lot of cameras around these days, higher resolutions all the time, big screens too to watch whatever on, zoom in. You can grab frames, of a politician, of their walk, or face, find something unflattering to pitch the story.

cricketers too.

I ask though, is the abundance of ‘eyes’ around changing things entirely for good.

or, are the good people now avoiding it, more, a type of selection in progress, a new dimension to some repressive mechanisms, distracted from and brushed over with entertainment?

I could, for a moment, consider cameras and TV to be (like) guns, and the many as AK47s.

perhaps a small CRT, in the corner, in a box, the limited detail wasn’t so bad, perhaps B&W TV wasn’t so bad, like back in the days cricketers wore white.

1984

KJW said:

1984

Bloody nearly. Worryingly near.

Michael V said:

KJW said:

1984

Bloody nearly. Worryingly near.

Chinese will be checking social indexes and if you score low enough will have your TV and phone bugging and recording you.

AwesomeO said:

Michael V said:

KJW said:

1984

Bloody nearly. Worryingly near.

Chinese will be checking social indexes and if you score low enough will have your TV and phone bugging and recording you.

Absolutely. Concerning. Glad I hide in this small village and stay off facefuck. I believe that decision of mine has been thoroughly vindicated this last week or so.

transition said:

lot of cameras around these days, higher resolutions all the time, big screens too to watch whatever on, zoom in. You can grab frames, of a politician, of their walk, or face, find something unflattering to pitch the story.

cricketers too.

I ask though, is the abundance of ‘eyes’ around changing things entirely for good.

or, are the good people now avoiding it, more, a type of selection in progress, a new dimension to some repressive mechanisms, distracted from and brushed over with entertainment?

I could, for a moment, consider cameras and TV to be (like) guns, and the many as AK47s.

perhaps a small CRT, in the corner, in a box, the limited detail wasn’t so bad, perhaps B&W TV wasn’t so bad, like back in the days cricketers wore white.

Normally I understand what Transition is talking about, but not this time.

Picture quality from security cameras is abysmal, the exact opposite of HD. So which are you talking about?

Let’s suppose you’re talking cameras, both official security cameras an phone cameras. Phone cameras have tiny lenses and cheap poor quality imaging chips with lots of background noise.

But even with that, not enough cameras. Take the Bourke Street Rampage from Jan 2017. Not a single good piece of camera footage of the rampage anywhere. Sure there is footage of the car beforehand, and the police at the scene afterward. But footage of the rampage itself and immediate aftermath is totally missing.

As for the Flinders Street Massacre of Dec 2017. This is just about the only image, and I certainly wouldn’t call it “high definition”.

>Normally I understand what Transition is talking about, but not this time.

i’m inviting you to imagine for a moment that cameras are guns, like guns, everywhere, part of societal feedback mechanisms, ‘eyes’ all around, that are involved in the regulation of behavior, and consider the potential audience the arsenal of adverse attention.

i’m inviting you to consider that all those eyes and ‘ears’, the latter microphones, and too recording devices, that the effect of these, them being increasingly prolific and improving quality, has the effect of disinclining good people from venturing into public spaces, that a selection force is at work.

but more, i’m inviting you to consider what is being internalized as normal, from media more generally, from such behavior controls, adopted. The recursions also.

and lots of people have their own little TV stations these days since social media platforms became popular, and me posting here may not be so different.

for entertainment I encourage you to consider the above as more repressive than liberating, though tending to dress up as the latter.

to an example, i’m suggesting really good TV quality, and lots of it, could give you bad cricket, and bad politics.

that the potential for over-scrutiny, and manipulation of the medium, may result in negative aspects of social/cultural selection pressures being overlooked, distortions, normalized.

you know TV didn’t exist in the ancestral environments, weapons did though.

mollwollfumble said:

transition said:

lot of cameras around these days, higher resolutions all the time, big screens too to watch whatever on, zoom in. You can grab frames, of a politician, of their walk, or face, find something unflattering to pitch the story.

cricketers too.

I ask though, is the abundance of ‘eyes’ around changing things entirely for good.

or, are the good people now avoiding it, more, a type of selection in progress, a new dimension to some repressive mechanisms, distracted from and brushed over with entertainment?

I could, for a moment, consider cameras and TV to be (like) guns, and the many as AK47s.

perhaps a small CRT, in the corner, in a box, the limited detail wasn’t so bad, perhaps B&W TV wasn’t so bad, like back in the days cricketers wore white.

Normally I understand what Transition is talking about, but not this time.

Picture quality from security cameras is abysmal, the exact opposite of HD. So which are you talking about?

Let’s suppose you’re talking cameras, both official security cameras an phone cameras. Phone cameras have tiny lenses and cheap poor quality imaging chips with lots of background noise.

But even with that, not enough cameras. Take the Bourke Street Rampage from Jan 2017. Not a single good piece of camera footage of the rampage anywhere. Sure there is footage of the car beforehand, and the police at the scene afterward. But footage of the rampage itself and immediate aftermath is totally missing.

As for the Flinders Street Massacre of Dec 2017. This is just about the only image, and I certainly wouldn’t call it “high definition”.

!https://d3p157427w54jq.cloudfront.net/uploads/2017/12/flinders-incident-637×397.png

I saw moving footage of that which was pretty clear, and, to be fair, the whole footage is rarely released. I wouldn’t expect you to have anything of ‘value’. They have to keep footage detained so they can find an ‘uninfluenced’ jury if there is a trial. Also they don’t like the general public seeing this stuff. So sure, a less enhanced version may often be released to the media, but that doesn’t mean that’s all there is.

Arts said:

mollwollfumble said:

transition said:

lot of cameras around these days, higher resolutions all the time, big screens too to watch whatever on, zoom in. You can grab frames, of a politician, of their walk, or face, find something unflattering to pitch the story.

cricketers too.

I ask though, is the abundance of ‘eyes’ around changing things entirely for good.

or, are the good people now avoiding it, more, a type of selection in progress, a new dimension to some repressive mechanisms, distracted from and brushed over with entertainment?

I could, for a moment, consider cameras and TV to be (like) guns, and the many as AK47s.

perhaps a small CRT, in the corner, in a box, the limited detail wasn’t so bad, perhaps B&W TV wasn’t so bad, like back in the days cricketers wore white.

Normally I understand what Transition is talking about, but not this time.

Picture quality from security cameras is abysmal, the exact opposite of HD. So which are you talking about?

Let’s suppose you’re talking cameras, both official security cameras an phone cameras. Phone cameras have tiny lenses and cheap poor quality imaging chips with lots of background noise.

But even with that, not enough cameras. Take the Bourke Street Rampage from Jan 2017. Not a single good piece of camera footage of the rampage anywhere. Sure there is footage of the car beforehand, and the police at the scene afterward. But footage of the rampage itself and immediate aftermath is totally missing.

As for the Flinders Street Massacre of Dec 2017. This is just about the only image, and I certainly wouldn’t call it “high definition”.

!https://d3p157427w54jq.cloudfront.net/uploads/2017/12/flinders-incident-637×397.png

I saw moving footage of that which was pretty clear, and, to be fair, the whole footage is rarely released. I wouldn’t expect you to have anything of ‘value’. They have to keep footage detained so they can find an ‘uninfluenced’ jury if there is a trial. Also they don’t like the general public seeing this stuff. So sure, a less enhanced version may often be released to the media, but that doesn’t mean that’s all there is.

Are you saying that we really are kept in the dark and fed BS?

roughbarked said:

Arts said:

mollwollfumble said:

Normally I understand what Transition is talking about, but not this time.

Picture quality from security cameras is abysmal, the exact opposite of HD. So which are you talking about?

Let’s suppose you’re talking cameras, both official security cameras an phone cameras. Phone cameras have tiny lenses and cheap poor quality imaging chips with lots of background noise.

But even with that, not enough cameras. Take the Bourke Street Rampage from Jan 2017. Not a single good piece of camera footage of the rampage anywhere. Sure there is footage of the car beforehand, and the police at the scene afterward. But footage of the rampage itself and immediate aftermath is totally missing.

As for the Flinders Street Massacre of Dec 2017. This is just about the only image, and I certainly wouldn’t call it “high definition”.

!https://d3p157427w54jq.cloudfront.net/uploads/2017/12/flinders-incident-637×397.png

I saw moving footage of that which was pretty clear, and, to be fair, the whole footage is rarely released. I wouldn’t expect you to have anything of ‘value’. They have to keep footage detained so they can find an ‘uninfluenced’ jury if there is a trial. Also they don’t like the general public seeing this stuff. So sure, a less enhanced version may often be released to the media, but that doesn’t mean that’s all there is.

Are you saying that we really are kept in the dark and fed BS?

no.

>> Normally I understand what Transition is talking about, but not this time.

> i’m inviting you to imagine for a moment that cameras are guns, like guns, everywhere.

I see what you mean, now, the analogy between “shooting” a picture and “shooting” a gun. It’s even been said that being a sniper is the best possible training for being a photographer. I can also accept that it’s difficult for a wild animal to tell the difference between a photographer and a hunter.

But I’m not buying the analogy. I can’t for even a moment imagine that cameras are guns. Cameras reveal the truth, guns don’t.

mollwollfumble said:

>> Normally I understand what Transition is talking about, but not this time.

> i’m inviting you to imagine for a moment that cameras are guns, like guns, everywhere.

I see what you mean, now, the analogy between “shooting” a picture and “shooting” a gun. It’s even been said that being a sniper is the best possible training for being a photographer. I can also accept that it’s difficult for a wild animal to tell the difference between a photographer and a hunter.

But I’m not buying the analogy. I can’t for even a moment imagine that cameras are guns. Cameras reveal the truth, guns don’t.

Cameras record a lot of near misses. Guns record the kills.

>But I’m not buying the analogy. I can’t for even a moment imagine that cameras are guns. Cameras reveal the truth, guns don’t.

I was drawing on the analogy, that media is civilized mans’ version of the AK47

So, let’s say a policeman pulls you over, or calls to your house, for whatever. That he’s fitted with a camera won’t make any difference to your behavior?

no chilling effect?

or, the possibility of multiple TV crews turning up at your house if you accidentally start a fire, this has no influence on your behavior?

KJW said:

1984

Orwelian Nightmare is here.

!https://youtu.be/hWLjYJ4BzvI?t=34

This is extremely dangerous to our democracy!
This is extremely dangerous to our democracy!
This is extremely dangerous to our democracy!
This is extremely dangerous to our democracy!
This is extremely dangerous to our democracy!
This is extremely dangerous to our democracy!