When I was young in the 90's we used to go to music festivals. It was nice to be with your friends, just relax and enjoy some music.
Years ago I went back to the same festival, and what I notice what changed immensely was that everyone was taking pictures and selfies with smartphones. It was so weird to see. Plus, what used to be a Rock festival was now a Pop festival (everyone needed to be there).
Somehow nowadays, you don't only enjoy yourself, but you have to broadcast it that you're enjoying yourself. For me, that takes away a big part of the enjoyment.
Some years ago I went to see the ball drop at NYC. It was a terrible experience. Every single person I saw had their phone out, the only thing I could see was flashes, everywhere. Nobody was seeing anything with naked eyes, just through their cameras. It was weird.
If you live/work in tourist spots, you can’t walk 10 feet without getting interrupted by a tourist taking their stupid, duck face picture. It is near impossible to enjoy anything in peace these days. I blame it all on social media. I can’t wait for all social media to die, but that’s not gonna happen, Is it?
Mid-summer, 2020, we hopped in the car and drove to Nice, France. It was in a lull of COVID so we were able to walk around without masks for the most part. It was amazing to go to the "hip" tourist spots and be one of the only ones there, just enjoying the view. <sigh> now the tourists are all over the place in my own city and it is annoying af.
Off season travel is great for exactly this reason. Well, being bound to school holidays limits your options. One thing worth to remind ourselves of when travelling or seeing tourists were we live: We are either locals, but at much more places we clearly are the visitors. The trick is to behave like a visitor and not like tourists being only that many letters removed from a terrorist.
Something's gotta give. I don't think we can take it much further. I hope it's a passing fad. Once everybody shares everything it's not special anymore so how do you stand out? Having no online presence might become a new flex.
Does it interrupt the photographer when I pay them no mind and walk in front of them? Their muttered curses say yes. Therefore, photographers interrupt everybody else in the area who, unlike me, feel compelled by some social convention to give photographers a cone of exclusion in front of the camera.
Politeness goes both ways, photographers should try to be as discreet as possible. And others should pay some attention to what others do around them, including photographers.
Calling them photographers is being generous and this is not the place for your personal photo shoot. Sorry but after the 200th time of trying to walk down a crowded street in New York and waiting for someone to finish taking a group selfie, I'm done with that.
> Making TikTok by playing loud music creates a nuisance for pilgrims from all over the world who come to the birthplace of Gautama Buddha
> Over recent months, there have been reports of TikTok creators storming farms and trampling crops, and even causing traffic jams while shooting. Chamomile farmers in Morang in eastern Nepal were forced to harvest their crop early, as some TikTokers trampled on their crop. In Kathmandu, a popular street that was decorated with colorful umbrellas to attract tourists after the Covid-19 slump went viral on TikTok, and authorities were forced to shut it down as creators flocked to the area, leading to traffic congestion.
On New Year’s Eve at NYC, the streets are jam packed. There is barely any space to move. Everyone around you has their camera out, trying to take photos of the ball drop. The only thing you can see are flashes. Then you’d curse yourself for waiting for hours in the cold, only to see flashes.
On a normal day in NYC tourist areas, it is common for tourists (especially younger women) to take pictures every few feet. Initially you’d be polite and not walk into their frame, but this gets old super quick. You’re irritated, they’re irritated (because you didn’t pause for their dumb photo shoot)… ruins everyone’s day. All you wanted was to walk uninterrupted.
I used to live and work in upper east side. Took me a while to get used to it
>How does it interrupt you for someone else to be taking a photo of themselves?
Blocking one's path for once, even more so with telescope sticks and of course taking pictures with one in the background without consent. I live near one such touristic area where there's a rather narrow sidewalk. In the summer it is like running the gauntlet. I'm too often too nice by first letting people finish their posing and taking pictures, only that frequently even 5 selfies seem not enough because they didn't get that perfect angle right for the 'insta'.
Yes, you can stand in the middle of a narrow path and use a selfie stick to take photos. No, you shouldn't do that if it inconveniences everybody around you. Doing so anyways makes you a self-centered dickhead.
You’re not ‘doing’ anything to someone by taking a photo in public with them in the background. You don’t have reasonable expectations and it’s fine for reasonable people to disregard them.
It's one thing to shove a camera in someone's face. It's another for people to have any reasonable expectation of not getting into even the background of a photo when walking down a city street or in some other busy place.
I used to work down the road from a big tourist attraction in London. Every lunch hour, I’d need to walk past a mass of people congregating outside the building taking photos, among other things (like forming a circle around a busker, taking up even more space).
I could try wait for a dozen people to finish taking photos (and it’s never just one photo, selfie or otherwise).
Or, after a couple weeks of this, I just stopped caring and would walk past them irrespective of interrupting someones shot. Now if they made an effort to leave an easily navigable gap behind the photographer so I could walk past without interrupting, sure, I did that. Most didn’t.
There’s still a lingering uncomfortability knowing I might be recorded forever in someone’s social media feed or whatever they do with the photos. Yes I know, it’s a public space and all.
For me, I try to be polite and not get in the way of someone trying to take a picture of someone on a bridge across a sidewalk for example. But it can get to the point where I'm just rude and pretend I don't see them. At least selfie sticks seem to have become less common--probably because smartphones are often available with wider lenses today.
I live in Japan now and live performances tend to have somewhat strict no photography rules. I believe the same is true in Korea/with K-pop acts.
Most foreigners are pretty taken aback when they encounter this, but I really like it. Not only do you not have to stare at everyone else's smartphone screen but it also removes any temptation to yourself to "preserve a memory"
First culture shock when I visited Japan in 2015 was when I pulled out my phone to take a snapshot of the airport express train arriving. Every Japanese person in my line of sight either darted away or covered their faces with their hands. That day I learned it was taboo to take snapshots like this, even if your subject is some inanimate object like a train if there are people around.
Seems this is Japan specific, as I have not encountered this in Korea or Hong Kong.
Really? I can't say I have ever noticed this in Japan and I've been there a number of times. And pre-digital it was Japanese who were notorious for snapping pictures of anything and everything.
In the US, live theater usually has very strict rules about any sort of recording. I've seen ushers on Broadway rushing to block people from even taking a picture of the empty stage before a show or shooting a selfie at curtain call. Live popular music is more of a mixed bag.
No longer common since the ubiquity of mobile phones. You usually still can't bring any cameras with interchangeable lenses (e.g. a DSLR), or a high quality audio recorder°, but IME the only shows that do anything to prevent all recording are stand-up comedy acts.
I tape (audio) fairly openly at a lot of shows, most venues (or at least those who work for the venues) don't appear to care these days as long as it's not taking up space/getting in the way.
And a lot of artists are also pretty tolerant at this point of it. For example, The guy who runs the excellent (unofficial) live archive for NIN, got an invite to meet the band rather than a cease & desist.
Cultures are different. In my country it's common courtesy to mind your own business and don't tell other people what to do. Personal freedom versus conformity.
If you're the kind of person who gets annoyed easily at others instead of ignoring them as we are taught you won't last 5 minutes.
I saw chapelle in NYC years back (the before pandemic times), they really did this. You can hang onto your phone, its just locked in a neoprene type bag.. On the way out they have a device to open it (kind of like security tags on clothes..).
It’s not a totally new phenomenon, but it’s gotten much worse. I remember as a kid, my mom would interrupt $enjoyable_experience to take photos for the family album. It would totally take me out of the flow as a kid and is why most of my childhood pictures are of me with an annoyed expression. In fact, most of my adult pictures feature the same expression for the same reason. Only, now my wife is the one with the camera.
How come taking a picture of you playing in the yard "takes you out of the flow"? x) You make it sound like you were writing assembly or something.
For me, I look back on pictures and tapes of my childhood with joy. I'm glad my parents recorded those things and I can go back and see how things were when I was 3 or 8 or 12.
"Wait wait, do that again so I can get a picture of it! No no you were over here, don't face this way do what you were doing before just pretend I'm not here. What's wrong, you were having fun a minute ago stop pouting!"
Camera people can be really obnoxious like this, particularly to young children who haven't yet learned the value in humoring their parents. I always hated it when my mother got out the camera. If she had stood back and taken pictures without trying to arrange everything for the 'perfect' pictures it wouldn't have been such an issue. But that's not how it ever went.
As a hobbyist photographer (well, I do it less, now that everyone is taking pictures all the time), I do not at all like interrupting real life to pose a picture. I don't want that picture. I want a picture of actual real life. If the person I am taking a picture of changes what they're doing because I took a picture, then I have messed up.
This so much! Sure, a photographer has a presence and influences shots of people. But tgat influence can be minimized. It is hard so, maybe a reason why I largely prefer landscapes and architecture!
> How come taking a picture of you playing in the yard "takes you of the flow"?
Not the person you are replying to, but I can explain to you how it was "taking me out of the flow", because I have the exact same feeling about my mother and taking pictures.
If it was just her taking pictures while I was doing something like playing in the yard, that wouldn't be an issue. However, it was never just this. It was always "ok ok, hold up, one sec, can you stand over there to the right and look in this direction and smile?" whenever we went somewhere that was supposed to be a fun experience that wasn't a part of the daily routine. As a kid, you can imagine, stopping doing whatever fun thing I was doing just to awkwardly pose for a photo I don't care about in the slightest for a few mins, it was an aggravating and not a fun experience.
I actually would not have minded at all if she took pictures of me while i was doing something without interrupting and stopping everything. To this day, I find photos of me (and just in general) taken "naturally" (without stopping things and everyone posing intentionally) to be the best all around. They just look real and looking back at them makes the memories of that moment flow back into my head much stronger.
> To this day, I find photos of me (and just in general) taken "naturally" (without stopping things and everyone posing intentionally) to be the best all around
100% my impression too. Photos where no one is trying to "pose" are the best (with few exceptions). But my significant other disagrees. She feels there's no point in such photos. We've agreed to leave it at that.
In addition, I gather a sense of happiness curating photos a few months after the photos were taken. I tend to remember the details of such events in a lot more detail and for much longer. I remember much less looking at a picture of us posing for a scenic background as compared to a picture of just her, in the moment, doing something.
I now enjoy capturing 20 second videos of me and family doing whatever, with no one trying to pose, they just look at me with the phone and smile or wave. The background conversations captured in them string together a lot of precious moments and memories.
Not OP, but had/have the same. It's because the person taking the photo doesn't want to capture the moment, they want to capture a choreographed moment, where everyone is looking at the camera, smiling etc. The same photo as everywhere else, but there.
As a child you don't have to be writing assembly to be immersed in something. If someone takes a picture it suddenly makes you conscious of yourself rather than what you are immersed in.
I like to take a couple of photos for my album when I am doing some activity I'd like to remember (say, visiting a place on vacation). It's pretty important to me.
However, I dislike two things
1.) Doing it for every small activity
2.) Broadcasting it on social media
For 1.), I find that I don't really benefit from every walk around town or whatever in my albums. It's more enjoyable to remember significant moments - and there are quite enough I think.
For 2.) I find that to find a good representation of what is happening, I need to alter my behavior. Instead of taking two to five pictures, I need to take videos and hundreds of pictures etc. As others have mentioned, this kills the actual thing. Instead of "I visited place X and did Y", it becomes "I took photos and videos at place X pretending to do Y".
So the sweet spot is in between. I am very happy to have taken some photos - even selfies - in the past, and I wish I would have taken slightly more photos (or better ones, or videos) in the past, before we had such nice phone cameras.
Pictures are great to remember moments. For that, we need enough pictures of these moments - but we also need to have made memories. We need to have experienced the actual thing.
Pictures that go on social media are marketing. They have a different purpose.
Same usually happens at any metal show I go to. I remember when people actually immersed themselves in the experience. Now they stand completely still, mouth a gape, and film the whole thing on their phones as if no one else will do so and upload it to YouTube later.
Given how supposedly unhappy people are, I think society really needs a spiritual awakening.
well the out of touch thing is not realizing that theyre broadcasting to their friends, its not about pretending that they’ll watch it at a future date
the interactivity is leaps and bounds higher and more fulfilling
I don’t record more than a couple 15 second videos, at an event, choosing to consciously “be present”, but from those broadcasts I get friends trying to find me there, I get introductions to their friends, I get dates from people that want to share in the energy at a future event, I get hookups - I sold an extra ticket at a festival by posting w/ the right hashtag and the girl was attractive and liked me and I hung out with her squad all day and into the morning
There was nothing unhappy about it
in a big crowd everyone is doing this at different intervals
even another commenter’s interpretation about “broadcasting that you’re having fun means youre not having fun” is way off the mark, its a beacon for other people to come be part of the fun. at least there is some self-awareness here about old man yelling at clouds.
people here are extrapolating reasons that are wildly incorrect, instead of just nonjudgementally asking people to get a wide variety of modern answers.
I do this at concerts, but mostly because I feel like a lot of venues I go to are flat, and as a short person there is almost always a sea of taller people blocking my eye-level view.
Ugh, you just reminded me of a random concert in a park I went to a few weeks ago. Everyone was just chilling on their blankets watching the show. As more and more people showed up, they just started standing around all the people with kids on the blankets, blocking our view.
We ended up leaving pretty early because it became pointless once people literally started standing on our stuff. I swear, venues oversell things to the point where it is too crowded to actually enjoy it.
But wouldn't you like to watch all those concerts again today, just to reminisce?
We have the technology now and I can't really fault people for using it.
Selfies I could go without, especially when the subject of the photo is something else and the only reason for putting yourself into the shot is proving it really happened.
Is this something you actually do? Watch a crummy video of a song you know, with the sound distorted to cracks and pops? I never understood the appeal, knowing I was there is, and should be, enough.
Also, someone remembers your phone in front of their view.
I think you're begging the question by describing it up front as 'crummy'.
A band I like play very differently when live to when recording, almost like a different vibe. It's great that some people have recorded it as otherwise there wouldn't be any way to remember it.
My main gripe is with disturbing the attendees who paid for a ticket and went to the live show. You getting to see the show through other peoples phones is not something the paying guests care about, but have to suffer for anyway.
I find the phone screens distracting my view with their light to be pretty annoying at a live show. I try not to be too judgemental as I typically will record about 15 seconds of a band that I'm seeing to send to my son and someone else in the crowd could be doing the same thing. People have become content creators for better or worse.
Maybe there could be a "concert" mode on your phone that turns down brightness to a low percentage and cuts the view down to a quarter of your screen.
> I never understood the appeal, knowing I was there is, and should be, enough.
The video captured that couple in front of you who were ridiculous, and that nudged you to remember talking about them afterwards with your friends. You wouldn't have remembered it otherwise because memory is not very durable or accurate at the best of times.
This is why everyone should follow the lead of Dead & Company and offer places to patch in to the sound system so people can record high-quality bootlegs
Not the OP but as someone who has attended many concerts and music festivals I can say I have no desire to watch any of them again. I have my memories of them and would rather spend my time making new ones.
Yeah, I think it's impossible to encapsulate feelings anyway. I think we think we remember how something feels, but we just simulate it on demand, and there's no way to tell the difference.
While the percentage of time is surely low, the high concentration of people per area means the frequency with which you encounter it can be quite high. I personally don't care much about being in random people's selfies, but having to constantly dodge people taking random pictures is definitely an annoyance when you're already trying to navigate a crowded space.
While I understand the intent of the freedom of expression campaigners statements and those by "content producers", they are missing important context and assuming they are without blame.
The "content producers" are not interested in the location itself, only what the location can give them, which is engagement numbers on their platform. The sanctity of the location itself is of little relevance.
It's that singular focus which is the problem here, not any kind of curtailment of freedom of expression. And even with such freedoms you shouldn't expect no consequences. These loose bans are the consequence, and I'm willing to bet that at no point would other tiktok users or expression campaigners have asked their fellows to behave themselves.
After all there are other people who visit these locations and aren't needed to be told to respect it.
How does monetizing a public good for your own selfish social standing to the detriment of everyone else become freedom of expression to begin with? I'd like to know who those campaigners are.
It's a person expressing "a public good" - not themselves - for their own selfish gain. When an influencer runs through a super market recording everyone and every item (s)he's not expressing (it)self. Nobody asked for a review of that place(unless they were specifically invited to that which is rarely the case), nobody asked to be recorded by those people, and most of the times the people this is broadcast to, won't ever set foot in that country or the store.
I think there is bright red line between "I love this place/item and I want to share it with my friends and family and hopefuly I can show it to you in person one day" and "I don't care about this place, but I want all of you guys all think I'm amazing". Somehow this has become blurred.
I once was told that my personal freedom ends when I put everyone else's personal freedom at risk. It seems that people understand this fact only in very few parts of society. Otherwise you could argue that it's wrong to remove a bloodsucking leech from your leg, because you would infringe on its freedom of expression.
> Nobody asked for a review of that place(unless they were specifically invited to that which is rarely the case)
I agree with a lot of what you've said - but you don't need the seller's permission to review a car or a video game or a washing machine or a hotel room.
'Invited' reviewers are basically all shills, who know they'll never get invited again or gifted free review units if their review is anything less than glowing.
Yes I realize that this part had a potential for a misunderstanding. I actually agree with you regardless of your post. I think the distinction with your example is that that review is actually not done our of selfish self promotion. Oftentimes this kind of review actually is a common good since it may actually protect others from a potentially hazardous outcome.
I do agree that in some cases the line between altruism and selfish desire is very fuzzy.
> How does monetizing a public good for your own selfish social standing to the detriment of everyone else become freedom of expression to begin with? I'd like to know who those campaigners are.
Freedom of expression includes that and it was done for years. Photographs taking pictures or videos of public spaces and monetizing them is nothing new nor outrageous. There are local limitations, in Europe often about your ability to center other people in your pics or videos. But afaik, in USA you are free to take pictures of people or public spaces full stop.
> Somehow this has become blurred.
This was never as clear as you make it up to be. The primary difference is that too many people do it in current form and they do a lot of repetitions or include music.
Freedom of expression or speech or whatever never included the requirement to "not be selfish". Also, the limitations that EU or USA tend to put on places basically never deny specific platform. You might have to pay extra for ability to take pictures. You might be unable to use flash. It might be flat out denied to play music at some place (requirement to be silent). These are fairly normal restrictions, that dont care whether you are personally outraged over tik-tok or youtube - which is actually what makes sense.
Even in America, you need permits in many places to film for commercial reasons. People who are making a job out of being an 'influencer' are obviously filming commercially, so I don't see anything wrong with making them get permits.
So? How does that contradicts anything I wrote? Freedom of expression is name of a group in Nepal pushing for their things. America is utterly irrelevant (but actually public photography in America allows quite a lot).
Note also how those permits literally never state "your intentions must have pure interest in place itself" as person I responded to assumes. Instead, they tend to be commercial and protecting monetary value of the place. Once you pay for permit you do whatever you please with it, unless it divides between commercial and non commercial. And they never limit platform - there are rules around flash or noise or time spend etc - you are quite clear on them from the start. Which is literally what the disagreement in article is about.
Note also I disagree primary with nonsensical comments that projects their outrage over media not targeted at them existing and young people putting serious effort in them then with Nepal authorities trying to trial-and-error rules that will work.
And follow all the other rules aroind commercial content creation, e.g. getting model consent before publishing. Something all pros do, and again a way where disruption is actually just another way to say that rules don't apply to you.
The trickey question is so where the threshold for "commercial" activities lies.
USA has looser rules around taking photos of strangers then other places (like European countries tho rules there differ). In general, if it is public space, you can legally take pictures of people and use them even when they are fairly prominent in pic. The privacy limits tend to be stricter in EU, usually to Americans comains on HN.
But, in the article in question, other people were not issue. More of too many repetitions and activity changing feel of the place.
First of all that "freedom" is a US constitutional thing, not defined anywhere else as such so maybe some expectations should be tuned down a bit. Secondly not even in the states does freedom of expression equate "freedom to do whatever and wherever I want" - try yelling nasty things at a biker gang and see where that gets you. But you know what is defined pretty much everywhere else? The right of property - which includes the right to ban from it whoever you feel like, without bothering even to give an explanation.
> That's generally not true. Try banning <insert specific race here> and see what that gets you.
I can't speak for other countries, but in the US you are free to ban any race you like from your private residence for any reason or no reason, with or without explanation. A business has different rules but its not entirely "private" in the eyes of the law.
Also I don't know where you live but were I to insult a biker gang and get beat up in the US, I would not be expecting to be compensated outside of very unusual circumstances ( the "biker gang" is composed of dentists and doctors ) you simply aren't going to be compensated by anyone for something like that aside from your own private insurance (maybe). Even if you sued this biker gang and won, collecting it would be difficult, the justice system might include restitution of some sort in the sentence but it certainly wouldn't be "a bunch of money".
> I can't speak for other countries, but in the US you are free to ban any race you like from your private residence for any reason or no reason, with or without explanation. A business has different rules but its not entirely "private" in the eyes of the law.
Sure, but tourist sites aren't private homes. Afaik, the tiktokers aren't breaking into private homes to film you sleeping.
Could you explain the root of this notion that the limits of a legal right are determined by the willingness of criminals to assault you for practicing it?
Biker gang is not broke by definition. The debts are expected to be paid after you leave the jail, with interests sometimes and you can collect on them. It can create endless circle of issues for formerly incarcerated people.
That being said, this sounds more like "disordered violence police is unwilling or unable to control" then anything to do with legality or justice. I can steal from your wallet, not be caught and it will amount to the same thing.
I did not mentioned US constitution at all. The concept of "freedom" does exists all around the world. In various forms and with various limitations, but USA does not have monopoly on that concept. In particular, the expression "freedom of expression" was used by non-Americans in the article - and they did not referred to American constitution. They would probably be puzzled by why you are bringing it up at all.
> But you know what is defined pretty much everywhere else? The right of property - which includes the right to ban from it whoever you feel like, without bothering even to give an explanation.
Also, this is actually incorrect both for around the world and for USA. USA has protected groups and you can not arbitrary ban them. Beyond that, this limit is afaik not based on individual property rights.
> try yelling nasty things at a biker gang and see where that gets you
This is not applicable here. The biker gang does not have legal right to do anything about you hurting their feelings.
They may become aggressive and violent, but are you sure you want to put equivalence between violent gang and Nepal authorities in this context? Cause I surely dont think the situation is the same.
> The "content producers" are not interested in the location itself, only what the location can give them, which is engagement numbers on their platform. The sanctity of the location itself is of little relevance.
Amen to that. In most historical places in Italy, there's a blanket no cell phone / no camera ban when you are visiting, and that has been working for decades.
Respect those who attend the place for prayer or admiration, too.
> The "content producers" are not interested in the location itself, only what the location can give them, which is engagement numbers on their platform. The sanctity of the location itself is of little relevance.
So like 95% of tourists then?
Most tourists just want a story to make themselves feel "worldly" so they can brag and dont care about what they are visiting.
I think its totally reasonable to ban obnoxious behaviour at tourist sites, but i don't think normal tourists are any more moral than the tiktockers.
Do you really believe this? Worse, is this accurate?
I cannot think of a single travel adventure I have taken, where my purpose was to collect a story to tell other people.
There's a deeper criticism to be made for "experiences" in general, like what I tend to do: travel and adventure for the experience of it, in-itself. The nature of the criticism is still murky to me; Nietzsche writes about it - though he was a bit of a hermit.
Just look at all the tourist shops that line historic places selling made-in-china plastic keychains and nick-knacks. Its hard to imagine such places would stay in business if tourists were really there for the sancity of the historic site.
> The "content producers" are not interested in the location itself, only what the location can give them, which is engagement numbers on their platform. The sanctity of the location itself is of little relevance.
> So like 95% of tourists then?
> Most tourists just want a story to make themselves feel "worldly" so they can brag and dont care about what they are visiting.
> I think its totally reasonable to ban obnoxious behaviour at tourist sites, but i don't think normal tourists are any more moral than the tiktockers.
> Just look at all the tourist shops that line historic places selling made-in-china plastic keychains and nick-knacks. Its hard to imagine such places would stay in business if tourists were really there for the sancity of the historic site.
Oh, I don't know about that. I find it very difficult to believe it to be more likely that someone wants to spend a ton of time and money on a trip just so they can brag about their social and financial status with a $1 keychain rather than someone wanting a momento of a good experience. If you want to assert that 95% of people who go on vacation are only doing it to rub it in their friends' faces as opposed to doing it to make memories and have a good experience, you need to provide some source other than a gut instinct.
Fair enough, but bigwavedave here has a point. This isn't a simple binary.
For my part, I never go to 'touristy' places, and have never bought a touristy gifty thing in all of my travels.
Perhaps the gift shops cater to the uninterested family members who get dragged on tedious trips with their adventurous and enthusiastic family members!
My girlfriend is a "content producer." She makes travel/restaurant/"location" content. Because she is large enough, she does not make content for someplace unless they pay her, unless she really just likes the place.
People frequently bemoan that she is "spoiling" or "ruining" the places that she is promoting -- because they don't know that the place is paying her!
I really want everyone who travels to realize: no, it's not content producers who are ruining it. It's YOU. YOU are ruining these places. You are going there, putting your footprints on the trails, using the restroom, polluting the parking lot. You are responsible. You are the one who wants only what the location can give you -- a pretty view, a life changing epiphany, an "authentic" view at a different culture, a different experience. And what do you give back? Your purchase at the gift shop? You're the selfish one. And, you're the stupid one, because you're not even getting paid for it!
Of course, I don't really believe that. At least not 100%. I do think travel is inherently a selfish act, just like eating at a restaurant is a selfish act. It's alright to be selfish: really, it's OK. Because if it's not OK, that means that it's not OK to live at all.
DFW puts it better than I do [0]:
As I see it, it probably really is good for the soul to be a tourist, even if it’s only once in a while. Not good for the soul in a refreshing or enlivening way, though, but rather in a grim, steely-eyed, let’s-look-honestly-at-the-facts-and-find-some-way-to-deal-with-them way. [...] To be a mass tourist, for me, is to become a pure late-date American: alien, ignorant, greedy for something you cannot ever have, disappointed in a way you can never admit. It is to spoil, by way of sheer ontology, the very unspoiledness you are there to experience. It is to impose yourself on places that in all noneconomic ways would be better, realer, without you. It is, in lines and gridlock and transaction after transaction, to confront a dimension of yourself that is as inescapable as it is painful: As a tourist, you become economically significant but existentially loathsome, an insect on a dead thing.
> People frequently bemoan that she is "spoiling" or "ruining" the places that she is promoting -- because they don't know that the place is paying her!
People would know if your girlfriend was not breaking the law:
I don't think we can divorce content producers from everyone else qua "ruining it".
Otherwise, I mostly agree. My view on travel is cynical. It's just a pleasurable extravagance, and for some reason (ime) championed by types who ostensibly decry consumption or consumer culture.
There's so much silly about this, I'm struggling with where to start.
>I really want everyone who travels to realize: no, it's not content producers who are ruining it. It's YOU. YOU are ruining these places.
How do you suppose so many of these places are "discovered" in the first place? My beef with these "content producers" is that they've all got the "I'M THE MAIN CHARACTER" vibe. They hog all the views, the private spaces so they can make their locale look a specific way. I don't really care if you're being paid for it - that doesn't mean you get to hog the space so you can preen and primp it into a specific A E S T H E T I C.
I'm not actually taking this tone here, this is kind of a play argument:
---
You're hogging the space! Why do you get to be there? Content producers are allowed to have whatever vibe they want. If you want to have a private space, why don't you pay the owner to close it off? Then you can have what you want, and the owner won't need to reach out to a content producer to market their space!
YOU'RE the reason the content producer is going there. Because you spend your money at the gift shop. You're not working there, you're just consuming. Consuming the view; consuming the silence; consuming the clean air. At least the content producer is working!
Who is selfish?
---
You cannot visit a place without changing that place. The unspoiled place is spoiled by the very fact of you being there. You and the content producer are equals. The only person with the high ground here is someone who lives there (who, themselves have a range of positions on this argument; many want more visitors!), or someone who never visits.
The point I'm trying to make is entirely separate from how you feel personally about "content producers." I get that some people personally don't like the content. I, personally, hate it -- I don't even have instagram or TikTok. But then again, I don't like fan fiction, or MMA, or Burning Man. It doesn't really matter what I like, does it?
I do have to agree with the parent that a paid influencer is basically a professional marketer. And that, paid or not, an influencer without followers is neither an influencer nor a problem. As with everything consumerism, us consumers cannot ignore that, collectively, we are driving a lot of that development. With the more than generous and friendly help of Social Media companies of course.
> "Officials should have requested TikTok content producers to respect the sanctity of the religious places, instead of banning something outright.”
No, they really should not.
Apply Will Wheaton's Rule; in case of doubt (whether that rule applies): don't. If you're not mature enough to do that, that's a problem; if there are a large number of ignorant folks like you, that's a very good reason for banning something outright.
I suppose as a programmer I am a "content creator", but, like, gag me with a spoon.
I've seen a handful of those popular clips on youtube, always with a 20-something presenter with coke-fueled loud yelling into the camera, too-bright colors, quick clips, kindergarten animations. Always the blaring pitch to subscribe. Barf. Yeah, I'm an old man, so I'm immune to the attraction of it.
Nahh don't worry I don't think you qualify as "content creator", even if you create code that could be thought of as "content" or to be honest even if you're a streamer who live-codes or something.To me what this usually refers to is video produced by "influencers" (or wannabe influencers), produced to a schedule purely to drive clicks and engagement. (edit: originally I tried to work in a fast-food metaphor here, but it did not land at all)
I wonder if you're like me at all - I kinda recoil when I encounter these people talking about creating "content" or selling "product". Just sounds like people are creating slop for their hogs to consume.
I think because the term "content" has become a little nebulous.
As programmers, we are content creators, we are creating content. Programs are content. But it's a specific type of content. Actors, directors, writers, singers, songwriters, butchers, bakers, and event the candlestick makers. But they all create specific types of content.
Due to the ubiquitousness of recording equipment, the availability of publishing platforms, and the ability to transmit globally, the future where everyone will get their 15 minutes of fame is here.
But it's really hard to pin down what kind of content is being created. Pretend I am a "content creator". I took a picture of my lunch. But it's not serious enough to be "photography". The picture isn't designed to be high art. It's ephemeral. It's taken to demonstrate that I am having this for lunch. And while I may take pains to shoot it well, there are limits. The goal isn't to say anything about the food or society at large. The burger is just a burger. But it's got to go up. The feed must be fed. Gotta keep up engagement. So what the fuck did I just create? "Content".
The persona of my social media is the goal of the content creation. I am essentially selling you a parasocial relationship with me. Come hang out on my feeds. Watch me live my life, engage with my posts as you would a friend. That's the disconnect you're feeling. You're not buying into the parasocial relationship these people are trying to foster.
> Just sounds like people are creating slop for their hogs to consume.
I've always been put off by the concept of Facebook's "feed" [trough], but my wife pointed out that the whole "influencer"/"follower" dichotomy mirrors the power dynamics and verbiage of a cult.
Travel programs are made with necessary permits, filmed with local approval, done by professionals, and often during off-peak times/seasons both to avoid issues with overcrowding and improve program quality.
They used to be called “celebrities”. But words die out and are replaced with the generations, like the word “rave” replaced “disco”, even though they are essentially the same thing.
I doubt the GP is taking offense to the term influencer.
I'm also disappointed influencers exist (in their current social media state, anyway), but I'm glad we have a term for it. I don't especially care which term we use.
I don't think so. the audience size most influencers cater to is miles smaller than anything you'd consider to be a celebrity's stuff in the range of 10k-1M IG follower tops or something
Recording doesn't seem the problem, neither is dancing. Being loud, annoying and damaging everything around you to make a viral video is. And since the TikTok crowd doesn't know the meaning of "respectful", "quiet" or "DO NOT BREAK" they had to phrase it in a way they would understand. I wouldn't be surprised if there were already signs that mention the other points for normal people.
Tik-tok has and continues to encourage social disruption in public places. It erodes self-goverance in favor artifical interaction. I provokes attention seeking nature through means of excessive absurdity. Class Clown as a Service.
I find this phenomenon of essentially mass gloating to be really depressing form the perspective of human psychology.
I mean this has caused problems well beyond Nepal [1]. Hundreds have died taking selfies [2]. It's just so sad that the need for approval and envy ruins tourist spots and kills people.
Nepal is an interesting case because the country is really impoverished and really depends on the income from mountaineering. The result however is that Everest in particular is way too crowded and it kills people as people get stuck in the death zone [3].
All essentially for a less than 30 minute photo op at the top. There are a bunch of mountains over 8,000m in height. Some are even much more difficult to climb than Everest (eg K2). But people go to Everest to be a couple of hundred meters higher for the bragging rights and they're quite willing to endanger themselves and others to get there.
I think a lot of significant sites would do well to ban photography and video entirely.
People are upset that Venice will turn into a museum with entrance passes and so on and few people will live there. I think that's yhe best realistic case for a lot of these places.
So many of them are already unenjoyable to visit, blanketed in trash, herding lines of people from busses to take a few pictures and be loud for a few minutes before stampeding back to where they came.
There was an interesting idea in my country that predictably got massacred in the media:
A CO2 budget. High enough that poor people could still fly to Spain once a year low enough to block yuppies from sightseeing Nepal or New York.
Obviously the wealthy would never allow it- virtue signaling on HN about how long they use their iPhone is one thing.
Interesting given Nepals close relations to China (they help put down anti China rhetoric of Tibetan refugees and strictly adhere to one China principle) that Nepal gets the western version of Tik tok and not the super serious Chinese version.
The first thought I had was that this was a Chinese Government imposed policy to stop anyone from discussing non-Han history and culture. I'm surprised to learn that, at least in theory, Tibet is still a separate country from Red China.
When I went to Iceland a few years ago, various tourist spots had 'no drone' signs. There was still a drone or two in the air at every one of them. I expect these signs in Nepal will be ignored too.
When I was young in the 90's we used to go to music festivals. It was nice to be with your friends, just relax and enjoy some music.
Years ago I went back to the same festival, and what I notice what changed immensely was that everyone was taking pictures and selfies with smartphones. It was so weird to see. Plus, what used to be a Rock festival was now a Pop festival (everyone needed to be there).
Somehow nowadays, you don't only enjoy yourself, but you have to broadcast it that you're enjoying yourself. For me, that takes away a big part of the enjoyment.
I'll stop my old man's rant now ;).
Some years ago I went to see the ball drop at NYC. It was a terrible experience. Every single person I saw had their phone out, the only thing I could see was flashes, everywhere. Nobody was seeing anything with naked eyes, just through their cameras. It was weird.
If you live/work in tourist spots, you can’t walk 10 feet without getting interrupted by a tourist taking their stupid, duck face picture. It is near impossible to enjoy anything in peace these days. I blame it all on social media. I can’t wait for all social media to die, but that’s not gonna happen, Is it?
To be fair, regardless of that, spending New Year’s Eve in Times Square is my idea of hell.
I (and I’d argue most New Yorkers) cannot see how that would be in any way a good experience.
I agree. I went because it was novelty to me, I had moved to NYC and wanted to cross it off my list.
Cops, huge crowds, bone biting cold, long waiting times… not worth it. But worst of all is still camera flashes, in my opinion
My guess is that the longer you live here, you will intentionally go years without going through Times Square area :)
Mid-summer, 2020, we hopped in the car and drove to Nice, France. It was in a lull of COVID so we were able to walk around without masks for the most part. It was amazing to go to the "hip" tourist spots and be one of the only ones there, just enjoying the view. <sigh> now the tourists are all over the place in my own city and it is annoying af.
Off season travel is great for exactly this reason. Well, being bound to school holidays limits your options. One thing worth to remind ourselves of when travelling or seeing tourists were we live: We are either locals, but at much more places we clearly are the visitors. The trick is to behave like a visitor and not like tourists being only that many letters removed from a terrorist.
Social media is dead. We’re just burning in the hell of vapid content feed machines with ads interspersed.
> but that’s not gonna happen, Is it?
Something's gotta give. I don't think we can take it much further. I hope it's a passing fad. Once everybody shares everything it's not special anymore so how do you stand out? Having no online presence might become a new flex.
Stand out by doing more bigger/ridiculous/dangerous/wasteful/insert hyperbole here?
On the other hand A lot of friends are starting to opt for dumb phones, others (gen z) are now picking up digital point and shoot cameras.
What if clubhouse ‘took off’ and everyone’d be making podcasts instead of vlogs. “Quiet please”!
I guess it would be like the joke that since using a phone while driving is prohibited, people turned to reading books behind the wheel en masse
How does it interrupt you for someone else to be taking a photo of themselves?
Does it interrupt the photographer when I pay them no mind and walk in front of them? Their muttered curses say yes. Therefore, photographers interrupt everybody else in the area who, unlike me, feel compelled by some social convention to give photographers a cone of exclusion in front of the camera.
Politeness goes both ways, photographers should try to be as discreet as possible. And others should pay some attention to what others do around them, including photographers.
Calling them photographers is being generous and this is not the place for your personal photo shoot. Sorry but after the 200th time of trying to walk down a crowded street in New York and waiting for someone to finish taking a group selfie, I'm done with that.
They should pretend it’s a city:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretend_It's_a_City
Multiple examples from the article:
> Making TikTok by playing loud music creates a nuisance for pilgrims from all over the world who come to the birthplace of Gautama Buddha
> Over recent months, there have been reports of TikTok creators storming farms and trampling crops, and even causing traffic jams while shooting. Chamomile farmers in Morang in eastern Nepal were forced to harvest their crop early, as some TikTokers trampled on their crop. In Kathmandu, a popular street that was decorated with colorful umbrellas to attract tourists after the Covid-19 slump went viral on TikTok, and authorities were forced to shut it down as creators flocked to the area, leading to traffic congestion.
Was aimed at the person I was replying to about people simply taking selfies.
On New Year’s Eve at NYC, the streets are jam packed. There is barely any space to move. Everyone around you has their camera out, trying to take photos of the ball drop. The only thing you can see are flashes. Then you’d curse yourself for waiting for hours in the cold, only to see flashes.
On a normal day in NYC tourist areas, it is common for tourists (especially younger women) to take pictures every few feet. Initially you’d be polite and not walk into their frame, but this gets old super quick. You’re irritated, they’re irritated (because you didn’t pause for their dumb photo shoot)… ruins everyone’s day. All you wanted was to walk uninterrupted.
I used to live and work in upper east side. Took me a while to get used to it
>How does it interrupt you for someone else to be taking a photo of themselves?
Blocking one's path for once, even more so with telescope sticks and of course taking pictures with one in the background without consent. I live near one such touristic area where there's a rather narrow sidewalk. In the summer it is like running the gauntlet. I'm too often too nice by first letting people finish their posing and taking pictures, only that frequently even 5 selfies seem not enough because they didn't get that perfect angle right for the 'insta'.
They’ve got as much right to be there as you do!
> taking pictures with one in the background without consent
They don’t need your consent!
They’ve got as much right to be there as you do!
Can do vs Should do.
Yes, you can stand in the middle of a narrow path and use a selfie stick to take photos. No, you shouldn't do that if it inconveniences everybody around you. Doing so anyways makes you a self-centered dickhead.
How to make people like you: "The law doesn't forbid me from doing this to you!"
Right up there with "I'm not touching you!"
You’re not ‘doing’ anything to someone by taking a photo in public with them in the background. You don’t have reasonable expectations and it’s fine for reasonable people to disregard them.
It's one thing to shove a camera in someone's face. It's another for people to have any reasonable expectation of not getting into even the background of a photo when walking down a city street or in some other busy place.
Well, yes. I'm not touching you right now.
And if you're offended by that, you are being egregiously unreasonable. Exactly the same is true of the picture-taking "concern".
I used to work down the road from a big tourist attraction in London. Every lunch hour, I’d need to walk past a mass of people congregating outside the building taking photos, among other things (like forming a circle around a busker, taking up even more space).
I could try wait for a dozen people to finish taking photos (and it’s never just one photo, selfie or otherwise).
Or, after a couple weeks of this, I just stopped caring and would walk past them irrespective of interrupting someones shot. Now if they made an effort to leave an easily navigable gap behind the photographer so I could walk past without interrupting, sure, I did that. Most didn’t.
There’s still a lingering uncomfortability knowing I might be recorded forever in someone’s social media feed or whatever they do with the photos. Yes I know, it’s a public space and all.
For me, I try to be polite and not get in the way of someone trying to take a picture of someone on a bridge across a sidewalk for example. But it can get to the point where I'm just rude and pretend I don't see them. At least selfie sticks seem to have become less common--probably because smartphones are often available with wider lenses today.
maybe when we are all wearing always recording AR glasses people will no longer need to take pictures and post them all the time
I live in Japan now and live performances tend to have somewhat strict no photography rules. I believe the same is true in Korea/with K-pop acts.
Most foreigners are pretty taken aback when they encounter this, but I really like it. Not only do you not have to stare at everyone else's smartphone screen but it also removes any temptation to yourself to "preserve a memory"
First culture shock when I visited Japan in 2015 was when I pulled out my phone to take a snapshot of the airport express train arriving. Every Japanese person in my line of sight either darted away or covered their faces with their hands. That day I learned it was taboo to take snapshots like this, even if your subject is some inanimate object like a train if there are people around.
Seems this is Japan specific, as I have not encountered this in Korea or Hong Kong.
Really? I can't say I have ever noticed this in Japan and I've been there a number of times. And pre-digital it was Japanese who were notorious for snapping pictures of anything and everything.
In Germany it's also frowned upon, but not taken this seriously. In any case people won't shove a smartphone in your face while arguing with you.
We have fairly strict photography laws so people don't get their likeness shared without consent.
In the US, live theater usually has very strict rules about any sort of recording. I've seen ushers on Broadway rushing to block people from even taking a picture of the empty stage before a show or shooting a selfie at curtain call. Live popular music is more of a mixed bag.
I think the biggest difference is just that American culture encourages ignoring rules to an extent where Japanese culture expressly forbids that.
When I was young, concerts here in the States almost _always_ had a strict no photography/recording policy. Is this no longer common?
No longer common since the ubiquity of mobile phones. You usually still can't bring any cameras with interchangeable lenses (e.g. a DSLR), or a high quality audio recorder°, but IME the only shows that do anything to prevent all recording are stand-up comedy acts.
° jam bands still tend to allow these
I tape (audio) fairly openly at a lot of shows, most venues (or at least those who work for the venues) don't appear to care these days as long as it's not taking up space/getting in the way.
And a lot of artists are also pretty tolerant at this point of it. For example, The guy who runs the excellent (unofficial) live archive for NIN, got an invite to meet the band rather than a cease & desist.
(Edited for wording).
The bans became untenable in all countries when phones with cameras became ubiquitous.
Not in places where people actually are civic minded and respect rules, e.g., japan, corea…
Cultures are different. In my country it's common courtesy to mind your own business and don't tell other people what to do. Personal freedom versus conformity. If you're the kind of person who gets annoyed easily at others instead of ignoring them as we are taught you won't last 5 minutes.
The Supreme Court of the U.S. has maintained an absolute ban on photography down to this very day.
Some venues would have you put your phone in a bag, lock it, and give it to you. It will be unlocked on your way out.
I saw chapelle in NYC years back (the before pandemic times), they really did this. You can hang onto your phone, its just locked in a neoprene type bag.. On the way out they have a device to open it (kind of like security tags on clothes..).
The reasoning is just based on super strict copyright rules though.
It’s not a totally new phenomenon, but it’s gotten much worse. I remember as a kid, my mom would interrupt $enjoyable_experience to take photos for the family album. It would totally take me out of the flow as a kid and is why most of my childhood pictures are of me with an annoyed expression. In fact, most of my adult pictures feature the same expression for the same reason. Only, now my wife is the one with the camera.
How come taking a picture of you playing in the yard "takes you out of the flow"? x) You make it sound like you were writing assembly or something.
For me, I look back on pictures and tapes of my childhood with joy. I'm glad my parents recorded those things and I can go back and see how things were when I was 3 or 8 or 12.
Not him but
"Wait wait, do that again so I can get a picture of it! No no you were over here, don't face this way do what you were doing before just pretend I'm not here. What's wrong, you were having fun a minute ago stop pouting!"
Camera people can be really obnoxious like this, particularly to young children who haven't yet learned the value in humoring their parents. I always hated it when my mother got out the camera. If she had stood back and taken pictures without trying to arrange everything for the 'perfect' pictures it wouldn't have been such an issue. But that's not how it ever went.
Now imagine being a child today, when it doesn't cost anything to take a picture and you have your camera on you at all times.
Five year olds now have practiced photo poses and a ready-to-go fake smile, because every goddamn day is a photoshoot.
As a hobbyist photographer (well, I do it less, now that everyone is taking pictures all the time), I do not at all like interrupting real life to pose a picture. I don't want that picture. I want a picture of actual real life. If the person I am taking a picture of changes what they're doing because I took a picture, then I have messed up.
This so much! Sure, a photographer has a presence and influences shots of people. But tgat influence can be minimized. It is hard so, maybe a reason why I largely prefer landscapes and architecture!
Okay that makes perfect sense. Indeed interrupting whatever it is you wanted to film so you could film it... kinda defeats the purpose.
> How come taking a picture of you playing in the yard "takes you of the flow"?
Not the person you are replying to, but I can explain to you how it was "taking me out of the flow", because I have the exact same feeling about my mother and taking pictures.
If it was just her taking pictures while I was doing something like playing in the yard, that wouldn't be an issue. However, it was never just this. It was always "ok ok, hold up, one sec, can you stand over there to the right and look in this direction and smile?" whenever we went somewhere that was supposed to be a fun experience that wasn't a part of the daily routine. As a kid, you can imagine, stopping doing whatever fun thing I was doing just to awkwardly pose for a photo I don't care about in the slightest for a few mins, it was an aggravating and not a fun experience.
I actually would not have minded at all if she took pictures of me while i was doing something without interrupting and stopping everything. To this day, I find photos of me (and just in general) taken "naturally" (without stopping things and everyone posing intentionally) to be the best all around. They just look real and looking back at them makes the memories of that moment flow back into my head much stronger.
> To this day, I find photos of me (and just in general) taken "naturally" (without stopping things and everyone posing intentionally) to be the best all around
100% my impression too. Photos where no one is trying to "pose" are the best (with few exceptions). But my significant other disagrees. She feels there's no point in such photos. We've agreed to leave it at that.
In addition, I gather a sense of happiness curating photos a few months after the photos were taken. I tend to remember the details of such events in a lot more detail and for much longer. I remember much less looking at a picture of us posing for a scenic background as compared to a picture of just her, in the moment, doing something.
I now enjoy capturing 20 second videos of me and family doing whatever, with no one trying to pose, they just look at me with the phone and smile or wave. The background conversations captured in them string together a lot of precious moments and memories.
Not OP, but had/have the same. It's because the person taking the photo doesn't want to capture the moment, they want to capture a choreographed moment, where everyone is looking at the camera, smiling etc. The same photo as everywhere else, but there.
As a child you don't have to be writing assembly to be immersed in something. If someone takes a picture it suddenly makes you conscious of yourself rather than what you are immersed in.
Used to annoy me as well. Now those are most of the only photos I have covering several decades.
Are you me?
I like to take a couple of photos for my album when I am doing some activity I'd like to remember (say, visiting a place on vacation). It's pretty important to me.
However, I dislike two things 1.) Doing it for every small activity 2.) Broadcasting it on social media
For 1.), I find that I don't really benefit from every walk around town or whatever in my albums. It's more enjoyable to remember significant moments - and there are quite enough I think.
For 2.) I find that to find a good representation of what is happening, I need to alter my behavior. Instead of taking two to five pictures, I need to take videos and hundreds of pictures etc. As others have mentioned, this kills the actual thing. Instead of "I visited place X and did Y", it becomes "I took photos and videos at place X pretending to do Y".
So the sweet spot is in between. I am very happy to have taken some photos - even selfies - in the past, and I wish I would have taken slightly more photos (or better ones, or videos) in the past, before we had such nice phone cameras.
Pictures are great to remember moments. For that, we need enough pictures of these moments - but we also need to have made memories. We need to have experienced the actual thing.
Pictures that go on social media are marketing. They have a different purpose.
Another old man's rant - if you need to broadcast you're enjoying, you're not really enjoying.
I don't broadcast anything either, but I send a lot of photos and sometimes short videos to my elderly relatives, who actually like them.
For example, they loved a short video of an elephant shower in a ZOO.
Unfortunately, this requires the same hardware as a broadcast, so it would be covered by the same no-pictures policy.
My "old man rant" is that I sometimes see photos from 10, 20 years ago that bring back memories that otherwise I hadn't thought of in years.
It makes me wish I had more photos from the 80s and 90s too, in the pre-digital years.
I don't like photos of my past, just everyone else's.
Same usually happens at any metal show I go to. I remember when people actually immersed themselves in the experience. Now they stand completely still, mouth a gape, and film the whole thing on their phones as if no one else will do so and upload it to YouTube later.
Given how supposedly unhappy people are, I think society really needs a spiritual awakening.
well the out of touch thing is not realizing that theyre broadcasting to their friends, its not about pretending that they’ll watch it at a future date
the interactivity is leaps and bounds higher and more fulfilling
I don’t record more than a couple 15 second videos, at an event, choosing to consciously “be present”, but from those broadcasts I get friends trying to find me there, I get introductions to their friends, I get dates from people that want to share in the energy at a future event, I get hookups - I sold an extra ticket at a festival by posting w/ the right hashtag and the girl was attractive and liked me and I hung out with her squad all day and into the morning
There was nothing unhappy about it
in a big crowd everyone is doing this at different intervals
even another commenter’s interpretation about “broadcasting that you’re having fun means youre not having fun” is way off the mark, its a beacon for other people to come be part of the fun. at least there is some self-awareness here about old man yelling at clouds.
people here are extrapolating reasons that are wildly incorrect, instead of just nonjudgementally asking people to get a wide variety of modern answers.
I do this at concerts, but mostly because I feel like a lot of venues I go to are flat, and as a short person there is almost always a sea of taller people blocking my eye-level view.
Ugh, you just reminded me of a random concert in a park I went to a few weeks ago. Everyone was just chilling on their blankets watching the show. As more and more people showed up, they just started standing around all the people with kids on the blankets, blocking our view.
We ended up leaving pretty early because it became pointless once people literally started standing on our stuff. I swear, venues oversell things to the point where it is too crowded to actually enjoy it.
I go to a lot of metal shows and don't share that experience. There's always a pit. Maybe one or two guys taking a picture/video, but that's it.
Exactly right. Nobody's got their phone out whilst a wall of death is forming!
But wouldn't you like to watch all those concerts again today, just to reminisce?
We have the technology now and I can't really fault people for using it.
Selfies I could go without, especially when the subject of the photo is something else and the only reason for putting yourself into the shot is proving it really happened.
Is this something you actually do? Watch a crummy video of a song you know, with the sound distorted to cracks and pops? I never understood the appeal, knowing I was there is, and should be, enough. Also, someone remembers your phone in front of their view.
I think you're begging the question by describing it up front as 'crummy'.
A band I like play very differently when live to when recording, almost like a different vibe. It's great that some people have recorded it as otherwise there wouldn't be any way to remember it.
My main gripe is with disturbing the attendees who paid for a ticket and went to the live show. You getting to see the show through other peoples phones is not something the paying guests care about, but have to suffer for anyway.
I find the phone screens distracting my view with their light to be pretty annoying at a live show. I try not to be too judgemental as I typically will record about 15 seconds of a band that I'm seeing to send to my son and someone else in the crowd could be doing the same thing. People have become content creators for better or worse.
Maybe there could be a "concert" mode on your phone that turns down brightness to a low percentage and cuts the view down to a quarter of your screen.
> I never understood the appeal, knowing I was there is, and should be, enough.
The video captured that couple in front of you who were ridiculous, and that nudged you to remember talking about them afterwards with your friends. You wouldn't have remembered it otherwise because memory is not very durable or accurate at the best of times.
This is why everyone should follow the lead of Dead & Company and offer places to patch in to the sound system so people can record high-quality bootlegs
Not the OP but as someone who has attended many concerts and music festivals I can say I have no desire to watch any of them again. I have my memories of them and would rather spend my time making new ones.
In my experience, photos taken with the intent to remember an event later are more interesting when they have people in them.
I don’t feel like I need to “prove” I attended an event but years later it makes the recollection more visceral — at least for me.
I call this FOFI - Fear of Forgetting It Like its relative, FOMO, a perfectly irrational feeling.
Yeah, I think it's impossible to encapsulate feelings anyway. I think we think we remember how something feels, but we just simulate it on demand, and there's no way to tell the difference.
What percentage of the time at the festival do you think the average person was taking selfies?
While the percentage of time is surely low, the high concentration of people per area means the frequency with which you encounter it can be quite high. I personally don't care much about being in random people's selfies, but having to constantly dodge people taking random pictures is definitely an annoyance when you're already trying to navigate a crowded space.
The easiest thing to do would be not care if you are in a random person's selfies at some big public event. They surely don't care.
Fortunately this doesn't happen much at small-venue metal shows.
Obligatory xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1314/ :)
While I understand the intent of the freedom of expression campaigners statements and those by "content producers", they are missing important context and assuming they are without blame.
The "content producers" are not interested in the location itself, only what the location can give them, which is engagement numbers on their platform. The sanctity of the location itself is of little relevance.
It's that singular focus which is the problem here, not any kind of curtailment of freedom of expression. And even with such freedoms you shouldn't expect no consequences. These loose bans are the consequence, and I'm willing to bet that at no point would other tiktok users or expression campaigners have asked their fellows to behave themselves.
After all there are other people who visit these locations and aren't needed to be told to respect it.
How does monetizing a public good for your own selfish social standing to the detriment of everyone else become freedom of expression to begin with? I'd like to know who those campaigners are.
It's a person expressing "a public good" - not themselves - for their own selfish gain. When an influencer runs through a super market recording everyone and every item (s)he's not expressing (it)self. Nobody asked for a review of that place(unless they were specifically invited to that which is rarely the case), nobody asked to be recorded by those people, and most of the times the people this is broadcast to, won't ever set foot in that country or the store.
I think there is bright red line between "I love this place/item and I want to share it with my friends and family and hopefuly I can show it to you in person one day" and "I don't care about this place, but I want all of you guys all think I'm amazing". Somehow this has become blurred.
I once was told that my personal freedom ends when I put everyone else's personal freedom at risk. It seems that people understand this fact only in very few parts of society. Otherwise you could argue that it's wrong to remove a bloodsucking leech from your leg, because you would infringe on its freedom of expression.
> Nobody asked for a review of that place(unless they were specifically invited to that which is rarely the case)
I agree with a lot of what you've said - but you don't need the seller's permission to review a car or a video game or a washing machine or a hotel room.
'Invited' reviewers are basically all shills, who know they'll never get invited again or gifted free review units if their review is anything less than glowing.
Yes I realize that this part had a potential for a misunderstanding. I actually agree with you regardless of your post. I think the distinction with your example is that that review is actually not done our of selfish self promotion. Oftentimes this kind of review actually is a common good since it may actually protect others from a potentially hazardous outcome.
I do agree that in some cases the line between altruism and selfish desire is very fuzzy.
> How does monetizing a public good for your own selfish social standing to the detriment of everyone else become freedom of expression to begin with? I'd like to know who those campaigners are.
Freedom of expression includes that and it was done for years. Photographs taking pictures or videos of public spaces and monetizing them is nothing new nor outrageous. There are local limitations, in Europe often about your ability to center other people in your pics or videos. But afaik, in USA you are free to take pictures of people or public spaces full stop.
> Somehow this has become blurred.
This was never as clear as you make it up to be. The primary difference is that too many people do it in current form and they do a lot of repetitions or include music.
Freedom of expression or speech or whatever never included the requirement to "not be selfish". Also, the limitations that EU or USA tend to put on places basically never deny specific platform. You might have to pay extra for ability to take pictures. You might be unable to use flash. It might be flat out denied to play music at some place (requirement to be silent). These are fairly normal restrictions, that dont care whether you are personally outraged over tik-tok or youtube - which is actually what makes sense.
>Freedom of expression
Even in America, you need permits in many places to film for commercial reasons. People who are making a job out of being an 'influencer' are obviously filming commercially, so I don't see anything wrong with making them get permits.
So? How does that contradicts anything I wrote? Freedom of expression is name of a group in Nepal pushing for their things. America is utterly irrelevant (but actually public photography in America allows quite a lot).
Note also how those permits literally never state "your intentions must have pure interest in place itself" as person I responded to assumes. Instead, they tend to be commercial and protecting monetary value of the place. Once you pay for permit you do whatever you please with it, unless it divides between commercial and non commercial. And they never limit platform - there are rules around flash or noise or time spend etc - you are quite clear on them from the start. Which is literally what the disagreement in article is about.
Note also I disagree primary with nonsensical comments that projects their outrage over media not targeted at them existing and young people putting serious effort in them then with Nepal authorities trying to trial-and-error rules that will work.
And follow all the other rules aroind commercial content creation, e.g. getting model consent before publishing. Something all pros do, and again a way where disruption is actually just another way to say that rules don't apply to you.
The trickey question is so where the threshold for "commercial" activities lies.
USA has looser rules around taking photos of strangers then other places (like European countries tho rules there differ). In general, if it is public space, you can legally take pictures of people and use them even when they are fairly prominent in pic. The privacy limits tend to be stricter in EU, usually to Americans comains on HN.
But, in the article in question, other people were not issue. More of too many repetitions and activity changing feel of the place.
First of all that "freedom" is a US constitutional thing, not defined anywhere else as such so maybe some expectations should be tuned down a bit. Secondly not even in the states does freedom of expression equate "freedom to do whatever and wherever I want" - try yelling nasty things at a biker gang and see where that gets you. But you know what is defined pretty much everywhere else? The right of property - which includes the right to ban from it whoever you feel like, without bothering even to give an explanation.
> try yelling nasty things at a biker gang and see where that gets you
I mean,maybe they beat you up, but then they go to jail and you get a bunch of money as compensation, so i don't think this supports your point.
> The right of property - which includes the right to ban from it whoever you feel like, without bothering even to give an explanation.
That's generally not true. Try banning <insert specific race here> and see what that gets you.
However banning obnoxious photographers from your commercial business is of course reasonable.
> That's generally not true. Try banning <insert specific race here> and see what that gets you.
I can't speak for other countries, but in the US you are free to ban any race you like from your private residence for any reason or no reason, with or without explanation. A business has different rules but its not entirely "private" in the eyes of the law.
Also I don't know where you live but were I to insult a biker gang and get beat up in the US, I would not be expecting to be compensated outside of very unusual circumstances ( the "biker gang" is composed of dentists and doctors ) you simply aren't going to be compensated by anyone for something like that aside from your own private insurance (maybe). Even if you sued this biker gang and won, collecting it would be difficult, the justice system might include restitution of some sort in the sentence but it certainly wouldn't be "a bunch of money".
> I can't speak for other countries, but in the US you are free to ban any race you like from your private residence for any reason or no reason, with or without explanation. A business has different rules but its not entirely "private" in the eyes of the law.
Sure, but tourist sites aren't private homes. Afaik, the tiktokers aren't breaking into private homes to film you sleeping.
Could you explain the root of this notion that the limits of a legal right are determined by the willingness of criminals to assault you for practicing it?
It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
You can lodge a civil suit but generally broke people who are in jail are pretty judgement proof.
Biker gang is not broke by definition. The debts are expected to be paid after you leave the jail, with interests sometimes and you can collect on them. It can create endless circle of issues for formerly incarcerated people.
That being said, this sounds more like "disordered violence police is unwilling or unable to control" then anything to do with legality or justice. I can steal from your wallet, not be caught and it will amount to the same thing.
I did not mentioned US constitution at all. The concept of "freedom" does exists all around the world. In various forms and with various limitations, but USA does not have monopoly on that concept. In particular, the expression "freedom of expression" was used by non-Americans in the article - and they did not referred to American constitution. They would probably be puzzled by why you are bringing it up at all.
> But you know what is defined pretty much everywhere else? The right of property - which includes the right to ban from it whoever you feel like, without bothering even to give an explanation.
Also, this is actually incorrect both for around the world and for USA. USA has protected groups and you can not arbitrary ban them. Beyond that, this limit is afaik not based on individual property rights.
> try yelling nasty things at a biker gang and see where that gets you
This is not applicable here. The biker gang does not have legal right to do anything about you hurting their feelings.
They may become aggressive and violent, but are you sure you want to put equivalence between violent gang and Nepal authorities in this context? Cause I surely dont think the situation is the same.
> The "content producers" are not interested in the location itself, only what the location can give them, which is engagement numbers on their platform. The sanctity of the location itself is of little relevance.
Amen to that. In most historical places in Italy, there's a blanket no cell phone / no camera ban when you are visiting, and that has been working for decades.
Respect those who attend the place for prayer or admiration, too.
I always hated this signs. I can't take a picture of some interesting place, but in most cases I can buy picture made by someone else.
This is what ethnic minority tourism is in han china. Funny dances in colorful cloths in painted up reservations.
There is only one culture though, one language, one everything. Its a conquered place app(used).
The main atrocitiy is the conquest not mentioned. The colonializers dancing on the conquered holy sites.
Reminds me of this short documentary I saw recently regarding (mostly Chinese) tourism at Tibetan sky burials: https://vimeo.com/141606509
"Hey this culture does something very different from us, let's go gawk and laugh!"
Not that I'm accusing Chinese folks of being unique in this regard, it's just regrettable that we haven't matured beyond stuff like this as a species.
Too true.
> The "content producers" are not interested in the location itself, only what the location can give them, which is engagement numbers on their platform. The sanctity of the location itself is of little relevance.
So like 95% of tourists then?
Most tourists just want a story to make themselves feel "worldly" so they can brag and dont care about what they are visiting.
I think its totally reasonable to ban obnoxious behaviour at tourist sites, but i don't think normal tourists are any more moral than the tiktockers.
Do you really believe this? Worse, is this accurate?
I cannot think of a single travel adventure I have taken, where my purpose was to collect a story to tell other people.
There's a deeper criticism to be made for "experiences" in general, like what I tend to do: travel and adventure for the experience of it, in-itself. The nature of the criticism is still murky to me; Nietzsche writes about it - though he was a bit of a hermit.
Just look at all the tourist shops that line historic places selling made-in-china plastic keychains and nick-knacks. Its hard to imagine such places would stay in business if tourists were really there for the sancity of the historic site.
> The "content producers" are not interested in the location itself, only what the location can give them, which is engagement numbers on their platform. The sanctity of the location itself is of little relevance.
> So like 95% of tourists then?
> Most tourists just want a story to make themselves feel "worldly" so they can brag and dont care about what they are visiting.
> I think its totally reasonable to ban obnoxious behaviour at tourist sites, but i don't think normal tourists are any more moral than the tiktockers.
> Just look at all the tourist shops that line historic places selling made-in-china plastic keychains and nick-knacks. Its hard to imagine such places would stay in business if tourists were really there for the sancity of the historic site.
Oh, I don't know about that. I find it very difficult to believe it to be more likely that someone wants to spend a ton of time and money on a trip just so they can brag about their social and financial status with a $1 keychain rather than someone wanting a momento of a good experience. If you want to assert that 95% of people who go on vacation are only doing it to rub it in their friends' faces as opposed to doing it to make memories and have a good experience, you need to provide some source other than a gut instinct.
Fair enough, but bigwavedave here has a point. This isn't a simple binary.
For my part, I never go to 'touristy' places, and have never bought a touristy gifty thing in all of my travels.
Perhaps the gift shops cater to the uninterested family members who get dragged on tedious trips with their adventurous and enthusiastic family members!
My girlfriend is a "content producer." She makes travel/restaurant/"location" content. Because she is large enough, she does not make content for someplace unless they pay her, unless she really just likes the place.
People frequently bemoan that she is "spoiling" or "ruining" the places that she is promoting -- because they don't know that the place is paying her!
I really want everyone who travels to realize: no, it's not content producers who are ruining it. It's YOU. YOU are ruining these places. You are going there, putting your footprints on the trails, using the restroom, polluting the parking lot. You are responsible. You are the one who wants only what the location can give you -- a pretty view, a life changing epiphany, an "authentic" view at a different culture, a different experience. And what do you give back? Your purchase at the gift shop? You're the selfish one. And, you're the stupid one, because you're not even getting paid for it!
Of course, I don't really believe that. At least not 100%. I do think travel is inherently a selfish act, just like eating at a restaurant is a selfish act. It's alright to be selfish: really, it's OK. Because if it's not OK, that means that it's not OK to live at all.
DFW puts it better than I do [0]:
As I see it, it probably really is good for the soul to be a tourist, even if it’s only once in a while. Not good for the soul in a refreshing or enlivening way, though, but rather in a grim, steely-eyed, let’s-look-honestly-at-the-facts-and-find-some-way-to-deal-with-them way. [...] To be a mass tourist, for me, is to become a pure late-date American: alien, ignorant, greedy for something you cannot ever have, disappointed in a way you can never admit. It is to spoil, by way of sheer ontology, the very unspoiledness you are there to experience. It is to impose yourself on places that in all noneconomic ways would be better, realer, without you. It is, in lines and gridlock and transaction after transaction, to confront a dimension of yourself that is as inescapable as it is painful: As a tourist, you become economically significant but existentially loathsome, an insect on a dead thing.
[0] http://www.columbia.edu/~col8/lobsterarticle.pdf
> People frequently bemoan that she is "spoiling" or "ruining" the places that she is promoting -- because they don't know that the place is paying her!
People would know if your girlfriend was not breaking the law:
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2019/11/...
> It's YOU
I don't think we can divorce content producers from everyone else qua "ruining it".
Otherwise, I mostly agree. My view on travel is cynical. It's just a pleasurable extravagance, and for some reason (ime) championed by types who ostensibly decry consumption or consumer culture.
There's so much silly about this, I'm struggling with where to start.
>I really want everyone who travels to realize: no, it's not content producers who are ruining it. It's YOU. YOU are ruining these places.
How do you suppose so many of these places are "discovered" in the first place? My beef with these "content producers" is that they've all got the "I'M THE MAIN CHARACTER" vibe. They hog all the views, the private spaces so they can make their locale look a specific way. I don't really care if you're being paid for it - that doesn't mean you get to hog the space so you can preen and primp it into a specific A E S T H E T I C.
I'm not actually taking this tone here, this is kind of a play argument:
---
You're hogging the space! Why do you get to be there? Content producers are allowed to have whatever vibe they want. If you want to have a private space, why don't you pay the owner to close it off? Then you can have what you want, and the owner won't need to reach out to a content producer to market their space!
YOU'RE the reason the content producer is going there. Because you spend your money at the gift shop. You're not working there, you're just consuming. Consuming the view; consuming the silence; consuming the clean air. At least the content producer is working!
Who is selfish?
---
You cannot visit a place without changing that place. The unspoiled place is spoiled by the very fact of you being there. You and the content producer are equals. The only person with the high ground here is someone who lives there (who, themselves have a range of positions on this argument; many want more visitors!), or someone who never visits.
The point I'm trying to make is entirely separate from how you feel personally about "content producers." I get that some people personally don't like the content. I, personally, hate it -- I don't even have instagram or TikTok. But then again, I don't like fan fiction, or MMA, or Burning Man. It doesn't really matter what I like, does it?
I do have to agree with the parent that a paid influencer is basically a professional marketer. And that, paid or not, an influencer without followers is neither an influencer nor a problem. As with everything consumerism, us consumers cannot ignore that, collectively, we are driving a lot of that development. With the more than generous and friendly help of Social Media companies of course.
> "Officials should have requested TikTok content producers to respect the sanctity of the religious places, instead of banning something outright.”
No, they really should not.
Apply Will Wheaton's Rule; in case of doubt (whether that rule applies): don't. If you're not mature enough to do that, that's a problem; if there are a large number of ignorant folks like you, that's a very good reason for banning something outright.
> Apply Will Wheaton's Rule; in case of doubt (whether that rule applies): don't.
Where can I read more about this rule?
Sorry; in a nutshell: "don't be a dick". e.g. [1].
[1] https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/wheatons-law
> content creators
I suppose as a programmer I am a "content creator", but, like, gag me with a spoon.
I've seen a handful of those popular clips on youtube, always with a 20-something presenter with coke-fueled loud yelling into the camera, too-bright colors, quick clips, kindergarten animations. Always the blaring pitch to subscribe. Barf. Yeah, I'm an old man, so I'm immune to the attraction of it.
Nahh don't worry I don't think you qualify as "content creator", even if you create code that could be thought of as "content" or to be honest even if you're a streamer who live-codes or something.To me what this usually refers to is video produced by "influencers" (or wannabe influencers), produced to a schedule purely to drive clicks and engagement. (edit: originally I tried to work in a fast-food metaphor here, but it did not land at all)
I wonder if you're like me at all - I kinda recoil when I encounter these people talking about creating "content" or selling "product". Just sounds like people are creating slop for their hogs to consume.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html#Conten...
I think because the term "content" has become a little nebulous.
As programmers, we are content creators, we are creating content. Programs are content. But it's a specific type of content. Actors, directors, writers, singers, songwriters, butchers, bakers, and event the candlestick makers. But they all create specific types of content.
Due to the ubiquitousness of recording equipment, the availability of publishing platforms, and the ability to transmit globally, the future where everyone will get their 15 minutes of fame is here.
But it's really hard to pin down what kind of content is being created. Pretend I am a "content creator". I took a picture of my lunch. But it's not serious enough to be "photography". The picture isn't designed to be high art. It's ephemeral. It's taken to demonstrate that I am having this for lunch. And while I may take pains to shoot it well, there are limits. The goal isn't to say anything about the food or society at large. The burger is just a burger. But it's got to go up. The feed must be fed. Gotta keep up engagement. So what the fuck did I just create? "Content".
The persona of my social media is the goal of the content creation. I am essentially selling you a parasocial relationship with me. Come hang out on my feeds. Watch me live my life, engage with my posts as you would a friend. That's the disconnect you're feeling. You're not buying into the parasocial relationship these people are trying to foster.
> Just sounds like people are creating slop for their hogs to consume.
I've always been put off by the concept of Facebook's "feed" [trough], but my wife pointed out that the whole "influencer"/"follower" dichotomy mirrors the power dynamics and verbiage of a cult.
No, as a programmer usually you're a container creator, not a content creator.
The word content has been mangled so much it merely means "audiovisual stimulus" now. No substance needs to be involved.
My local movie theatre has programs where they "go to" historic places (mostly aimed at the eldery).
Is it really that different?
Travel programs are made with necessary permits, filmed with local approval, done by professionals, and often during off-peak times/seasons both to avoid issues with overcrowding and improve program quality.
I live in Nepal. The country has some really wonderful regulations across all sectors, very few of them ever enforced.
I hate that "influencer" is even a thing.
Would you prefer "advertiser"? I would suggest there's no boundary between the two terms.
“Marketing shill” sounds better
Is "douche bag" not accurate?
It's accurate but imprecise.
They used to be called “celebrities”. But words die out and are replaced with the generations, like the word “rave” replaced “disco”, even though they are essentially the same thing.
I doubt the GP is taking offense to the term influencer.
I'm also disappointed influencers exist (in their current social media state, anyway), but I'm glad we have a term for it. I don't especially care which term we use.
I don't think so. the audience size most influencers cater to is miles smaller than anything you'd consider to be a celebrity's stuff in the range of 10k-1M IG follower tops or something
So, like minor or local celebrities, then? Or celebrities in decades past?
TikTok is not the problem here, so thy are missing the points with the No TikTok signs.
If they are annoyed by people dancing and recording themselves they should have a "Please no recording devices and no dancing" sign.
Recording doesn't seem the problem, neither is dancing. Being loud, annoying and damaging everything around you to make a viral video is. And since the TikTok crowd doesn't know the meaning of "respectful", "quiet" or "DO NOT BREAK" they had to phrase it in a way they would understand. I wouldn't be surprised if there were already signs that mention the other points for normal people.
"no tiktok" is short, and easy to understand to non-native English speakers.
Tik-tok has and continues to encourage social disruption in public places. It erodes self-goverance in favor artifical interaction. I provokes attention seeking nature through means of excessive absurdity. Class Clown as a Service.
> "no tiktok" is short, and easy to understand to non-native English speakers.
Funny thing is that for Portuguese speakers it could be understood as "In Tiktok"
Poor / no cellular coverage at national parks is such a nice thing to have, thanks to the “influencers”.
How would that help? They can record with no connection and post it later. Only limited from livestreaming.
It’s a start and also chances are the people who insist on broadcasting every second of their drama filled life do not like being out of coverage.
I think OP means those ruin cell bandwidth too.
Cough Starlink. It changes everything…
I find this phenomenon of essentially mass gloating to be really depressing form the perspective of human psychology.
I mean this has caused problems well beyond Nepal [1]. Hundreds have died taking selfies [2]. It's just so sad that the need for approval and envy ruins tourist spots and kills people.
Nepal is an interesting case because the country is really impoverished and really depends on the income from mountaineering. The result however is that Everest in particular is way too crowded and it kills people as people get stuck in the death zone [3].
All essentially for a less than 30 minute photo op at the top. There are a bunch of mountains over 8,000m in height. Some are even much more difficult to climb than Everest (eg K2). But people go to Everest to be a couple of hundred meters higher for the bragging rights and they're quite willing to endanger themselves and others to get there.
I really don't understand this.
[1]: https://www.insider.com/travel-destinations-instagram-influe...
[2]: https://www.npr.org/2019/05/06/720800572/hundreds-have-died-...
[3]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-everest-casualtie...
I think a lot of significant sites would do well to ban photography and video entirely.
People are upset that Venice will turn into a museum with entrance passes and so on and few people will live there. I think that's yhe best realistic case for a lot of these places.
So many of them are already unenjoyable to visit, blanketed in trash, herding lines of people from busses to take a few pictures and be loud for a few minutes before stampeding back to where they came.
We in the west should have banned Instagram in historic sites years ago too
There was an interesting idea in my country that predictably got massacred in the media:
A CO2 budget. High enough that poor people could still fly to Spain once a year low enough to block yuppies from sightseeing Nepal or New York. Obviously the wealthy would never allow it- virtue signaling on HN about how long they use their iPhone is one thing.
Anyone else think it's odd that the signage[1] is so aged after a year or two? [1] https://restofworld.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/IMG-20220...
Nepal is in the top ten polluted countries measured by PM2.5. https://kathmandupost.com/climate-environment/2020/10/21/one...
At that level, things outside just get dirty.
Interesting given Nepals close relations to China (they help put down anti China rhetoric of Tibetan refugees and strictly adhere to one China principle) that Nepal gets the western version of Tik tok and not the super serious Chinese version.
The first thought I had was that this was a Chinese Government imposed policy to stop anyone from discussing non-Han history and culture. I'm surprised to learn that, at least in theory, Tibet is still a separate country from Red China.
When I went to Iceland a few years ago, various tourist spots had 'no drone' signs. There was still a drone or two in the air at every one of them. I expect these signs in Nepal will be ignored too.
> “They need to play the same music over and over again to get that perfect shot…”
Sounds disrespectful. What’s the issue? Actual harm to TikTok freedom of expression or that memes* are rotting our brains?
* memes a la Dennett, Blackmore