Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

mtbdudex

macrumors 68030
Aug 28, 2007
2,895
5,262
SE Michigan
We’re watching “failed army” now on TV chilling after a whole day of snow skiing at big sky Montana , that’s me with my 3 adult children
0d1e34cb9647f816b1ee688b4c1ba2ff.jpg


Have you guys ever watched “Failed Army”? It’s funny.
The reason I posting here is they fuzz out lots of stuff: brand names, etc.
Also they fuzz people’s faces.
Most of the young kids are fuzzed, I have seen grown people fuzzed also.
9f63b90f3fa1365e2d9b77ada8c36820.jpg



0158be1263457ea7e692bd24bd82b9fb.jpg

7ae557e3f9379fe7f09b6340b9721ffd.jpg

60279a3a96dd55849e8a454c9efd8864.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpotOnT

SpotOnT

macrumors 65816
Dec 7, 2016
1,028
2,174
Really?? What sorts of problems could be bigger than having your person-hood hijacked or exploited and your life and livelihood compromised? I’m truly curious.

Indifference to the problems presented by social media is the root cause of the very legitimate issues raised by the article.

If someone draws your image they are hijacking your person-hood? That doesn’t sound right. An animated object has no legal or ethical claim on your person-hood. Next you are going to say that if someone says your name out loud, they are stealing your voice.

I am happy to talk about the problems of social media, of deep fakes, of child pornography. What I am not OK with, is jumbling up a bunch of separate issues to create a false conglomerate of a monster. The world is horrible enough, we don’t need to make up imaginary monsters.

In my third post, I summarized what the three separate issues were that were being blending together in that Washington Post article. I am happy to talk about each problem, and possible solutions/best practices to each problem. Or if there is another issue with social media - and there certainly are many - we can talk about those. Personally, facial recognition and its widespread adoption has been on my mind.

What would you like to discuss?
 

rm5

macrumors 68040
Mar 4, 2022
3,003
3,459
United States
Have you guys ever watched “Failed Army”? It’s funny.
The reason I posting here is they fuzz out lots of stuff: brand names, etc.
Also they fuzz people’s faces.
Most of the young kids are fuzzed, I have seen grown people fuzzed also.
Nope, never watched it. Although I suppose this is a good example of the blurring of everyone's face, whether a child or an adult—which is what should be done.
 

rm5

macrumors 68040
Mar 4, 2022
3,003
3,459
United States
I have never understood posting pics of young kids online. Especially since the child is not the one giving their permission for their pics to be shared by family.
I understand this sentiment in relation to family members—at least they should ask first. What I don't quite understand, on the other hand, is public photo release. Or it doesn't even have to be images—could be video, music, or anything else. I know this is slightly unrelated, but is still relevant. I also don't get the legal aspects of it, which could be my problem.

Anyway, when I was much younger, I appeared on public radio a bunch with a local band, and I never remember signing (or my parents signing, because I was well under 18 at the time) a release form. I never spoke, so maybe that's why???? Then last year, I was in a video featuring a theatre company (I was in the band), and I never had to sign a release. But then later last year, when I was interviewed for a documentary, I did have to sign one. Keep in mind, the ones I didn't sign release forms for, images featuring me were used very publicly--I mean, I was fine with that, so it was no big deal. Anyway, kinda weird...
 
Last edited:

heretiq

Contributor
Jan 31, 2014
1,021
1,654
Denver, CO
If someone draws your image they are hijacking your person-hood? That doesn’t sound right. An animated object has no legal or ethical claim on your person-hood. Next you are going to say that if someone says your name out loud, they are stealing your voice.

I am happy to talk about the problems of social media, of deep fakes, of child pornography. What I am not OK with, is jumbling up a bunch of separate issues to create a false conglomerate of a monster. The world is horrible enough, we don’t need to make up imaginary monsters.

In my third post, I summarized what the three separate issues were that were being blending together in that Washington Post article. I am happy to talk about each problem, and possible solutions/best practices to each problem. Or if there is another issue with social media - and there certainly are many - we can talk about those. Personally, facial recognition and its widespread adoption has been on my mind.

What would you like to discuss?
Social media is evil, irredeemably flawed, and doesn’t deserve to exist. Save your precise diagnosis, arguments and life energy for something worthwhile.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: Iwavvns

kenoh

macrumors 604
Jul 18, 2008
6,507
10,850
Glasgow, UK
Great article and great advice.

For my business, I am torn and put into a difficult spot. I work for a couple motorsports tracks which want tons of candid photos of riders and family activities around the facility. The sport itself typically has minors in full gear with full face helmets on so no issues during competition, but award podiums, candids, and pit area shots are always full exposure of faces and people's likeness.

On the flipside, I operate a decent sized social media account, with many customers, riders and people I have met following me. In that subset there are many, many kids. I am always advising customers who have kids on IG and Facebook to set their profiles to private (for similar reasons) and also advise against them ever posting photos at the beach, pool, waterpark or similar situations. Just too much room for all kinds of nasty people to do things there.

As others have stated, Image manipulation has existed effectively since Photography was invented. At the same time however, it has never been easier for a basic person (with the assistance of AI or automation) to do advanced edits and swaps of faces or whatever. Heck, even my Pixel 8 Pro can swap heads (of the same person) to do a "Best Take" with a couple presses of a button.

I think this is the crux of it. The ability has always been there but the effort to do it was somewhat of a deterrent. Now like most things it has become easier and faster and therefore more likely to be done more often with malicious intent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 840quadra

olavsu1

macrumors regular
Jan 3, 2022
170
85
If someone draws your image they are hijacking your person-hood? That doesn’t sound right. An animated object has no legal or ethical claim on your person-hood.
It all depends on how and how recognizably the person is depicted. What is legal in one country, may not be legal in another.
 

bunnspecial

macrumors G3
May 3, 2014
8,352
6,495
Kentucky
When taking pictures of these things, you will be dealing with security guards who may demand that the photos taken be deleted. The visual side of these things are protected by copyright and sometimes trade secrets. One of our department stores exceeded the news threshold by the fact that the security guards yelled at the photographer that photography is prohibited in the department store and around 500 meters outside the department store.
Note that the posted pamphlet is specific to the US, but there are some nuances to things like store fronts in the US.

A store or retail establishment(such as a mall) is perfectly within their rights to prohibit photography on their property. That can include inside the store/mall and in the parking lot. They can not, however, prohibit photographing anything that is visible from a public location, or from a location they do not own/control. That means that you are perfectly free to stand on the city-owned sidewalk and photograph storefronts to your heart's content. If you can see them from your back yard or a friend's deck, go right ahead and photograph from there.

Also, no one can compel or coerce you to delete photographs already taken, and especially not private security. As outlined in the pamphlet, the police need a search warrant(which in the US requires probable cause to obtain-a relatively high standard) to view without your permission or require you to show them photos you have taken. If a mall security guard tries to force you to show them your photos or delete them, they could be in pretty serious trouble depending on what they do. Trying to take your camera from you could be assault, damaging your camera would be destruction of property, and forcibly detaining you could be considered false arrest(the last one can vary by state and in some states, how much training the security guard has received). Really, the most they can legally do is tell you to leave, and you CAN be charged with trespass if you refuse to do so.

That's my non-lawyer take on it, and it's also way outside the topic of this thread, but it's also important for everyone to know and is relevant to photography in general. Note that the above pamphlet was written in 2003, a time when a lot of the US was still on edge and very jumpy about anything that could be considered terrorist activity. BTW, the only time I've been bothered or hassled was a few years ago when I was photographing a US Army Corp. of Engineers facility(a lock and dam on the Mississippi river-most locks on inland waterways used for commercial shipping are operated and maintained by the USACE for purposes of interstate commerce and national defense) and had a security guard bug me about what I was doing. They knew that what I was doing was perfectly legal, especially as I was primarily on sidewalks around the public museum at the facility and never ventured anywhere other than locations intended to be public friendly. They also have walking paths and such, and I found myself there in the first place because I was visiting a research facility that my employer owns and operates with an ajoining parking lot, and was actually partially on my employer's property. I finally got tired of talking to them, cut off their question and said "If I'm actually doing something wrong please tell me, otherwise please leave me alone so I can go back to doing what I was doing." They gave me a look of disgust but didn't say anything else for a second so I said "If you can't tell me that I was doing something wrong and just don't like what I was doing and are going to keep harrasing me, get your supervisor out here so that I can file a complaint against you" They paused for a second and just said "have a nice day" and walked off to leave me in peace but sat in their car and glared at me. It was a nice day, I didn't have anywhere to be, and was feeling petty so after I was done I grabbed my laptop out of the car and sat at a picnic table to start looking through and editing the photos I'd taken-I was there for an hour or so, and I think the guard sat and watched me for about 20 minutes before driving around the lot for the rest of the time I was there and slowing down to a near stop every time they passed me-I just smiled and waved.
 

Jumpthesnark

macrumors 65816
Apr 24, 2022
1,242
5,146
California
I went back and re-read that article today. Here is what I found:

The first thing that I was required to do was cancel a pop-up.. that I neither wanted nor asked for. After I canceled that pop-up I noticed a banner appear at the top of the page, which required me to click the X at the right hand side of that banner to remove it. This banner was the second distraction, the first being that pop-up which blocked the article I wanted to read.

The article I came to read takes up about half of the webpage, the rest is littered with unwanted content. The entire right column deals with “most read” and “top stories” items, these are opinion-based items that amount to nothing more than a waste of space.

That entire article could have been consolidated into two sentences: “Be careful when posting pictures or videos of children online. There’s not a magic eraser button to wipe every image or video of someone from the internet.” This would have been plenty of information to get the point across.

The software privacy report that I use in my web browser alerted me to 5 connections blocked and 1 tracker prevented. Those connections and tracker were unnecessary since I was able to read the entire article without them. I find it interesting that an article about privacy includes unnecessary connections and trackers.

I’m not an Internet expert, but I have a feeling that if webpages didn’t contain so much crap we wouldn’t need tons of bandwidth and high-speed Internet.

When I find a webpage has just the article I came to read, and nothing else, I will be happy to pay for that. But, when a webpage is 50% article and 50% garbage then payment should be refused to teach the writers to write more valuable content without pointless distractions.
Print newspapers have always sold advertising right next to stories as well. Thanks to webpages having the ability to be more than a static presentation of a printed image, advertisers and publishers are now using different methods to get you to pay attention to the advertising content. Those ads always took up part of the page, it just looks different now. I agree with you that those ads can often be annoying. One of the things I dislike about the WaPo's ads is that they try to get the reader's attention by having moving gifs or looping videos. Super distracting when I'm trying to read. I didn't get a pop-up when I went to that page, and I tried it from two different browsers.

The links to most-read stories and related content are a way to keep readers on the site longer. This site has similar links. Most every commercial site does, because it's good for them to keep readers there. Also it's good for the readers who have shown they're interested in a given topic.

Those "pointless distractions" have always been there. When you pay for a printed newspaper, the cover price is basically paying for the ink and paper and distribution. The rest - payroll, printing, the associated costs of running a large business such as building rent and utilities - have always been the percentage of income that advertising paid for.

Sadly, web readers are seen as less valuable to advertisers than print readers (who have paid for the newspaper they're reading, which is proof that they buy things, and who can't use those ad blockers). So those online ads bring less income to newspapers, which is all part of the "death spiral" that the news industry is experiencing right now.
 

Iwavvns

macrumors 6502a
Dec 11, 2023
687
968
Earth
The links to most-read stories and related content are a way to keep readers on the site longer.
Yeah, that doesn’t work on me.. those are opinion based items and opinions have no value except to the owner of that opinion. This is why I see social media as a gargantuan waste of time. This is also why likes and reviews, which can be purchased all over the Internet, mean nothing. If you can purchase positive reviews and likes, why would you value them when you see them on a online storefront?

I put zero value in someone’s word when it isn’t accompanied by fact or evidence. When you don’t value someone’s word outside of fact/evidence you begin to see how things like verbal threats, verbal intimidation and verbal bullying have no power over you. Pics or it didn't happen.
 

rm5

macrumors 68040
Mar 4, 2022
3,003
3,459
United States
Never post your face online or child face. It's not hard to right-click and save an image or take a screenshot. There are sick people in this world.
Precisely. Unintended consequences are almost guaranteed if you're not careful.
 

Jumpthesnark

macrumors 65816
Apr 24, 2022
1,242
5,146
California
Yeah, that doesn’t work on me.. those are opinion based items and opinions have no value except to the owner of that opinion. This is why I see social media as a gargantuan waste of time. This is also why likes and reviews, which can be purchased all over the Internet, mean nothing. If you can purchase positive reviews and likes, why would you value them when you see them on a online storefront?

I put zero value in someone’s word when it isn’t accompanied by fact or evidence. When you don’t value someone’s word outside of fact/evidence you begin to see how things like verbal threats, verbal intimidation and verbal bullying have no power over you. Pics or it didn't happen.
The most-read and related content items that I mentioned are based on live counts of raw numbers of visits from individual IP addresses and the site's algorithms. It's not someone's opinion.

And if you're talking about pieces from the WaPo's Opinion section, I just visited the original story from OP and the first group of links I see are related tech stories. Later if I keep scrolling down the page there is a group of most popular items. Just one of the five was an Opinion piece.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clix Pix

Iwavvns

macrumors 6502a
Dec 11, 2023
687
968
Earth
The most-read and related content items that I mentioned are based on live counts of raw numbers of visits from individual IP addresses and the site's algorithms. It's not someone's opinion.

And if you're talking about pieces from the WaPo's Opinion section, I just visited the original story from OP and the first group of links I see are related tech stories. Later if I keep scrolling down the page there is a group of most popular items. Just one of the five was an Opinion piece.
I guess I am different than most people. When I need something I will go and search for it, until I go and search for it I have no need for suggestions. “Trending” and “Popular” are nothing more than solutions in search of problems, meant to keep you on a certain website just to pad viewership numbers.
 

Clix Pix

macrumors Core
Original poster
I for one don't care about "trending" or "popular" or what some silly so-called "influencer" anywhere on the internet has to say, I subscribe to and read The Washington Post each day for national and international news and other stories which interest me. Just as I do on MR and other web-based discussion forums, if the site mentions that a topic is trending, I'll glance at the headline/story title and if it actually interests me, fine, I might have a look, but otherwise I just move on..... How hard is that?
 

rm5

macrumors 68040
Mar 4, 2022
3,003
3,459
United States
I for one don't care about "trending" or "popular" or what some silly so-called "influencer" anywhere on the internet has to say, I subscribe to and read The Washington Post each day for national and international news and other stories which interest me. Just as I do on MR and other web-based discussion forums, if the site mentions that a topic is trending, I'll glance at the headline/story title and if it actually interests me, fine, I might have a look, but otherwise I just move on..... How hard is that?
Not hard at all, and I do the same. It seems to work just fine for me. Usually, "trending" stuff doesn't interest me, either.
 

0339327

Cancelled
Jun 14, 2007
634
1,936
The craziest thing about this is that this is news at all. After everything we’ve learned about social media it’s crazy that people still put themselves out there.

Be very protective about what’s online because there is a lot of evil out there and evil is purely narcissistic.
 

NoBoMac

Moderator
Staff member
Jul 1, 2014
6,282
4,968
Moderator Note:

This thread is getting too political, social commentary. Posts have been deleted/edited.

If this continues to drift, the thread will be closed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clix Pix

Clix Pix

macrumors Core
Original poster
When I started this thread I definitely did not expect it to take quite the potentiaily political twists and turns that it has. I was more focused on reminding people of the importance of seriously considering images that they are about to post on the internet, especially when those images involve children and teens. It really is sad that there even have to be warnings and cautions issued at all, but unfortunately that seems to be an ugly underside of photography which has become more visible because of the internet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rm5
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.