World News

55284 readers

1991 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

lemmyAtom@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

Call for change in law to tackle covertly-filmed videos of women on nights out (www.bbc.com)

submitted 1 month ago by HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works to c/world@lemmy.world

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Covertly filming women on nights out to upload the videos to social media should be made illegal, the Liberal Democrats have said.

The party has put forward a private members' bill calling on the government to update voyeurism legislation to prevent the content from being posted online for profit.

It said the bill would clamp down on what it calls "a covert filming epidemic" and wants the government to force social media platforms to remove such content and permanently ban repeat offenders.

It comes after a BBC investigation exposed dozens of accounts on YouTube, TikTok, Facebook and Instagram. The videos focused almost entirely on women, filmed without their knowledge and taken from low angles or behind, sometimes revealing intimate body parts.

The government said covert filming of women and girls was "vile" and vowed to stop people profiting from it.

The BBC investigation identified nearly 50 women who had been filmed without their knowledge.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

You do realize that people shoot voyeur videos for personal use, right?

Voyeur doesn't mean, "without consent for the purpose of distribution."

[–] CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

You do realize that people shoot voyeur videos for personal use, right?

Yes, and by your own admission, this law doesn't target those people.

Meanwhile, you're arguing the law will target people uploading videos to the internet and platforms that host them, but that this somehow won't affect people uploading videos of things like protests or police brutality because it instead targets videos that people film for "personal use" and don't upload. It makes no sense.

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You're clearly not following me.

This law is not targeting people filming in public. No provisions in the law say that you can't film in public.

This law targets people who upload the videos they film in public. Not everyone who shoots a video uploads it.

I never said it wouldn't impact people uploading protests or police brutality. I never spoke to that point at all.

[–] CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

This law is not targeting people filming in public. No provisions in the law say that you can't film in public.

The entire premise of this law is based on filming in public. It doesn't say you can't film in public, but it does say you can't share videos containing certain content that isn't well defined and can easily be twisted to include any video video filmed in public. Imagine someone filming a protestor getting beaten by police where a woman is facing away somewhere in the background. This constitutes "filming an unsuspecting woman's behind" and the video gets taken down while the uploader gets banned. This is such an easy point to reach and doesn't require some convoluted conspiracy to pull off.

I never said it wouldn't impact people uploading protests or police brutality. I never spoke to that point at all.

Yes, you did speak to it here when responding to this person:

But I also feel like this is the kind of law that needs to be crafted very carefully to make sure that it's not going to infringe on legitimate reasons people may have to record people in public. I could absolutely see Republicans here twisting a law like this that was made with good intentions to go after people for posting videos of ice arrests online.

This doesn't appear to be a crackdown on filming in public places. It seems to be going after the people who distribute it and the platforms who host it.