We Talk Friday
(WTF)
This is a semi-regular series that I will run on Fridays to hold discussions on a current topic from the week gone. The aim is to keep them light and conversational, though some might be heavier - regardless of the content topic itself though, just have some fun engaging and discussing with whoever happens to put in the effort in the comments section below.
For the last couple days, there has been a "viral" story of a man and woman put on a Kiss Cam at a Coldplay concert, and once they realised, quickly hid from view. Chris Martin joked about them having an affair or being very shy, and a concertgoer who filmed it put it on Instagram. Apparently, the couple are the CEO and head of HR at a large tech company.
Now their jobs are under review.
So, regardless of whether cheating on a partner (the CEO is married) is morally right or wrong, do you think it is up to a company to make a moral judgement considering that adultery is not a crime in Boston, Massachusetts? And yeah, a company can have all kinds of morality clauses packed into work contracts and the like, but these are apparently two consenting adults. And one of them is head of HR
She knows her rights.
But this aside, do you think it is okay to put video of random people you film on the internet? I see these stories of women filming men who look at them in the gym and getting support, but I don't think people should be filming themselves in the gym anyway. I also don't think that they should do it in places where people in the background can be seen, or become the focus. I don't want to be randomly filmed. Not only are they filming, but they are publishing the video into a public space with the intention of drawing attention to it in order to get some form of payment, whether that is monetary or social.
Aren't there consent laws?
At least in Finland, filming in public spaces is fine as there is no expectation of privacy, unless it is in places like a public bathroom where there is an expectation of privacy. But, publishing that content publicly generally requires consent. As soon an identifiable person becomes the focus, it requires consent. This means, the person who published the clip of the two cheaters, broke the law by Finnish standards.
And to go one step further, commercial use always requires consent. And when it comes to social media with people who are looking to get some form of payment for their content - doesn't that become a commercial action? If this publishing woman's account now gets monetized because of a viral clip, her account has become a commercial enterprise and what she is selling is the content. Again - breaking Finnish law.
People cheat. Millions of people cheat every year in the US alone - yet the majority don't have their faces published around the world, nor do they lose their jobs because of it. These people aren't celebrities - they are just two people fucking around. The social-driven internet is a cesspool of race to the bottom behaviours in the quest for attention. It isn't about being good at something, it is about ridiculing and judging others who are probably doing better than most at being good at something.
And the desire for attention is only getting worse.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
Be part of the Hive discussion.
And you may be rewarded.
