https://www.is.fi/digitoday/art-2000011995114.htmlhe put on facebook glasses which look like ray ban, you wouldnt realize what it is unless you have researched on the subjecthe had a phone in his pocket, a phone is wirelessly connected to ray banthen he stopped a woman at supermarket and started to talk to herwoman didnt know it went on recordthen he released the womans responses in social media as a video, it went viral and I think 1000 people saw itwhen the women heard from her friend about the video she contacted policebut police didnt demand the man to remove the video because a shop is a public place and there was no criminal activity seen in the videohowever facebook deleted the video eventually and gave the man this response "video deleted due to complaint from the person who was in the video"
>>534796853Yea if the video was taken in public he can sue Facebook for civil rights violations. Eyes cannot be trespassed in public, and social media companies can't just arbitrarily decide to remove something because someone complained when it's legal.
>>534796922Social media isn't obligated to host your videos. If they feel like removing something from their servers, their website, their platform they can
>>534796853>video deleted due to complaint from the person who was in the videolet me guess, private company can do whatever it wants on its platform, right?
>>534796853Christ that woman is eyecandy
>>534796922correction:>then he stopped a woman at supermarketYea that probably wouldn't be protected because that's not really public, I guess it would depend on the state laws.
>>534796922Yeah they can idiot, it's they're servers not yours, holy fuck you're dumb
>>534796922are you retarded lol they can remove whatever they want to and it takes like 0.5 seconds to realize they probably dont want reputation of allowing weird creepshot on their site stupid nigger how fucking stupid is nupol
>>534796922Yes they can.If you come to my house, and say some stupid shit, I can tell you to leave.You can't get pissy then call the cops claiming I violated your civil rights.Are you retarded?Dude can take the video and post it wherever he wants. If however, where he posted it, doesn't want it there, they can take it down. They don't even have to give a reason.
>>534797068And that's fine, but if they're going to moderate it to that extent, then they should be held liable for shit posted on there. What they want is both immunity + the right to moderate, you can't have both. They haven't pushed this sufficiently in the courts as of yet, so it's a grey area.
>>534796853What does this have to do with /pol/? And you didn't even post the video in question, you raging homosexual.
>>534796853>man videoed woman without permissionwhile she sucked his dick That would be totally inappropriate
>>534797115Your home isn't public. There's literally tens of thousand of auditor videos on youtube with people straight up cussing cops out to their face in public and they can't do shit. The ones who take the bait end up paying out 6 figures.Supermarket isn't actually public, so I would say it's fine to take the video down on that reason. However, if the video had been taken in public and facebook took it down because of a complaint that's a different line.
>>534796853A supermarket is not a public place though unless it's government owned
>>534797178I cant post the video because its no longer in internet
>>534797138if you ran an online forum, you would also want immunity + the right to moderate. and most people don't think you should be able to record someone without their knowledge, which means those videos will always be heavily frowned upon even if they are legal, and online forums will always be pressured to remove those videos by their users. and if the sites don't police themselves, there's always the threat that laws can be changed to force them to.
>>534796922Thanks for the gold, KIND STRANGER
>>534796853You sure have a large collection of photos of skanks
>>534796853I can't tell if this post was written by an Ai or some street shitter.
>>534796853Its not illegal.It probably should be illegal.But so should most of the survilenance apparatus we're forced to interact with daily.When im being recorded by every phone in the gym the minute I enter, aswell as the buidings cctv.When I cant watch tv without my tv spying on what im watchingWhen I cant leave my house without my phone pinning some geofencing areaWhen even if I dont take my phone half of the streets doorbells are cameras.And soon we wont be able to drive without an ai camera shoved in our face.So yeah I do think this should be banned.But I think all these other things should be banned first because theyre slightly more important and effect everybody here.
>>534797053Katherine McNamara. Bit too flat for my tastes though, Danielle Houghton looks pretty much identical face-wise but has much bigger boobs.
