←back to thread

IMG_0001

(walzr.com)
1570 points walz | 8 comments | 04 Dec 24 04:46 UTC | HN request time: 0.205s | source | bottom
Show context
kannonboy ◴[04 Dec 24 06:05 UTC] No.42314852[source]▶
I love that the view count is included in the minimalist UI. I came across one with zero views, and there's something so intimate and exciting about being the first person to watch an ancient home video (even if it's shaky handycam footage of a horse, narrated in Russian).

As an aside, hats off to Google to being able to serve an 11 year old video with no noticeable delay from what must be the coldest of caches.

replies(6): >>42315729 #>>42316104 #>>42316775 #>>42320216 #>>42320625 #>>42321956 #
mattlondon ◴[04 Dec 24 12:28 UTC] No.42316775[source]▶
I felt slightly uneasy myself - the first thing I saw was a mum laying on her bed doing a selfie-video with two small kids (probably between 2 and 4 years old) singing a song to daddy.

That felt like a total invasion of their private lives.

I've had the same videos from my own kids, and while there is nothing embarrassing or shameful about it, it's not something I'd want broadcasted. Maybe it hit a nerve for me as it is so very very similar to my own life right now. Sure yeah they uploaded it to YouTube and it's public but it still felt wrong to watch that.

Kinda ruined my day a bit - feel kinda bad for viewing it.

replies(10): >>42316879 #>>42316894 #>>42317594 #>>42317650 #>>42317802 #>>42318306 #>>42318344 #>>42320584 #>>42323459 #>>42323561 #
1. stronglikedan ◴[04 Dec 24 15:21 UTC] No.42318306[source]▶
> That felt like a total invasion of their private lives.

Except they literally explicitly uploaded it to YT.

replies(2): >>42318370 #>>42322502 #
2. rescripting ◴[04 Dec 24 15:27 UTC] No.42318370[source]▶
At the time this was probably the one of the most convenient ways to share videos with loved ones. It wouldn't cross your mind that these videos were "public" because no one had the link but you.

I'm sure it never crossed their mind that 15 years later an aggregator would be resurfacing them.

replies(1): >>42319300 #
3. recursive ◴[04 Dec 24 16:48 UTC] No.42319300[source]▶
Is there a more convenient way now? Not being sarcastic, but it's still pretty damn convenient.
replies(2): >>42319852 #>>42320598 #
4. 85392_school ◴[04 Dec 24 17:39 UTC] No.42319852{3}[source]▶
These days you can unlist the video.
replies(2): >>42320095 #>>42320589 #
5. throwawayq3423 ◴[04 Dec 24 18:01 UTC] No.42320095{4}[source]▶
YOu think people know how to do that? Or even remember their content is there for all to see?
6. jonny_eh ◴[04 Dec 24 18:47 UTC] No.42320589{4}[source]▶
That was possible then too, but took an extra step. Defaults are important.
7. jonny_eh ◴[04 Dec 24 18:47 UTC] No.42320598{3}[source]▶
I use Google Photos. Apple Photos would work too. Or any of the messaging apps like WhatsApp, Telegram, etc.
8. kelnos ◴[04 Dec 24 21:58 UTC] No.42322502[source]▶
Who says it was explicit? They may have done so without understanding the implications.

Your insistence that people did this intentionally, fully understanding what they were doing, is pretty weird. You have no idea why people uploaded these, what their level of technical proficiency was when they did so, or what they understood about the availability of the videos they posted.

Maybe don't claim to read people's minds, and be open to the idea that people do things for a variety of reasons, and often don't consider (or even know that they should consider) the implications of everything they do.