The Snoop Next Door Is Posting to YouTube

Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "Your most trivial missteps are increasingly ripe for exposure online, reports the Wall Street Journal, thanks to cheap cameras and entrepreneurs hoping to profit from websites devoted to the exposure. From the article: 'The most trivial missteps by ordinary folks are increasingly ripe for exposure as well. There is a proliferation of new sites dedicated to condemning offenses ranging from bad parking and leering to littering and general bad behavior. One site documents locations where people have failed to pick up after their dogs. Capturing newspaper-stealing neighbors on video is also an emerging genre. Helping drive the exposés are a crop of entrepreneurs who hope to sell advertising and subscriptions.' But other factors are at work, including a return to shame as a check on social behavior, says an MIT professor."

No problem?

[alshithead]

I don't see a problem. You can either forgoe shameful behavior or keep it hidden. If you're doing something you would be ashamed of then you probably shouldn't be doing it in the first place. If you're doing something that you feel you shouldn't be ashamed of but that others might want to shame you for, then keep it private. I call that civilization. For those that say they are entitled or should have the right, if most people agree then there is no reason to be ashamed. If most people don't agree then maybe you need to reassess whether or not you should be ashamed.

I'm betting some will disagree with me. If you can provide me an example of where I might be wrong I'm certainly willing to think about it. Offhand, I couldn't think of an example on my own where my logic wouldn't work.

First post?

It seems to me...

[ChePibe]

...that it's fairly simple to avoid becoming a target of these websites:

Pick up after your dog.

Park correctly.

Don't take things that don't belong to you.

I know that if people in my apartment complex did this, we could all live happier lives, particularly the picking up after dogs bit.

Don't want to have a video of you stealing your neighbor's paper show up on YouTube? Don't steal your neighbor's paper.

Re:No problem?

[robably]

You don't see a problem? The problem is How long does someone have to be ashamed for, and in front of how many people? You put something on the internet and potentially it's there forever and can be seen by millions, like with Star Wars Kid. I believe forgiveness is necessary in society - being allowed to learn from your mistakes and move on to become a better person - but we seem to have a culture where nobody forgives and nobody is allowed to forget. The people doing the uploading, who feel the need to shame and humliate someone this much, must be pretty unpleasant themselves.

Re:Dog crap?

[tomhudson]

Why not cure both problems - pick up the dog shit they didn't pick up (use a plastic bag) and "fill up" the door handles of their car that they so inconsiderately parked in your spot.

If they "discover" this at night when its dark, so much the better ... shit happens ...

Just remember to post the video :-)

Re:Misleading video, punishment fits the crime, et

[alshithead]

"Are you saying the majority is always in the right? I can think of a few examples where the majority would deem an act "shameful" that shouldn't really be. Stealing a newspaper is (in most cases) shameful, as is not cleaning up after your dog. But what about, for example, getting rejected when asking someone out? "

Why would getting rejected when asking someone out be shameful? That strikes me as a self image problem. So that's one attempt at an example, do you have others?

"Finally, even with shameful acts, there is the idea that the punishment should fit the crime. What if you stumble home drunk, piss on your car, and collapse in your doorway. Now, first of all, that's pretty pathetic, and you probably deserve ridicule. But that ridicule should come from friends and neighbours. Should that video go online, where your employer might see it? Does it have your name on it? What if it affects future employment opportunities? "

I'll agree with pathetic but I can't agree with the part about deserving ridicule. Deserving empathy, sympathy, and HELP come to mind first. If it affects future employment opportunities then maybe it will promote a change in behavior. Realistically, it's unlikely an interviewer would assume anything other than "hey, this guy kinda looks like the guy in that drunken video I saw in the web".

Re:No problem?

[Snarfangel]

You don't see a problem? The problem is How long does someone have to be ashamed for, and in front of how many people?

Just like everyone gets fifteen minutes of fame, in the future, everyone will get fifteen minutes of notoriety. As long as you can withstand that, you're golden.

Look at Richard Jewell. He was falsely accused of planting a bomb and had every media outlet on the planet broadcasting his picture. Yet how many people today could pick him out of a lineup, or have more than the vaguest recollection of what he looks like, other than his weight? Anything less newsworthy will net you fifteen minutes of fury, and then people will go on to the next scandal.

Re:Misleading video, punishment fits the crime, et

[inviolet]

Well said.

There is another angle to the "punishment should fit the crime" point, and that is this: the internet's memory is too long. The old-fashioned kind of shame was visited upon the offender by eyewitnesses, and after a while the incident would be forgotten. Nor could their memories of the incident be accurately spread to non-witnesses. And that was usually sufficient.

Not so with YouTube.

Re:So CCTV is OK?

[LunarCrisis]

It's interesting that so far, most of the posts here are saying "What's the problem? Don't do stupid and shameful things, no problems", yet wherever the issue of CCTV Brit style comes up, it's nothing but outrage. What's the difference?

The difference is that in this case the public has access to this material, which causes much less concentration of power (bad in my books) than it being restricted to one centralized organization such as the government. Like it or not, as technology progresses, physical privacy is on the way out. I'd much rather lose my privacy to everyone than lose it only to the government.

Redefinition of shame

[Harmonious Botch]

...nobody is allowed to forget."

I might rephrase it as "anybody can refresh their memory if they want to", for you don't have to watch it repeatedly on youtube. But regardless, I think there is a good side to this. Some of what is considered shameful by the majority of our population should not be so, and continued exposure to it may cause some rethinking of the issue. We may end up with a better common definition of shame.

The most prominent examples are things in the sexual area. Nudity is often considered shameful; IMHO it should not be. Necking in public is often considered worse than fighting in public; IMHO it should be love not war.
On the other hand, shame may increase for some things. For certain activities like lying - which IMHO is undershamed - that would also be a good thing.

Is shame still an effective deterrent?

[hasbeard]

To what sense is shame still an effective deterrent? To feel shame requires that one sense that in some way his actions are socially unacceptable. As the boundaries of our culture seemed to have been stretched further and further, what was once unacceptable is now acceptable. For example, once homosexual behavior was deemed unacceptable. Now, it seems at times, homosexuality is almost a "status symbol." Increasingly, rudeness seems to be tolerated. Right wing and Left wing political figures and commentators insult one another with abandon. It seems to me that there are an increasing number of people who seem unable to sense when they have crossed the boundaries (or else they don't care).

Re:Exactly.

[bladesjester]

Not to mention the fact that far too many employers have fairly extensive checks done on potential employees now.

That "harmless" video could impact your career for the rest of your life.

The fact that businesses need to realize that a person's personal life is just that - personal - and they have no business basing their hiring decisions on perfectly normal, legal activities that are done outside of the workplace is a whole other matter.

Remember, boys and girls, things on the internet never really go away.

Re:No problem?

[GreggBz]

I guess I don't think like you, not anymore.

A few years ago one warm summer day, I got fuming mad at some woman who was going rather slow, worrying about something inside her station wagon and could not decide on a lane. I remember this vividly. Latter, honest to god, I saw her checking out at K-Mart. She was buying gatoraide for some reason and chatting with the clerk. She started crying. It turns out she had just moved to the city where I live, someone had stolen her pocket book, she could not find it in here car and she was having a really bad day. I made it a point to apologize for my behavior when we were both driving, cause you see, I was the real asshole.

You don't walk in these peoples shoes, please don't arbitrarily demonize them. Nobody ever gets to know anyone these days. I guess we are to busy hiding behind our gadgets. Really, how well do you know your neighbor? It's easy to judge someone badly, it's a little harder to get to know your fellow humans and see them for what the are, human. People are not just an inconvenience in your self-absorbed little world. Yea, I know, it's scary to say "hello, how are you, I'm such-and-such..." but you'll feel better if you truly live and let live.

Re:Exactly.

[Travoltus]

If you're in a restaurant and need to make an important call the polite thing to do would be get up and go to the restroom lobby or outside and make the call.

You do make a good point about being "held hostage to anyone's momentary whims". Another post made reference to "noise". At some point only the most extreme cases will be used to try and cause shame. All others will be ignored and viewed by such a small number of people that they won't be shamed.

And how do you know that the idiot close enough to film you for that minor infraction is not psychopathic enough to lean over and spit in your food while you're gone? These people, by definition of their behavior, are crazy enough to do that. Or, should I use the more accurate word... fanatical... dictatorial... stodgy, hateful, spiteful, mean spirited, utterly lacking a life of their own... People who expose you online for making/taking a call in a restaurant need themselves to be checked in somewhere for their own good.. and ours.

As for some videos being ignored... no, not really. I'm a top manager at a really big small business (yes, contradiction there) and I know all about investigating applicants. I know my underling managers and I'd be hard pressed to hire someone who would see someone being humiliated online over some minor shit and not laugh at it and then see this person as a total joke and not a potential employee. It happens everywhere. Almost everyone is mentally at the point of doing that now.

They were actually set up for it by Reality TV.

Come back and visit this post in 5 years. You'll be shocked and awed by how much worse things have gotten by then than my dire predictions today. 5 years.

Re:Misleading video, punishment fits the crime, et

[Anonymous Coward]

Realistically, it's unlikely an interviewer would assume anything other than "hey, this guy kinda looks like the guy in that drunken video I saw in the web".

Short hop from that to using Google to see if any available videos/images/etc on the potential employee. Something you and others have ignored is the complete frameup. Lots of ways to accomplish such, from creative editing to spiking your drink. "Hey everyone, check out this shot of alshithead in bed with a 12 year old." Remember now, you shouldn't have been doing that to get caught!

Ask your elders what they would have thought of this if it had existed when their 57 Chevy was just a rockin with the windows all steamed up. Well, they shouldn't have been doing that you say? You have any idea how easy it would be to make that happen without anyone in the care? The world is too full of pratical jokers and vindicative people to rate this kind of a thing as not a problem.

Videos can go both ways, they can persecute someone or even save them. Google for how Larry Flynt saved John Delorean with some video he got hold of with evidence that the FBI forced Delorean to smuggle cocaine into the US and then arrested him for it. Now think about this, what if only video of Delorean actually committing the crime had existed? He shouldn't have cooperated and done it? Read the history better, they told him they were going to kill his daughter if he didn't do it. What would you do?

Re:It seems to me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't go into an abortion clinic.

Don't vent about your horrible boss over beers with your coworker.

Don't break an unjust law.

Don't get angry and swear at the jackass filming you... ...and for God's sake, don't ever make a mistake.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Fair game: Its all in public

[atcurtis]

What people do in public becomes public property.

If someone acts like an arse in public, should not be surprised to find it posted on a website.

If they don't want anyone to post them doing disgraceful things in public, they should either refrain from doing something which people would find offensive... or if they are a true sociopath, they can always murder all the witnesses before they can post it online.

I would so dearly like to attach a video camera to my car, perhaps with a 30 second buffer, so that when I press the button to record an event, everything up to 30 seconds before the event is also recorded. Would much prefer a good quality video camera so that license plates are clearly visible.

I seem to recall that a few years ago, a man in Japan was fined for speeding based upon video evidence posted online...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:No problem?

[killjoe]

It's great that you see nothing shameful or embarrassing about that video. The problem is that the vast majority of the people on this planet don't share your view and they will mock this person for the rest of his life. Whats worse is that there is a real chance he will be denied a job because of it.

Re:Exactly.

[alshithead]

"So is it safe to say then that if you are in a restaurant and need to have an important conversation the polite thing to do is get up and go to the restroom lobby or outside to have the conversation? It is perfectly legitimate to make a phone call at normal conversational volume anywhere that a normal conversation could be held. I think what ticks of most of the cellphone bigots is that they can no longer hear both sides of the conversation. It has very little to do with the actual noise involved."

I think the problem is a little different than that. Normal conversation with other folks at the table is fine. Cell phone conversation at the table all too often entails the "CAN YOU HEAR ME KNOW" type of conversation due to background noise. Not to mention the fact that I usually don't eat at a restaurant by myself so I would choose to make that call away from the table so as not to be rude to the folks I'm eating with. I would normally say "excuse me, forgot I need make a short, important call" and then leave the table for a minute or two. Of course there are exceptions but my preferred way to make the call would be to excuse myself and leave the table. As to the cellphone bigots...fuck them. I'll be as polite as I can but I am the one who determines how important the call is. If I need take or make a call, I will. But, I'll always also do my best to minimize my call's impact on others.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:No problem?

[joto]

Or his potential employeer will see that he is the famous Star Wars Kid, and employ him on the spot, hoping that some customers will recognize him. Which is just as likely.

Or his potential employer won't recognize him. Because he is at least 5 years older, has different clothes, a new haircut, and doesn't try to dance around with a long stick. Which is the most likely thing to happen.

But then again, it's only our generation who cares about this. When the kids of today grows up, everybody will have access to nude/embarassing/whatever pictures/movies/whatever of everyone else.

Different ethics

[Per Abrahamsen]

How about movies of women visiting abortion clinics? Men visiting brothels?

Or, where I live, you could risk the life of some Muslim high-school girls by publishing photographs of them kissing non-Muslim boys.

Should two men be allowed to walk hand in hand in a public park, without getting their picture on www.godhategays.com?

Or what about people who aren't doing anything ethically wrong (even by the fanatics who would consider any of the above examples morally evil), like people who are overweight, mentally ill, bad dressers, clumsy, plain ugly, or otherwise doesn't live up to the norm of society?