Thanks for the detailed reply, but I disagree with almost every point that you made. You took the extreme version of "no privacy" with the "America's most stupid" example, so allow me to take the opposite extreme. Imagine every conversation and every form of public interaction going through real-time government censors to decide if it is appropriate. If it's not appropriate (for some subjective definition of 'appropriate'), you're arrested or fined for offense. Sounds dystopian right? I'd much prefer being followed around by a malicious film crew in public all day.
Why is being nude normal in some places, but not others? That suggests that a stigma exists in one but not the other, and so participating in one or the other is implicitly supporting that.
The phrase "rug pull" is almost cartoonishly evil. It implies waiting until the victims are feeling nice and secure, and then you rip everything out from under them as quickly as possible. The fact that the phrase has become so closely related to crypto activities is really telling.
Sorry but I just don't buy it. There's no functional difference between swimming in undergarments or swimming nude, so if you choose nude, it's because you don't think it should be stigmatized.
If you think it feels so much nicer, consider that it's because it's a mild rebellion against a social norm.
In the US, basically any public place (nude beaches included) is open for people to film. I believe there are some exceptions like public restrooms, where there exists a "reasonable expectation of privacy."
But yes, people are also free to complain to the person and make them feel uncomfortable for the scumbag behavior.
You can enjoy the freedom of being nude on your own private property then. No need to add "in public" unless you are trying to a) destigmatize or b) be an exhibitionist
>But the damage was done. Afterwards, everyone was afraid of being filmed without consent again.
Devil's advocate, but isn't the point of being nude in public that you are destigmatizing it? I know you mentioned this was a "private lake" but it is unclear of if you mean legally private or de facto private. In case of the latter, even creepers have a right to be there and film.
I used to visit a nude beach and there was always some clothed weirdo with their phone out. They would get unfriendly looks by everyone though, and I think the ostracization kept them on the outskirts of the community.
I've worked at several startups, but my experience has been that I've been relatively siloed in my work. Maybe I wasn't taking advantage of the startup experience, but aside my limited view at standups, I didn't know how the sausage was made in different areas of the company. I couldn't see how it all fit together, because I had an incomplete picture.
I've had IRL conversations with almost fanatical climate change activists, and I believe they look at it this way: even if they're completely 100% wrong, nothing is lost by improving how we treat the environment.
>once they figure out how to control potentially harmful generations
Is it just me, or does anyone else think that this is an impossible and futile task? I don't have a solid grasp on what kind of censorship is possible with this technology, but the goal seems to be on par with making sure nobody says anything mean online. People are extremely creative and are going to find the prompts that generate the "harmful" images.