A women account of two strangers fulfilling on a flight went viral recently, but it was not her story to share and those who participated ought to feel guilty about it
If a passenger on a plane reclines their seat the moment the flight takes off, it is fair to say they are a terrible person. If they get on a plane, start taking covert pictures of strangers and post said photos to social media in an attempt to create viral content, they are basically Satan’s spawn.
If you are asking:” Who would do that ?” then good for you! Unlike the rest of us, you do not waste your life on the internet. However, please stand by for this short briefing on #PlaneBae: the latest example of the extent to which social media has normalised voyeurism and surveillance capitalism has infected us all.
It started last week, on a flight from New York to Dallas. Rosey Blair and her boyfriend, Houston Hardaway, were not assigned seats next to each other, so they asked Hardaway’s seatmate if she would switch places. The young lady( later christened #PrettyPlaneGirl) obliged. As it turned out, #PrettyPlaneGirl’s new neighbour was an attractive guy. They started chatting. We all know what happens when a woman and a human start talking to each other on a plane, right? They immediately fall in love!
This exciting business of two strangers talking did not go unnoticed by Blair and Hardaway, who were in the row behind. Blair expended nearly the entire four-hour flight take surreptitious photos of the unfolding ” romance”, tweeting commentary such as:” She only set her head on his shoulder for like a second !!!!!!”
If I is currently in a plane talking to a stranger and a person behind me were taking photos, I would turn around and punch them. Actually, I wouldn’t, because violence is bad. But I would have some very strong words. Well, probably not, because showdown is frightening. But I would do some passive-aggressive coughing and give them a stern look.
No stern seems were had on this flight, however. Instead, two ordinary people determined themselves unwittingly running viral. More than 900,000 people have liked Blair’s online recounting of the encounter so far and it has attained international news.” Is this the greatest love story ever told on social media ?” asked the BBC. Well , no, it isn’t; the fun and games rapidly turned into a woman getting hurt. You insure, the guy being photographed was dubbed #PlaneBae by the internet and lapped up the attention; he has been doing the rounds on TV reveals with Blair and her boyfriend, trying to milk his 15 minutes for all it is worth. Meanwhile, #PrettyPlaneGirl chose to stay private. Or, at least, she tried; internet sleuths quickly discovered her identity. She was harassed and called a slut. She has since deleted her social media accounts. Her harassment has given pause for thought to many who initially delighted in the viral ” satisfy cute “. On Sunday night, for example, Monica Lewinsky( only one of the high-profile people who shared the narrative) tweeted” an apology to #PrettyPlaneGirl“, saying it was a mistake” for me to amplify something which was an invasion of privacy, and I should have- given my history- ensure it as an accident which could go pear-shaped “.
Lewinsky is not the only one who should feel guilty about the style the narrative panned out. We all need to interrogate how we navigate this attention economy- in which technology platforms push us to go public with the minutium of our lives and obscene oversharing is rewarded. We should remember that, sometimes, it is better to keep things to ourselves. Particularly when we are 30,000 ft above ground.
Is it harder to be a generous person if you are very rich?
I hope you are sitting down, because you may find the following information shocking. Ready? OK. Well, it seems there is evidence that rich people are selfish. Very hard to believe, I know.
” The vast majority of wealthy people don’t give very much to charity ,” the Financial Times reported recently. Apparently, the median level of devoting among” high-net-worth individuals”, which is defined as people with between PS1m and PS10m in investable assets, is only PS5 00 a year. Meanwhile, people with more than PS1 0m in liquid assets give only PS2 40.
To combat this scourge of scrooges, some rich Britons are starting an initiative( which will likely be called the Beacon Collaborative; it was co-founded by Matthew Bowcock, a regent of the Beacon awards, a philanthropy award) to encourage the mega-rich to be more charitable.
Cajoling the ultra-wealthy to donate their spare cash to charity is all well and good, but it would be better, I guess, if we focused on the real problem: that it is unconscionable for anyone to accrue that much money in the first place. It is difficult to accumulate millions in liquid assets in an ethical route. Many people who have acquired that much money have done so by exploiting people or avoiding their taxes. It does not matter how much you give to charity if the entails undermine the ends. As Clement Attlee said:” Charity is a cold, grey, loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly , not dole out money at a caprice .”
So, please, let us not encourage the rich to think that upping their direct debit to charity absolves them of responsibility for where that fund came from.
The’ wine and eggs’ diet is no yolk
Read more: www.theguardian.com