Hacker News Reader

Comment by CPLX | Hacker News Reader

It’s not that hard to just say that the idea of creating huge monetary incentives to harass, interrupt, or just distract people in public was a bad idea.

View on HN

To me it just seems like a lighthearted prank which resulted in giving flowers to someone who appears in need of cheering up. It's something that could easily have been on any comedy TV show of the last 30 years. And I think there's always been a monetary incentive; Candid Camera first aired in 1948.

Were they also in need of being filmed and put in front of a large audience against their wishes, whilst being portrayed as old and sad?

The filming may be candid, but to air, the subject must sign a waiver. Whether the subjects were compensated for agreeing to the airing of the footage is a different Q.

Candid Camera acquired consent and revealed the cameras as part of the joke.

It would have been such a sinister show if they never revealed it was a joke and never got permission to distribute the video.

Besides the fact that TV shows always get consent all those being filmed, there is a quantitative difference between this and Candid Camera.

Too many people now want to engage in these fake and superficial acts of "kindness", and it's messing up general day-to-day behavior and values.

But I'd imagine that Candid Camera required "participants" to sign a release. Same for those "Funniest Home Videos" and even stuff like Borat (and Tom Green, etc. before him).

Those shows would have invariably gotten the consent of all the subjects that made it to air.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com