The idea that context-free photos uploaded to the internet (and potentially shared with the public) without the subject's permission somehow represent 'truth' is hilarious.
If they say a picture's worth a thousand words, then it's not much of a leap to apply this quote:
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
How many pictures out of context do you think it would take to ruin the average person's marriage? Destroy their career? Make them a public laughingstock? Not many pictures, if you choose the right ones.
The idea that you can misphrase what I actually said so grotesquely is itself "hilarious".
The GP opined that photos ruin lives and relationships. I've yet to hear a scenario where a unwantedly shared photo ruined either a life or relationship where it wasn't that it actually revealed a hidden truth.
You're awfully close to a No true Scotsman argument, there. However, if you're interested in damaging photos that aren't secret, you need but take a look at the history of social news. There have been a number of high-profile false allegations with associated vigilantism.
I'm nowhere near that fallacy. I am specifically looking for examples to the claim that I questioned (the single example provided to me thus far actually supports exactly what I said).
That the crowd can be stupid (as in the recent Reddit Boston bombing nonsense) has absolutely no relevance to this.
So what you're looking for is
1) a photo
2) not depicting a secret
3) publicized unintentionally
4) that ruined a life or relationship
5) without involving mass misunderstanding
Sorry, I can't provide one for you. The documentation on such events is typically kept to a small circulation.
Yes, truth does have that potential, or even more accurately, the mistakes made that truth reveals.
Humans make mistakes in judgment. Sometimes not revealing those mistakes (lying, if you will) let you grow through it. Someone might conceal a mistake for life, or reveal it after time has passed, or confess immediately. Unless there's a law enforcement agency trying to get at the truth, I think it's best left up to an individual how to deal with everyday mistakes.
And they are everyday mistakes, because that's our nature.
We're dealing with this issue already in our schools. It used to be if two kids fought in the halls, a teacher or principle would deal with it. Suspension at most, rarely expulsion. The school would almost never bring the matter to the attention of law enforcement except in rare cases. But it's against the law to fight, and they concealed it from law enforcement.
Now police are often stationed in schools. My kid's high school, and the middle school before that, has a dedicated officer. And he has said if he sees you breaking the law he'll arrest you. Do we need more kids contacting the justice system, for doing what kids do as they outgrow being kids? It's the truth, but is it right?
Do you ever spell check or read over what you've written before you submit writing? Shouldn't the computer stream everything as written, so everyone would know the truth about your spelling, grammar and judgment?
I look out the window and I see a lot of color. I'm really glad it's not all black and white.
There's more to it than mistakes. I'm reminded of an advice column from a few weeks back where someone had found out that their recently dead grandmother had been homosexual and was wondering whether to share this with her homophobic family.
People who aren't socially disabled recognize that you don't always tell all the people all that is true. I'd never deny say surfing for porn, but that doesn't mean I want my mom to know my porn viewing tastes.
> Do you mean that truth has the potential of ruining lives and relationships?
Yes, if context is missing. And context will most likely be missing from ‘leaked’ information – and if the subject is sufficiently emotional, people will have little reason left to wait for/inquire about said context.
Give some examples, please. In the overwhelming majority of unwanted picture releases, it is actually the truth that caught people out, not anything "out of context" (which is the ultimate weasel phrase. "Sure I said that racist jokes..but you have to understand that I'm being taken out of context: There weren't any black people in hearing range!").
The teacher that actually has a night life, outside of the lie that everyone sits knitting sweaters for kittens at night. Etc. It is the individual and social lies that get unfurled.
You connect to an old friend of the opposite sex on fb. He/she is a silly git and the first thing he/she does is post an old photo with you and him/her visibly drunk on your fb wall. Your current partner sees it and assumes it's a relatively current photo and thus thinks you're cheating on him/her.
Well - if that social lie is nessescary for that teacher to keep her job, it seems pretty harsh to sit on your high horse and say 'lies are the reason - not unintended sharing'.
The customary examples in this discussion are battered wives hiding from their abusive husbands, and homosexuals in the UaE.
Is it a high horse? Quite a few people seemed to knee-jerk to that assumption, yet it was absolutely nothing of the sort.
Much of society lives a lie (such as the nonsense that teachers live puritanical lives). Those lies are unsustainable with the continued impact of technology on our lives.
It is a sad day on Hacker News when the majority of replies to my basic question are these nonsensical, defensive, attack replies, as if everyone needs to pick a side and wave a flag. Rar rar!
Stuff like this has the potential of ruining lives and relationships.
Do you mean that truth has the potential of ruining lives and relationships?