[HN Gopher] A Child's TikTok Stardom Opens Doors. Then a Gunman ...
___________________________________________________________________
A Child's TikTok Stardom Opens Doors. Then a Gunman Arrives
Author : danso
Score : 43 points
Date : 2022-02-18 18:57 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| As long as there has been fame, there has been stalkers. The idea
| that "it's on the internet, it must be safe" is a silly
| assumption. In fact, we should all know by now, the internet
| makes you more findable and more trackable.
|
| Young Karens - and your parents - you should know better. Just
| ask Jodi Foster.
| [deleted]
| manholio wrote:
| asdfasgasdgasdg wrote:
| It sucks what happened but it's important to realize that this is
| a pretty rare occurrence. There are a lot of famous people and
| most of them don't have someone turn up to their house with a
| shotgun at any point. News seeks out the sensational but keep in
| mind that it is sensational because this is an outlier. And even
| the individual affected by this incident apparently considers the
| platform to be worth the risk, since she is still active on
| there.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| IMO the issue is that people are attracted to these platforms
| for the ad-money and attention of an audience, but the extent
| to which you open yourself up to harassment and stalking is
| only understood after-the-fact.
|
| If only social media hadn't enforced real name policies, it
| might be a little easier to stay anonymous while still being a
| content creator, maybe its different in other countries.
|
| Edit: Facebook and Google+/Youtube had or have real name
| policies, before then it was the norm to never reveal your real
| identity online, I admit I am ignorant to TikTok policies, but
| apparently sharing your venmo address is not uncommon.
| asdfasgasdgasdg wrote:
| > the extent to which you open yourself up to harassment and
| stalking is only understood after-the-fact.
|
| Some things are hard to learn the easy way. In any case, as I
| observed, the tradeoff seems worth it to the subject of the
| article and her family, even now they are made forcefully
| aware of the possible downsides. Perhaps it ultimately will
| not be but I personally don't feel like I'm in a position to
| dictate how they should balance the risks and rewards of
| stardom.
| theodric wrote:
| Social media didn't enforce real name policies, Facebook dot
| com did. Instagram, Twitter, Reddit, Tumblr, the right-wing
| sites-- none of those (nominally) require you to divulge PII
| to open an account (although try opening a Twitter account in
| $currentYear and see how long you last before they lock your
| account for 'unusual activity' until you provide both a phone
| number + e-mail address)
| BurningFrog wrote:
| TikTok doesn't require your real name.
| philipkglass wrote:
| The article said that the stalker got her personal details
| by paying people who were closer to her. In one case he did
| math homework for a classmate who knew her in exchange for
| information. A pseudonym doesn't help much if people who
| know you in real life sell you out.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| Fair, but Venmo does.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| But financial transactions usually have fairly high
| scrutiny - you can't expect to be anonymous and do
| business.
| [deleted]
| dijonman2 wrote:
| I can't accept this argument. In a risk matrix the probability
| is low but impact is high, so it's still high risk and doesnt
| justify dismissal.
|
| I think it bolsters the need for anonymity and privacy,
| especially online. In FL you have the sunshine act which makes
| doxxing particularly easy.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| That's true of literally any rare disaster. That's why
| they're called disasters.
|
| Better not fly.
| theodric wrote:
| Everyone's a risk manager until they have to do it every
| day, and then they find themselves constrained by last
| week's fears to the extent that they can no longer leave
| the house without a haz-mat suit, armed bodyguard, and one-
| way plane ticket to a remote village in Switzerland
| asdfasgasdgasdg wrote:
| I totally understand that some people would not choose to
| make the tradeoff, and they are free not to. Inherently,
| anyone broadcasting video of their everyday life is going to
| be doxxable if they are not extremely careful about how much
| information they are putting out. The sunshine laws in this
| case may have helped but I don't think we know that. The
| article doesn't mention them at any rate.
| armchairhacker wrote:
| A fan going to their star's house with a weapon is rare.
|
| A man stalking and becoming obsessed with a specific woman,
| spending time and effort for sex and attention despite the
| woman clearly not being interested, is _surprisingly_ common.
|
| Many, many woman have real-life incidents of men literally
| stalking them, men repeatedly trying to get their attention /
| ask them out despite blatant "stop talking to me" rejection,
| and men getting really aggressive when they get rejected or
| "emasculated". On games and social media it's much worse, to
| the point where basically anyone who reveals themselves to be
| female gets creepy messages. You just don't realize because
| relatively this stuff almost never happens to men, even
| attractive men.
|
| Go on a sub like r/NiceGuys, r/TwoXChromosomes and you will see
| a ton of examples. But even random subs like r/AskReddit and my
| college's sub have multiple stories because it's so common.
| It's actually a very serious issue in nearly every society, and
| this incident is an (albeit extreme) example of the persistence
| and aggressiveness most semi-attractive women experience.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > A fan going to their star's house with a weapon is rare.
|
| If your denominator is fans, yes.
|
| If it is stars, not so much.
|
| > You just don't realize because relatively this stuff almost
| never happens to men, even attractive men.
|
| Yes, it does, and not just conventionally attractive men.
| _You_ don 't realize because men have less social support for
| discussing it when it happens to them, and you mistake
| relative visibility for relative frequency.
| giantg2 wrote:
| I'm glad you brought this up.
|
| I think this is similar to how domestic violence is cast as
| a women's issue, yet men are just as likely if not more so
| to be victims.
|
| https://www.saveservices.org/2019/02/men-face-31-greater-
| ris...
| asdfasgasdgasdg wrote:
| _> A fan going to their star's house with a weapon is rare.
|
| > A man stalking and becoming obsessed with a specific woman
| [is common] . . ._
|
| I recognize the truth of what you're saying, but I also just
| want to point out that the discussion is about the former
| situation, not the latter one. Otherwise there wouldn't be
| these vague intimations that something is wrong with Tiktok
| in the NYTimes piece.
| detcader wrote:
| Any specific-enough set of circumstances is inherently rare.
| Men stalking and using guns on women and girls isn't uncommon
| at all.
| LudwigNagasena wrote:
| >Men stalking and using guns on women and girls isn't
| uncommon at all.
|
| I would say it's pretty uncommon.
| fullshark wrote:
| It's common enough to worry about and not handwave away I'd
| say, especially if you are operating a social network.
| strogonoff wrote:
| It's very difficult to estimate the ballpark of how many
| cases that victims are disincentivized from reporting
| happen on daily basis. This includes countries that are
| perceived as "low crime", like Japan and UAE.
| andrewclunn wrote:
| Gaining fortune through fame is a sucker's game. Those with real
| fortunes attempt to avoid fame because it costs way more than it
| brings in. Once you hit that point of requiring private security,
| suddenly you're locked in and you need to keep the money coming
| in (via your fame) to protect yourself from the risk (associated
| with your fame). Plus it breeds the worst sort of social habits
| and incentives if you gain fame early in your life. It's so easy
| for young girls (who are even mildly attractive) with poor
| parents to get roped into this thing. It's the same perverse
| incentives that cause prostitutes to get their own daughters into
| the "family business" (which happens more often than you think).
| What you get validation from in your teenage years has a huge
| impact on what you strive for / put your effort into. Do the
| right thing for your kids long term and invest in them instead of
| cashing in on them.
| screye wrote:
| > Gaining fortune through fame is a sucker's game
|
| There is great wisdom in this line. I would extend that to say
| that true freedom is the ability to 'do what you want, when you
| want.'
|
| Money is one pillar of this. It grants you the ability to have
| the material resources to do what you want. But, 2 confounders
| get in the way. Time and physical/environmental constraints. If
| you are gaining money (1 pillar) by compromising the others.
| Your net freedom stays the same.
|
| This includes all sort of suckers games:
|
| * Anonymity allows you to get away with anything without anyone
| noticing. Your example, addresses that freedom tradeoff.
|
| * Working long hours (in something unfulfilling) involves
| trading off time for money
|
| * Back breaking involves trading health for money
|
| A truly wealthy person is anonymous, rich and has all the time
| in the world, because they don't need to work to sustain their
| wealth.
| duxup wrote:
| My neighbor has twin daughters and casually told me he "found
| out" they have a YouTube channel.
|
| Approaching 1k subscribers... and they're early middle school
| aged.
|
| He asked what I thought and I talked about how I monitor the best
| I can any online interactions for my kids and a secret YouTube
| channel would be a no go for me.
|
| He seemed conflicted on what to do, I'm still kinda horrified.
| sockpuppet69 wrote:
| [deleted]
| danso wrote:
| Non-paywall link:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/17/us/politics/tiktok-ava-ma...
| smoldesu wrote:
| > "I wasn't sending anything of my body," Ava said. "It was just
| pictures of my face, which is what I assume that he was paying
| for. My whole thing is my pretty smile -- that's my content." She
| said Mr. Justin paid about $300 for two photos, via the Venmo
| digital wallet app.
|
| If you're a parent out there, that should be the biggest red-flag
| possible. I'm not one to advocate for total control over your
| family's online interactions, but if a ball like that starts
| rolling, you need to have a serious sit-down conversation with
| your teen about boundaries and what kind of crazy, obsessed
| people there are in the world. Feeding their cycle of obsession
| should be a non-starter for any guardian out there, and I'm
| frankly surprised to learn that her father, a former police
| officer, didn't start asking questions after $300 hit her bank
| account.
|
| People used to call the tech industry a "brave new world" of
| finance and commerce. Influencer culture is a whole different
| level of psychological horror, though.
| extr wrote:
| > But Ava's parents allowed her to sell Mr. Justin a couple of
| selfies that she had already posted to Snapchat.
|
| They were aware and allowed it. But, not knowing the family's
| financial circumstances, it raises a difficult question of
| where to draw the line with this kind of thing. The prospect of
| allowing your underage daughter to sell media featuring her to
| this kind of guy is sickening, but if $300 is a lot of money to
| your family, maybe it becomes easier to excuse? What do you do
| if he offers $10,000 for something else that's even more
| disturbing, and you're behind on your mortgage payments?
|
| I'm disappointed the author of the piece didn't come right out
| and say that what TikTok is doing is profiting off of the
| sexualization of minors (of course the minors get a cut as
| well, so that apparently makes it okay?). It seems like the
| only moral path forward would unfortunately be to ban minors
| from participating, or keep them reaching the levels of fame
| that would result in them putting themselves (or their
| families) in a position to have to make the kind of choice I'm
| talking about above.
| rayiner wrote:
| > It seems like the only moral path forward would
| unfortunately be to ban minors from participating
|
| Yes, that.
| thorncorona wrote:
| Kids will hide it from their parents then.
| vincentmarle wrote:
| The ban needs to come from TikTok & Instagram et al but
| you know what happens with misaligned incentives...
| [deleted]
| dokem wrote:
| I would be concerned to learn my young daughter had a serious
| online following where her content consists of photos of
| herself where 3/4 of the followers are boys/men. To be blunt,
| they are allowing their daughter to whore herself out even if
| she may not realize it. It is shameful and will ruin her just
| like every other child star.
|
| I am grateful that my parents denied me access to video games
| and I will strictly deny my children access to content deem
| counterproductive. You're not making friends you're making a
| human being. The idea that a child needs social media or a
| controller to have a social life is a weak argument made by
| lazy parents. I feel sorry for this girl and shame on her
| parents and parents like them.
| extr wrote:
| I get where you're coming from, and it's a nice thought that
| you could simply "go nuclear" and forbid a teenager from
| using social media to avoid this kind of thing.
|
| But if you did this you would also be denying your kid access
| to virtually their entire cultural universe. How would you
| feel if as a kid you weren't allow to see any of your friends
| outside of school? Watch any of the same movies, music, or
| play any of the same games as your peers? It would almost be
| another form of abuse in and of itself. Unfortunately your
| suggestion isn't really tenable, just ask any actual parents
| of teenagers if they could imagine taking this route.
| dokem wrote:
| Everything you list still exists and is not social media so
| I'm not really seeing all the parallels here. Also I never
| said where I draw the line because I don't know. But if I
| had a 13 year old daughter it would probably be something
| like you are not posting pictures of yourself online or the
| phone is gone for 30 days.
| rayiner wrote:
| Western parenting has gone completely off the rails if
| people are comparing banning kids from using social media
| to a "form of abuse."
|
| Human beings don't have fully developed brains until age
| 25. Controlling kids' interactions with other humans with
| underdeveloped brains is like the most critical part of
| parenting.
| long_time_gone wrote:
| > Controlling kids' interactions with other humans with
| underdeveloped brains is like the most critical part of
| parenting.
|
| Do you have kids? Can you explain what you mean by this?
| vlunkr wrote:
| > Controlling kids' interactions with other humans with
| underdeveloped brains
|
| Do you control their interactions when they go to school?
| Or literally anywhere without you?
| bhupy wrote:
| There's no need for this, since parents entrust schools
| to supervise their children (read: control their
| interactions) during the school day. Outside of school,
| making sure you know whom your child is hanging out with,
| where they are, establishing a curfew, and other such
| limits are all generally hallmarks of good parenting.
|
| There are obviously limits to the degree to which parents
| can/should control their kids, but not allowing a kid to
| interact with strangers on the internet falls well within
| them. Knowing (and controlling) which of your child's
| peers they are communicating with is no different from
| keeping tabs on which home your child is visiting (and
| staying in touch with friends' parents wherever needed),
| or which of their friends they're hanging out with at the
| mall.
|
| I was compelled to chime in on this thread because it
| resonates with me, personally. I'm an Indian raised by
| immigrant parents, and growing up one of the most stark
| observations I made was _just how coddled_ my American
| friends could sometimes come across -- they could more or
| less get whatever they wanted or do whatever they wanted.
| My parents established boundaries over the kinds of games
| I played, whom I hung out with, and the activities I
| partook in. Not being able to get what you want
| sometimes, or do what the "cool kids" are doing is just
| a part of growing up for lots of people. I wouldn't call
| it "abuse", and that kind of discipline definitely set me
| up for success in the real world. I continue to have a
| great relationship with my parents, and intend to raise
| my children with the same kind of discipline.
| gedy wrote:
| I think there must be some middle ground between "no life"
| and underage girls bouncing around on the global Internet
| and getting venmo for pics by grown men.
| asdfasgasdgasdg wrote:
| Isn't the same more or less the case for every girl who works
| in cinema or TV or music? Or for that matter school
| cheerleaders, etc.? The veneer is thicker or thinner
| depending on the exact medium, but there's no getting away
| from the possibility that creepy men might be looking. I'm
| not certain the nuclear option here (ban participating in
| online spaces until majority) is the right one. I think some
| kind of tabulation of pros and cons is necessary.
|
| (That beings said, it seems like after such a tabulation this
| case might be one of those that ends on the cutting floor.)
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| The most surprising thing about this story to me is that there
| are 14 year olds advertising their venmo wallets.
| judge2020 wrote:
| To add, Venmo doesn't allow anyone under 18 to sign up. It
| must have been their parents' venmo perhaps, or they lied
| signing up and due to the empty credit report the venmo
| system assumed the birthday was correct, also contributing
| that birthday back to the credit bureau.
| Spivak wrote:
| Two things:
|
| 1. It's just "buy me a coffee" but for TikTok, it's not weird
| until creepy adults make it weird. One creator I follow gets
| a bunch of people sending her $0.69 for the memes. Lots of
| people use Amazon wishlists for this too. People with
| artistic talent will sell merch on Etsy/Redbubble.
|
| 2. Oh honey, I will make no claims about anyone but myself
| but I did this kinda shit when I was that age. I realized I
| was hot, I was a sponge for attention, and too stupid to
| realize that having older guys hitting on me and buying me
| stuff wasn't as cool as I thought. Amazing in hindsight that
| nothing bad ever came of it.
| dvt wrote:
| Not exactly my kind of thing, but a friend of mine was
| selling pictures of her feet and making six figures (she
| started when she was _17_!). Men and women just live in
| completely different worlds in their 20s and 30s (until
| serious relationships /marriage). It's insane to me that
| anyone would pay for OnlyFans, private Snaps, etc. But here
| we are, it's literally a billion-dollar-a-year marketplace.
| whatshisface wrote:
| > _Men and women just live in completely different worlds
| in their 20s and 30s (until serious relationships
| /marriage)._
|
| It's important not to overgeneralize, we're talking only
| about the 99th percentile of men on the desperation
| scale, and the 99th percentile of women willing and able
| to profit from them. Despite what you read on the
| internet most people still have normal relationships!
| Constructing your worldview from the 1% most extreme
| forms of human interaction will, in so many words, make
| you crazy.
| barry-cotter wrote:
| This is a ridiculous response to a commonplace
| observation. Men and women have enormously different
| experiences in the dating market. 99th percentile
| encounters are the entirety of romantic interaction.
| Outside societies that have rigid sex segregation well
| over 99% of all interaction with potential romantic
| partners is non-romantic.
| giantg2 wrote:
| I think that depends on one's specific definition of
| different worlds. I thought it was a reasonable
| expression since men and women have very different
| experiences which are pervasive in the culture.
|
| For example, "going dutch" is getting more popular, but
| generally men are still expected to buy drinks or pay for
| dinner. Women have to be more careful about date rape
| than men. And so on.
| giantg2 wrote:
| "Men and women just live in completely different worlds
| in their 20s and 30s (until serious
| relationships/marriage)."
|
| Based on the number of couples who divorce or need a
| counselor to communicate, it's seems this trend continues
| during or after many marriages too.
| rayiner wrote:
| But adults will make it weird (because men), and kids will
| be oblivious about the risks (because kids), and that's why
| parents need to parent.
| Spivak wrote:
| 100% agree, not saying I was in a place to listen at 14
| but you're right.
| xeromal wrote:
| (because men) is an interesting line to draw.
| [deleted]
| theodric wrote:
| Going by her father's quote in the article, once her parents
| realized how much money she could make, they found a way to
| make peace with the risk of injury and death. Remember Judy
| Garland and what she had to go through to get autonomy over the
| wealth she earned as a child actress? Being a parent, i.e.
| being a fertile member of a breeding pair capable of bringing a
| child to term and then keeping it alive until launch day, does
| not necessarily equate to moral purity.
| lowbloodsugar wrote:
| This article is simply monetizing the issue using the same
| appeals that attracted the shooter in the first place. The
| article ends with how various lawyers have now set up
| corporations to promote the victim in exchange for a percentage.
| I assume one of them raised this to the attention of NYT to
| generate this promotional story. The message is, this is how you
| get famous: "I'm so pretty men are literally killing to be with
| me."
| duxup wrote:
| Could someone report on this and it not be " article is simply
| monetizing the issue"?
| lowbloodsugar wrote:
| Not using victims name. They are a minor. Report the facts.
| "A young man was shot dead by a former police officer after
| the man blew a whole in his front door. The young man had
| stalked the daughter living at the house." Facts. You'd need
| far better writing than mine, of course.
|
| The piece is not a report. This is a shock / emotion piece
| and is part of the US behavior of sexualizing young girls. It
| is promoting her. You may find it reasonable that a 15 year
| old girl has one million followers, at least one of whom
| purchased pictures from her for $300. Or you may not. I'm
| just saying that the article is _part_ of that system, and
| that putting yourself out there is going to get this kind of
| attention and that _it demonstrably works_ as a means to get
| famous.
| duxup wrote:
| It sounds like you want the newspaper to pass judgment on
| her or something.
| lowbloodsugar wrote:
| Er, I am literally arguing for the opposite: report the
| facts; protect identity; _don 't_ get into the social
| mores / titillation conversation.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-02-18 23:01 UTC)