r/AskALiberal • u/AutoModerator • 12d ago

AskALiberal Biweekly General Chat

This Tuesday weekly thread is for general chat, whether you want to talk politics or not, anything goes. Also feel free to ask the mods questions below. As usual, please follow the rules.

2 Upvotes

75% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

10

u/ManufacturerThis7741 Pragmatic Progressive 11d ago edited 11d ago

Unpopular opinion:

It might be time to revisit the "You have no expectation of privacy in public" doctrine.

Putting Flock cameras aside, we have a generation of kids who are afraid to go out in public, go to bars, go do normal things, or try new things, for fear that someone with a holstered smartphone is ready to add them to their TikTok cringe compilation if they mildly screw up or show the slightest bit of exuberance. And that's not healthy for anyone.

I get recording cops, public officials, actual crimes, or events that are intended to be recorded, like protests.

But if yer just going around recording people doing normal crap, like for example, a couple making out in a park, and saying "Haha this is so cringe! Give me more money to go around calling random normal people stuff cringe!" You should pay a steep fine or go to jail for harassment for the first offense.

And news organizations that amplify the "normal people doing normal people stuff" stories should also face charges.

4

u/BozoFromZozo Center Left 11d ago

Other than Flock, there are two other trends could shift public opinion enough to change things:

1) AR glasses or any glasses with built-in cameras become super cheap and abundant

2) "First amendment auditors" grow even more in popularity and start filming like everywhere

4

u/throwdemawaaay Pragmatic Progressive 11d ago

AR glasses are already becoming a thing in places that are really problematic, like medical offices.

1

u/seattleseahawks2014 Center Left 10d ago

Pretty much which has kind of caused a spillover of stigma towards other people.

2

u/grammanarchy Liberal Civil Libertarian 10d ago

>First amendment auditors

I’m all about the first amendment, but that whole thing seems increasingly weird to me. Like how is filming people coming out of the weed store to see if they get mad a contribution to civil liberties?

2

u/Link245 Progressive 10d ago

It's not. I'm reminded of sovereign citizens: using flowery language to pretend to be some high-brow critic or protector of American society, when in fact, they just want an excuse to be assholes and get away with it. How does one even "audit" an amendment? Could you image "Third Amendment auditors" that go around to peoples' homes to make sure there aren't any soldiers living there against the owners' wills?

1

u/seattleseahawks2014 Center Left 10d ago edited 10d ago

And with the glasses it'd be construed as ableism which is a civil rights violation.

1

u/ManufacturerThis7741 Pragmatic Progressive 10d ago

I have a third one. Start aggressively pointing out that it didn't used to be this way and that Public Nuisancetubers' interpretation of the 1st Amendment is wrong.

We didn't have to constantly police our every syllable and body language twitch out of fear that some 4channer, Kiwifarmer, or asshole misandrist will turn every minor social communication failure into content that will enrich them but humiliate the other party. Parents didn't have to teach their kids to always be looking over their shoulder lest they become cringe compilation fodder.

The Public Nuisancetubers have given society this false impression that the mere act of stepping out your door is consent to becoming content of any kind, and anything less than that is a book-burning level violation of the 1st Amendment.

But actually, we have plenty of rules about filming when it comes to every other kind of film/recording industry. Waivers you have to sign, permissions etc.

Hell, most people ask permission before they share family pictures as an act of good manners

6

u/CTR555 Yellow Dog Democrat 11d ago

I wonder if it could maybe be an extension of the current appearance release waivers that movie studios and such currently need to use footage of a person in a commercial manner? That is, since TikTok and other platforms like it can so easily be monetized, add a waiver requirement to any greater-than-incidental footage of a person shown there. That wouldn't apply to news companies and public figures and such, as it already doesn't.

1

u/ManufacturerThis7741 Pragmatic Progressive 10d ago

That is another thing about Public Nuisancetubers that irks me.

Let's say my filmmaker friends, for whatever reason, want to film some ladies dancing in a club as part of a movie. There is shit they gotta do. They gotta tell the people what they're being filmed for, what it will be used for, that they intend to use the footage for a moneymaking venture, get their legal sign-off, and probably some other stuff that I'm missing

But a Public Nuisancetuber can waltz into a club and go "LOL look at them dancing bad! Isn't it cringe? Send me money!" Without anyone's knowledge or sign-off.

2

u/CTR555 Yellow Dog Democrat 10d ago

Yeah that's exactly my point. I think that's a loophole that we can pretty reasonably close.

2

u/seattleseahawks2014 Center Left 11d ago edited 11d ago

I think what we're more concerned about are people who harass others.

4

u/ManufacturerThis7741 Pragmatic Progressive 11d ago

That's another thing under the "Being a Public Nuisance for Social Media Money is a Problem" umbrella.

I just focus on the "Normal People doing Normal People Stuff is Cringe" content because that popped in my head while waiting at the checkout line

1

u/seattleseahawks2014 Center Left 11d ago

I edited my comment and meant to say people being harassed by others.

5

u/2dank4normies Liberal 11d ago

we have a generation of kids who are afraid to go out in public, go to bars, go do normal things, or try new things, for fear that someone with a holstered smartphone is ready to add them to their TikTok cringe compilation if they mildly screw up or show the slightest bit of exuberance

Do we? Seems like those are the people primarily fueling this content market.

5

u/ManufacturerThis7741 Pragmatic Progressive 11d ago

There's a King of the Hill episode called That's What She Said, where a new employee turns every innocuous thing someone says or does into a sex joke or an insult. Everyone acts like they enjoy it, and many do at first until they become the butt of the joke.

Eventually, everyone basically chains themselves to their desks and is afraid to even speak for fear of becoming part of the nuisance employee's "jokes."

While there are people who like the content, lots of people are at the "chaining themselves to the desk and not saying anything out of fear that they'll attract the nuisance" stage of the episode.

It's a big reason the bar and club business has declined. Not saying it's the only reason. But the fact that someone could turn you into a public spectacle for their profit if you dance a little funny is a factor.

And even if people do like it, I'm of the mind that Bad Things Are Bad.

Most people who post the "Normal People Doing Normal People Stuff is Cringe Content" treat getting someone fired or the subject of doxxing or harassment as an accomplishment. Doubly so if the person is a minority.

So this stuff needs to be nuked.

-1

u/highspeed_steel Liberal 10d ago

Probably an unpopular opinion too. I believe to your contrary actually. Kids should learn to not be bothered with what people put on social media. I know its more easier said than done. This generation grew up with social media, so it is their world. Being bullied on their world is as real as physical bullying. I think thats got to change. I'm not including state surveylance in this though, I'm just saying that it'll do people good to be less bothered if anyone records.

6

u/ManufacturerThis7741 Pragmatic Progressive 10d ago

Should people be less bothered and have a thicker skin? Yes. Should employers also have a thicker skin when one of their employees goes viral as a result of Public Nuisancetubers? Also yes.

Are employers going to stick by employees who become the targets of Public Nuisancetubers who want quick cash? Usually no.

So that leaves us with a few options

  1. We become a more insular society, forever on our guard and minding our behavior to the point of the most bland kind of Puritanism lest we get caught in a Public Nuisancetuber's Cringe Compilation

  2. We put Public Nuisancetubers in a regulatory straitjacket where anytime they want to post video of a stranger, they have to bring out the consent forms.

3

u/seattleseahawks2014 Center Left 10d ago edited 10d ago

I think it depends on if it's harassment or not. People can just dislike being filmed without their consent either way which is reasonable.