because there is no polite discourse any more (substack seems to be an exception to that, but people here seem to be of the more thoughtful and nuanced inclination). I mean, yeah, the internet has always been bad in that regard; I’ve been online long enough to bear the scars of more than a few Usenet flame wars, but back then it was the domain of highly opinionated nerds with differences of mostly well-informed opinion. Not today where it’s based on misinformation and a total lack of critical thinking or fact checking in most cases.
I agree with you on every point except one. Gilden does NOT get an exception. There is never any excuse for being a willful, obnoxious asshole toward other people.
I can't argue.
In some cases I simply agree that I am all of those awful things I was just called, suggest we set that aside as a non-issue, and suggest we discuss the issue at hand with facts and citations of sources. Often things stop right there. What one finds out is that we end up dealing with someones opinion, based upon whatever, but held close as a part of ego. It's hard to have an exchange in that scenario.
As for shooting in public; it's tricky. We have laws and manners, not the same thing.
A premise about online discussions is that there’s only one way to converse: one makes an assumption and the others comment in that. That means disagreeing leads to a confrontation between A, the one posting and B the one commenting. Real doesn’t work that way: there are real conversations where ideas can be interchanged not only that way, opinion currents etc. Beyond that, theories about street photography doesn’t solve the topic because it’s not only about the right to take photos and the one to not be bothered by a photographer. It’s also about social behavior no just about regulations
It has been stated, "Whatever I can legally see with my eyes, I can photograph." The idea is that you cannot trespass someone's eyes from a public place; therefore, you cannot stop someone from taking photos from that same space.
This applies to people in public or buildings standing in public view, as you noted in your The Permission Trilogy essays.
Imagine standing at the foot of the Gateway Arch and demanding no one take a photo of your likeness.
That’s the idea, exactly. You cannot trespass someone’s eyes from a public place. Well said.
Preach!
I no longer have social media, and I am much happier for it. The dipshittery was overwhelming, at times. Sadly, I sometimes feel that SS is falling into the trap of allowing itself to become Social Media *Light*. Lack of critical thinking skills is always self-evident.
While reasonable discussion is always valued, and a cogent argument against your own beliefs is valuable as grist to sharpen your own thinking, SM is not the place to engage in reasonable discussion.
I think that the best way to view SM is to think of it as a world-wide experiment, with an unknown (unknowable) thesis, but with the opportunity of extended longitudinal observation; in 100 years, we might have some conclusions to draw, but the experiment is still in the early stages.
Mark Twain, has two views on arguing with fools that I have found enlightening, and that I employ, personally.
1.) Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
2.) Never argue with a fool, onlookers might not be able to tell the difference.
I read once that Socrates, when trying to educate the youth of Athens, would occasionally find an individual who could not be reasoned with; I believe he called them Asshats, and ignored them.
This is all very good. Thank you. I was conversing about Twain just this morning and referred to the first of those commentaries about stupid people. You have articulated the issue well. I think it’s just a shame that almost no space is left for reasonable people to have reasonable discussions. As I heard someone say yesterday, “almost every single space has become a space for screaming at each other.”
The sad truth.
Everything breaks down when you can argue with impunity, because you are anonymous. Solve that problem and make everyone sign their scrappy posts, and a lot of the dipshits go away, if not all of them!
I wish that were true but Facebook is a good example of people being shitty to each other even when their full name and profile is linked to their comments. Anonymity makes it worse, though.
I believe it’s more the case that when you’re in an exchange online, it seems less “real”. You aren’t looking the other person in the eye, seeing any of the body language and other nonverbal cues that would be there face to face. And for a lot of people that abstraction is enough to make them forget that it’s an actual real person they’re arguing with. Or maybe they really don’t care and they only act “nice” in real life because real life has real potential consequences.
I have never been on Facebook, which probably makes me an odd duck, but I have read things online, which nobody would dare say to my face, and I am no Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime! I do take your point though. I do think signing your name at least makes you think first. Though a brain - even a small one - is required for this step. 😆
The courts have held that photos in public are akin to free speech, but we’re now seeing free speech threatened. These are both dangerous erosions to our fundamental freedoms. Both are ethical issues. Making maliciously awkward photos of people in public is inexcusable as is saying irresponsible things on (anti)social media. Both are ethical matters, and more than ever ethics don’t matter, and this has terrifying long term consequences for society.
Well said!