this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2024
1376 points (98.8% liked)

A Boring Dystopia

9773 readers
384 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
1376
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 35 points 3 months ago (4 children)

New fashion trend just dropped:

[–] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago

A few months later the policy is quietly abandoned after customers kept dirty clothes in their car to wear when shopping to game the algorithm. The presence of so many poor looking people attracted the homeless and criminality, what caused complaints and lowered the brand value.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

I don't think that'll save you from having data harvested from your cell phone.

That said, turning off location tracking might become a habit while browsing the aisles.

[–] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Hey normalize not posting pictures of people taken in public against their consent at their lowest moments. Like wtf, what if that was you?

It says a lot when your respect and compassion for another person turns off just because they are homeless or poor.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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 (1 children)

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) (1 children)

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 (1 children)

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) (1 children)

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.

[–] Halosheep@lemm.ee -3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

There it is, the standard lemmy-tier moral superiority post.

You know nothing about this person or the context of this photo. Someone using their picture as an example of dirty clothes and the look of someone who is homeless isn't going to make their life worse.

[–] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That's sad that asking for better behavior is looked at with derision on your part.

Agree to disagree. I don't really feel like discussing further with you.

[–] Halosheep@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That's fine, your moral superiority has been established. Hope you enjoy the view atop that high horse.

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

Keep punching down ✌️

What we say matters. Even just 1 person on 1 platform.

https://www.npr.org/2021/05/13/996570855/disinformation-dozen-test-facebooks-twitters-ability-to-curb-vaccine-hoaxes

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

Remember the outcry over the various Kanye items--$100 white t-shirt, etc...? It's all coming full circle. In a few years, cities' homeless populations will be wearing crisp Brooks Brothers suits and its wealthy assholes will be in disheveled streetwear.