1379
Consumer, we have detected that you are above the poverty line. The 99¢ price printed on this Arizona tea can only applies to those below the poverty line. Your total comes to $3.67. (lemmy.world)
submitted 3 months ago by LengAwaits@lemmy.world to c/aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
265 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

You can take pictures of people in public:

Taking Photos In Public Places Is Not A Crime: Analysis

[-] JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee 6 points 3 months ago

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. And just because it's technically legal doesn't mean you're not an asshole for doing it.

It called being a decent person.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I didn’t take the picture. And I don’t know if this person wasn’t compensated for this image.

The reason you can post all those images on the internet is almost entirely because of Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 or Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The law essentially provides website providers immunity from third-party content. Generally believed to be the basis for the internet as we know it today, it’s not a given that those protections will remain in place. Giants such as Facebook and Google are under scrutiny from lawmakers for antitrust violations and other misuses of power. No more Section 230, no more upload free-for-all. source

I’m aware of the concerns, but should every meme be copyrighted? Can I not take a photo of my daughter at Disney Land and post it to FaceSpace because unconsenting people are in the background?

Maybe the more pressing issue is to address the house less situation instead of berating people who copy paste images. But, that’s just me.

[-] JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

I didn't think you personally took that picture, but your attitude of "it's perfectly legal" is rather off putting. Something being legal doesn't make it ethical.

Also, taking a pic at Disneyland with strangers in the background is different than taking a pic of a specific stranger for the purpose of humiliating them on the internet. You know this, I know this, most people know this. It cruel and wrong. Not that hard to parse out really.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

When capitalist alienation got people thinking performativity is direct action. When it’s really just performative activism.

[-] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I didn't say to make it illegal. I didn't say it was illegal. I said to "normalize" (a social more) not doing so especially when the person has no choice except to live in the public. Especially when they

  1. wouldn't appreciate it being taken or consent to it,
  2. it's not particularly newsworthy,
  3. it's a low moment in their lives, and
  4. it won't benefit them and will benefit the picture taker/poster financially or otherwise

Like we don't make picking your nose in public illegal, there's just a social more that that's gross behavior. That's what I'm asking for - that mistreatment of people be seen as gross.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

Noted.

“If you are interested in helping the homeless and drug addicted, volunteer your time, write a check, lobby the government officials in your community. These people are not on the streets for your amusement. They are real people with real problems not a vehicle for your next social media fix. I truly believe that it’s up to each of us to treat our fellow human beings with dignity and respect. The next time you’re tempted to take that shot of someone passed out on the sidewalk or the young person begging for a meal, think how you would feel if that were you or your family member appearing on someone’s Facebook post.” source

But,

The reason you can post all those images on the internet is almost entirely because of Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 or Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The law essentially provides website providers immunity from third-party content. Generally believed to be the basis for the internet as we know it today, it’s not a given that those protections will remain in place. Giants such as Facebook and Google are under scrutiny from lawmakers for antitrust violations and other misuses of power. No more Section 230, no more upload free-for-all.

this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2024
1379 points (98.8% liked)

A Boring Dystopia

9756 readers
106 users here now

Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.

Rules (Subject to Change)

--Be a Decent Human Being

--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title

--Posts must have something to do with the topic

--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.

--No NSFW content

--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
givesomefucks@lemmy.world