Facial recognition and crowdsourced social media investigations are constantly being used not just on cringe CEOs, but on random people who are simply existing in public.
It was on the jumbotron - surely one or two of the thousands of people at the show knew who it was. And then we’d have people watching it remotely, or the show appearing on video services, etc.
Assuming this was discovered via “Social Media Surveillance” is a leap, and a weak argument about such surveillance (which is a real problem that I’ve been arguing against since the late 90’s).
Again, this was on the jumbotron. Stuff on the jumbotron has made the media circles since the advent of the jumbotron.
Their reaction is what set it all off too. Even the singer immediately speculates that they’re having an affair because of how they acted. So yeah, even if he wasn’t a billionaire, somebody probably would have doxxed him anyway because there are tons of people that like drama and know they can make money off it. That he is a billionaire and doing something deeply unethical is what makes the story go viral all over social media. Lots and lots of people there want to make money and clout by exploiting any avenue for drama and engagement.
Perhaps the problems this exposes are not just our grim and omnipresent surveillance apparatus, but the attached system of gig-economy content creators all racing to the lowest common denominator for scraps of engagement and ad revenue? We’ve created a society of unempathetic monsters.
That he is a billionaire and doing something deeply unethical is what makes the story go viral all over social media.
Is there a reliable source that he is a billionaire? I haven’t seen that in any reporting. “Billionaire” is a four letter word around these parts, I would be careful about throwing the label around without solid evidence.
Perhaps the problems this exposes are not just our grim and omnipresent surveillance apparatus, but the attached system of gig-economy content creators all racing to the lowest common denominator for scraps of engagement and ad revenue
This I think is the real story. This isn’t necessarily about our surveillance state, but more that we are constantly observed by the world and it is a specific type of hell that we cannot escape. The fact that this makes adultery more difficult is a bittersweet benefit, I guess, but there are no guardrails on this sort of thing. If this was in any other context besides a cheating CEO this would all be supremely fucked up, and that’s why I think this is an article worth talking about.
Fair cop, I didn’t check source I just saw it mentioned elsewhere. His company being valued at just over a billlion probably confused people.
I grant that there’s a difference of degrees here, but him being “just” an unethical millionaire doesn’t substantially change my views on the situation.
Someone in another thread mentioned polyamory which I find a personally interesting angle as well, since I practice relationship anarchy. This situation would just never happen to me because all my paramours know each other and know about the activies we do together. It makes me suspicious of these stories because while I also enjoy laughing at a rich guy getting caught, I don’t like that it culturally reinforces this idea of monogamy as a core value and that breaking the trust of such monogamy should have public consequences.
Obviously the last thing I want is society-wide condemnation of the wrong aspect of this situation. It isnt the having a side-piece that’s the problem, it’s the lying to your primary partner (and everyone else) that actually creates the trouble.
Half-assed Google search suggests he’s worth somewhere between 20 and 70 million.
Sounds believeable, but I will point out that a google search alone is not a reliable source, so we still truly do not know and we shouldn’t be making statements like this without reliable sources. Page one of a google search is just all the publications that paid google the most money to be on page one. IME, most of those are trash-tier AI-gen articles.
Yeah, I’m all against social media surveillance, but this was on the jumbotron at a concert. Having said that, I do hate those segments in concerts and sports where they feature audiences on the screens without consent. It’s not like there’s a line in the customer agreement when buying tickets that you allow your face to be featured (unless there is?). That’s why I always make myself as boring as possible - either just sitting with a straight face, or eating something - so I don’t get singled out.
Yeah… I am not sure how much this incident has to do with facial recognition or media surveillance. You went to a large concert for a globally known artist, where you can reasonably expect hundreds of cameras owned by both individuals and the venue. You brought your side piece, started touching all up on her. Recall the Jumbotron, which is famously used to highlight couples. Then you act shocked… That’s how you win stupid prizes
Most concerts don’t have jumbotrons, though, and a jumbotron at a sporting event that is highlighting fans who are dressed in team colors is very different than just focusing on random people. There’s a lot of ink that’s been spilled on the creepiness of “kiss cams”.
It can be both wrong to cheat, and also wrong for us as a society to act as though being outside your home is consent for people to take videos of you as a subject. We should all have the right to exist without being someone else’s entertainment or content.
Was it dumb for them to be there together? Yeah, though mostly because it’s dumb to cheat.
I am not sure how much this incident has to do with facial recognition or media surveillance.
I think this situation is a horrifying lens into just how much surveillance and social media sharing of strangers people are accepting of.
You say, “you can reasonably expect hundreds of cameras owned by both individuals and the venue” as though there’s nothing wrong with just recording everyone that is in public. Incidentally catching someone in a crowd is one thing, but zooming in on and singling people out is another. I don’t think it’s a particularly long leap to get from your quote to, “it’s reasonable for police cameras to see you and know where you are if you’re out in public”.
It was on the jumbotron - surely one or two of the thousands of people at the show knew who it was. And then we’d have people watching it remotely, or the show appearing on video services, etc.
Assuming this was discovered via “Social Media Surveillance” is a leap, and a weak argument about such surveillance (which is a real problem that I’ve been arguing against since the late 90’s).
Again, this was on the jumbotron. Stuff on the jumbotron has made the media circles since the advent of the jumbotron.
Their reaction is what set it all off too. Even the singer immediately speculates that they’re having an affair because of how they acted. So yeah, even if he wasn’t a billionaire, somebody probably would have doxxed him anyway because there are tons of people that like drama and know they can make money off it. That he is a billionaire and doing something deeply unethical is what makes the story go viral all over social media. Lots and lots of people there want to make money and clout by exploiting any avenue for drama and engagement.
Perhaps the problems this exposes are not just our grim and omnipresent surveillance apparatus, but the attached system of gig-economy content creators all racing to the lowest common denominator for scraps of engagement and ad revenue? We’ve created a society of unempathetic monsters.
Is there a reliable source that he is a billionaire? I haven’t seen that in any reporting. “Billionaire” is a four letter word around these parts, I would be careful about throwing the label around without solid evidence.
This I think is the real story. This isn’t necessarily about our surveillance state, but more that we are constantly observed by the world and it is a specific type of hell that we cannot escape. The fact that this makes adultery more difficult is a bittersweet benefit, I guess, but there are no guardrails on this sort of thing. If this was in any other context besides a cheating CEO this would all be supremely fucked up, and that’s why I think this is an article worth talking about.
Fair cop, I didn’t check source I just saw it mentioned elsewhere. His company being valued at just over a billlion probably confused people.
I grant that there’s a difference of degrees here, but him being “just” an unethical millionaire doesn’t substantially change my views on the situation.
Someone in another thread mentioned polyamory which I find a personally interesting angle as well, since I practice relationship anarchy. This situation would just never happen to me because all my paramours know each other and know about the activies we do together. It makes me suspicious of these stories because while I also enjoy laughing at a rich guy getting caught, I don’t like that it culturally reinforces this idea of monogamy as a core value and that breaking the trust of such monogamy should have public consequences.
Obviously the last thing I want is society-wide condemnation of the wrong aspect of this situation. It isnt the having a side-piece that’s the problem, it’s the lying to your primary partner (and everyone else) that actually creates the trouble.
Half-assed Google search suggests he’s worth somewhere between 20 and 70 million.
Astronomer as a company is worth around a billion.
Sounds believeable, but I will point out that a google search alone is not a reliable source, so we still truly do not know and we shouldn’t be making statements like this without reliable sources. Page one of a google search is just all the publications that paid google the most money to be on page one. IME, most of those are trash-tier AI-gen articles.
Yeah, I’m all against social media surveillance, but this was on the jumbotron at a concert. Having said that, I do hate those segments in concerts and sports where they feature audiences on the screens without consent. It’s not like there’s a line in the customer agreement when buying tickets that you allow your face to be featured (unless there is?). That’s why I always make myself as boring as possible - either just sitting with a straight face, or eating something - so I don’t get singled out.
It’s shitty, but there is. Hell, even at small venues there usually at least a line saying “By buying this ticket you agree to be recorded”
Yeah… I am not sure how much this incident has to do with facial recognition or media surveillance. You went to a large concert for a globally known artist, where you can reasonably expect hundreds of cameras owned by both individuals and the venue. You brought your side piece, started touching all up on her. Recall the Jumbotron, which is famously used to highlight couples. Then you act shocked… That’s how you win stupid prizes
Most concerts don’t have jumbotrons, though, and a jumbotron at a sporting event that is highlighting fans who are dressed in team colors is very different than just focusing on random people. There’s a lot of ink that’s been spilled on the creepiness of “kiss cams”.
It can be both wrong to cheat, and also wrong for us as a society to act as though being outside your home is consent for people to take videos of you as a subject. We should all have the right to exist without being someone else’s entertainment or content.
Was it dumb for them to be there together? Yeah, though mostly because it’s dumb to cheat.
I think this situation is a horrifying lens into just how much surveillance and social media sharing of strangers people are accepting of.
You say, “you can reasonably expect hundreds of cameras owned by both individuals and the venue” as though there’s nothing wrong with just recording everyone that is in public. Incidentally catching someone in a crowd is one thing, but zooming in on and singling people out is another. I don’t think it’s a particularly long leap to get from your quote to, “it’s reasonable for police cameras to see you and know where you are if you’re out in public”.