←back to thread

IMG_0001

(walzr.com)
1861 points walz | 2 comments | 04 Dec 24 04:46 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
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(7): >>42315729 #>>42316104 #>>42316775 #>>42320216 #>>42320625 #>>42321956 #>>42328568 #
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(11): >>42316879 #>>42316894 #>>42317594 #>>42317650 #>>42317802 #>>42318306 #>>42318344 #>>42320584 #>>42323459 #>>42323561 #>>42325456 #
mdanger007 ◴[04 Dec 24 14:21 UTC] No.42317650[source]▶
Ruined your day? Although it is undoubtedly tech voyeurism the fact that these observations occur in every day life and don’t violate people’s privacy I would just like to invite you to get out more.
replies(3): >>42318260 #>>42318297 #>>42318584 #
supplied_demand ◴[04 Dec 24 15:45 UTC] No.42318584[source]▶
==occur in every day life and don’t violate people’s privacy==

Plenty of things happen in every day life, but are private (sex, break-ups, proposals, Dr. visits, etc.). I also noticed lots of these videos have people in the background. I doubt they were they notified that a video was being taken and uploaded publicly.

==I would just like to invite you to get out more.==

Maybe an alternative is to invite yourself to ask questions about why there are multiple comments with the same sentiment rather than reflexively telling them how to feel/act?

replies(2): >>42320194 #>>42320995 #
mdanger007 ◴[04 Dec 24 19:21 UTC] No.42320995[source]▶
Are we watching the same YouTube clips?
replies(1): >>42321271 #
supplied_demand ◴[04 Dec 24 19:45 UTC] No.42321271[source]▶
I think by definition, we are not watching the same Youtube clips. Isn't that how the app works?
replies(2): >>42321562 #>>42321621 #
mdanger007 ◴[04 Dec 24 20:20 UTC] No.42321621[source]▶
I don’t know if you intentionally take my point out of context, but the man was arguing that it ruined his day because there were such things as sex in these random clips.
replies(1): >>42322365 #
supplied_demand ◴[04 Dec 24 21:45 UTC] No.42322365{3}[source]▶
It's possible you got lost in the comment thread. I said one of those things and the original commentor said the other.

--The original commentor said that it "kinda ruined their day a bit" and felt a little intrusive.

--Then someone responded by saying that is was just things that occur in every day life and doesn't violate anyone's privacy.

--Then I responded to clarify that things which occur in every day life can still be intrusive to privacy i.e. sex, breakups, drug use, etc.

I did not say that people were having sex in these clips, nor did the original commentor.

replies(1): >>42325766 #
shiroiushi ◴[05 Dec 24 07:12 UTC] No.42325766{4}[source]▶
This comment thread feels like a variation of the Telephone Game.
replies(1): >>42328764 #
1. gosub100 ◴[05 Dec 24 14:54 UTC] No.42328764{5}[source]▶
There is a plague in here where people examine every statement in attempt to find the strongest evidence that can be used to refute the previous claim. If you don't make your sentences airtight, they will pull out semantic arguments for any type of counterexample. Among the set of replies, there is very little sympathetic comprehension of the essence of what was said. At times it can be maddening.
replies(1): >>42334312 #
2. shiroiushi ◴[06 Dec 24 00:00 UTC] No.42334312[source]▶
It's not just here, it's any place where technical people congregate. It's something wrong with technical people, I think. It probably has something to do with why terrorists are frequently engineers.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/11/theres-a-good-reason-wh...