• unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    5 hours ago

    The only people offended by this are the ones who dont yet understand that this is happening constantly all over the place without your consent already.

    • bigfondue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 minutes ago

      Something happening all the time doesn’t mean that it’s good and you should just accept it.

  • floo@retrolemmy.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    109
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    If this disturbs you, then good. That was the point.

    These guys are amazing. Of all the shows I saw at Roseland NYC, theirs in 96 was the absolute best.

  • Avicenna@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Now consider this to coldplay concert where they urged the crowd to send love to Charlie Kirk’s family lol.

  • frongt@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    10 hours ago

    To be clear, the system picked out faces in the crowd, in the “yes, this is a face” sense. They were labeled in what appears to be random terms like positive, kind, nostalgic, bee keeper, gif animator, extreme ironer. No personal identification.

  • merde alors@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Social media erupted with bewildered reactions from attendees. Some praised the band for forcing a conversation about surveillance that most people avoid, while others expressed discomfort with the unexpected data capture.

    Unlike typical concert technology that enhances your experience, this facial recognition system explicitly confronted attendees with the reality of data capture. The band made visible what usually happens invisibly—your face being recorded, analyzed, and potentially stored by systems you never explicitly agreed to interact with.

    The audience split predictably along ideological lines. Privacy advocates called it a boundary violation disguised as art. Others viewed it as necessary shock therapy for our sleepwalking acceptance of facial recognition in everyday spaces. Both reactions prove the intervention achieved its disruptive goal.

    Your relationship with facial recognition technology just got more complicated. Every venue, every event, every public space potentially captures your likeness. Massive Attack simply made the invisible visible—and deeply uncomfortable. The question now isn’t whether this was art or privacy violation, but whether you’re ready to confront how normalized surveillance has become in your daily life.

  • nelson@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    That was one god awful website. Holy shit. Why would anybody willingly visit that site. Wtf

      • nelson@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        19 minutes ago

        I got a video that started playing which only had an arrow to expand but no x to close. It kept following while scrolling.

        Not sure why my ad blocker didn’t block it.

        Edit: after staying on the page for about a minute it just auto showed up

        Gadget website showing video playing

        • MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          18 minutes ago

          Ah, i have it set to block 3rd party frames (anywhere, since almost only ad stuff uses this) and 3rd-party scripts (on mobile, breaks some things), probably that’s why.

  • trailee@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 hours ago

    This disturbs me in the best way. I love/hate it.

    I wonder how long they can run this before their backend database vendor cuts them off with some flimsy pretext because this kind of thing is bad for business.

    • lunarul@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      No backend database needed for what they did. It was just highlighting where the faces are in a shot of the crowd, same as modern smartphone cameras do, but with a surveillance-type UI around it.

      • trailee@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Thanks, I just watched the video linked by @[email protected] and I see that now. It’s actually a little disappointing and I’d love to see the same kind of public spectacle on hard mode with real-time doxxing from a commercial backend. That would be far more provocative.

        I think the article hugely understated that nuance.

        • lunarul@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Most people don’t know the difference, as made clear by the reactions of the public, comments on other social platforms, and the wording of the articles. So it’s just as powerful as it was.

          • trailee@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            7 hours ago

            I will agree that it was still powerful. All of the phone videos would memorialize any real doxxing so it’s maybe just as well that they didn’t do it.

            I think it would be better with minor obfuscation like F***e L***e for Firstname Lastname. Something instantly recognizable to the victims/participants but not for the entire audience.