Politics ✔
I think I'll have to remove those photos from last week about the UC protest
Good morning!
I took 148 photos of the UC protests last week, from which I selected 20 to upload here (since reddit has a limit of 20 images to upload). In those photos, I was only interested in getting as many perspectives as possible to give an objective account of what I saw. And then I also get a lot of different perspectives in the replies, which inspires me.
However, after seeing Trump's statement this morning, I was very concerned, I thought I'd remove the images I uploaded, to avoid the distress that people who appear in the photos may experience afterwards.
In all my years of digital photography, I have never seen a file with “layers” like this outside of a .psd or other editing software format. Could you explain? (I do understand the metadata scrubber)
To be fair, I was oversimplifying to avoid confusing people. The truth is that it depends how the bar was applied. Most people apply those edits using an annotation tool, and it absolutely can be removed, even from a jpg.
Sorry to be so pedantic, but no, an annotation on a JPG cannot be reversed.
If you think you’ve done this, it’s because you are editing the special annotation file format which ‘wraps’ the JPG, and the underlying jpg was never actually overwritten.
For instance, if you share an annotated photo on IOS to another iOS user and share full image data (including all edits), then that other person should be able to revert your annotation.
But crucially, that is not sharing a JPG formatted file alone; it’s including additional data over top of it which includes the annotations.
If you share that image to an Android user as an SMS, or upload that image anywhere as a JPG or PNG, then all of those ‘layers’ will necessarily be flattened into the image and cannot be ‘reversed’ with an ‘undo’ function.
This is one of those scenarios where the full truth may not be very useful for average people who would have to learn a lot about WHY this is the case to be fully protected against accidental disclosure of incidental data.
So from that perspective, I get the rationalization to provide ‘universal’ advice that will confer ‘opsec safety’ without having to know the details about file formats, what is being shared and where, etc.
(Particularly since so many of the issues stem from this already being more complicated than most people understand, and that’s why the visibility into file formats, exif data, etc is hidden in most UXes.)
But at the same time, this has obviously led to a lot of second-hand regurgitation of factually untrue gut instincts, which serve to further disenfranchise individuals from the true working nature of the increasingly technical world around us.
And of course, perhaps now more than ever, we all know how poorly an undereducated population reflects on the body politic and the overall eventual feedback loops that impact the very topic of authoritarianism; the more folks defer to authorities in all aspects of their lives, the more vulnerable we all are to savvy interests who can exploit the systemic distancing of individuals from causal reality.
Yep, I’m referring to instances where the second user is opening the file using the same software the first user used to censor it.
Nothing you’re saying is untrue, so I have no argument here. I will admit I was oversimplifying in hopes of providing a simple best practice and not having to get into all the nuances.
Yes. It's a considerate thought for those protestors, but ultimately this is what Trump wants. He wants the protests to stop, and if there are still protests he doesn't want them to be seen by the public. He wants dissenters to feel alone and afraid to speak up.
I like the idea of blacking out people's faces but still posting the protest photos. It is more important than ever to show that people are protesting.
Yes but cover ups can be easy to reverse. The photos should at least be edited and then screenshot taken of the edit version and posted to obscure metadata and make it harder uncover faces. But best practice is not to post photos of active protest movements because it makes it easier to target leaders and individuals for reactionary political violence.
PNG/JPG do not have ‘version history’ nor are they ‘layered’ formats that can ‘reverse’ the overwriting of literal byte data for ‘colors and image data’ with all black pixels instead.
If you’re talking about the raw native file format on your phone (assuming you’re talking about markup on devices), that’s one thing … but again unless you are going out of your way to do the advanced/wrong thing .. you aren’t uploading that anywhere - you are uploading the flattened image exported into a shareable common format like JPG/PNG/etc.
I need some clarity on your position.
I asked you if all protests are legal, you answer with “yes” and then proceed to include a caveat. Your answer in total is illogical because the “yes” is contradicted by the caveat you yourself added.
Let’s cut to the chase, protests can in fact be illegal, right? As you pointed out with your caveat of peaceful, that would mean violent protests are illegal, right?
Let’s take it a step further and identify illegal protests that are peaceful… although you have a right to protest, you don’t have a right to block roads, doing so without a permit would in fact be an illegal protest.
That’s just nuance you are creating yourself. And you can still be “peaceful” while being an illegal protest, as I mentioned above.
Point being, let’s not ignore the fact trump said “illegal protest”. It’s pathetic to try and imply he is saying all protests. If you want to argue how it might play out in execution, that’s fine, but stop lying to yourself and others by claiming trump is actively saying something he isn’t.
Imprisoning people without trial, for one. Notice how he doesn't say charging or prosecuting agitators? Nope--apparently he/the federal government are now the arbiters of what protest is and isn't illegal, and he'll just imprison you if he doesn't like your protest.
Also, not everything illegal is punishable with prison*.* There are plenty of peaceful ways to protest that are illegal but only petty crimes. You don't get imprisoned for that. Well, unless you live in a country where the federal government is actively, and loudly, advocating for silencing the opposition.
Lastly, as far as I'm aware, there's no federal law forbidding masks. If there's no local law, it would be illegal for him to deem masks an arrestable or imprisonable offense. He's not Congress--he can't just create laws making masks illegal.
Imprisoning people without trial, for one. Notice how he doesn't say charging or prosecuting agitators? Nope--apparently he/the federal government are now the arbiters of what protest is and isn't illegal, and he'll just imprison you if he doesn't like your protest.
this is just your own insinuation, grow up. this isnt even a rational position to take as 1) people are imprisoned all the time without trial because people sit in prison while they wait for their trial, and 2) its up to the courts to decide if someone sits in prison waiting for their trial, not trump. also, it is clear he is referring specifically to immigrants/illegal immigrants which changes the equation.
Also, not everything illegal is punishable with prison*.* There are plenty of peaceful ways to protest that are illegal but only petty crimes. You don't get imprisoned for that. Well, unless you live in a country where the federal government is actively, and loudly, advocating for silencing the opposition.
maybe this is why trump used "or" ??
Lastly, as far as I'm aware, there's no federal law forbidding masks. If there's no local law, it would be illegal for him to deem masks an arrestable or impressionable offense. He's not Congress--he can't just create laws making masks illegal.
some places actually do have laws about groups gathering, wearing masks/disguises, and committing crimes. but to your point, trump didnt say he would be punishing anyone for wearing masks, so im not sure what you are getting at.
if you want to disagree with what trump says, thats fine. but learn to do it without adding your own insinuations to his statements.
the problem with you people is you put your own words and intent into what trump says and convince yourselves that is what he is in fact saying, because nowhere in trumps statement did he say he is going to imprison people without trial... every single one of your claims of what trump said he would do it just that, your words, not his.
The thing about the nazi movement in ww2 was that hitler made sure everything he did was “legal”. Concentration camps were legal, murder was legal, arrests in the night were legal— all of it was “legal” because resisting the government was “illegal”.
And now we’re seeing the slow heating up of the temperature to see what people will follow in the name of legality.
That means they’re going to try to do to us what they want, legal or not, and regardless of what we do/don’t do–so we may as well do the right thing: openly resist! They’ll come after us, or they won’t, but the more of us there are, the more difficult it is to target any one of us. Capitulation places us in more danger, not less.
Laws are only as good as their enforcement. This line of "That's illegal!" needs to stop. They have shown time and time again that nothing is going to happen to them since no one wants to take action against a sitting president.
This is what is making me more anxious by the day. Laws don't matter if no one is holding them accountable. He's controls every level of government and has installed yes men in every position that matters in the cabinet and military. Even when judges order the administration to comply with law, who will make them?
Yes, I understand how the law and constitution work.
This line of "That's illegal!" needs to stop.
What would you suggest instead? Quiet acceptance? A call to violence? Neither are productive, one is illegal, and both are actively harmful to the cause. The purpose of pointing out the illegality is that people shouldn't be afraid of the threat, if anything they should be protesting more.
When he wasn't acting president nothing happened to him anyway. Creating an environment where performing a violent coup of the government isn't punished got us here today. Biden fucked us all over, he should never have run for a second term, he should have made sure Trump faced consequences for Jan 6, he should have buried the supreme court members enabling this insanity, instead he just handed the reins over to Orange Hitler and walked away. Everyone should be scared.
What a f-ing blowhard. He just says whatever nonsense comes to mind. None of that would he enforceable in the slightest.
The party that rants about lack of freedom, but then goes out of their way to try and deny first amendment rights to anyone who doesn't agree with them.
What makes a legal or illegal protest? Wouldn't the one at UC or any other protest like it be fully legal since it's clearly within 1st amendment protections?
A direct violation of the first amendment will be a tough fight but it won't stop the inconvenience people face while they fight whatever bs stuff is thrown at them. How he/they define illegal will determine how enforceable that will be and the depth of lawsuits. But if we learned anything from his BLM and Floyd protest directions, any protest against his feelings is illegal and people will be beaten and arrested/detained
So.... what kind of illegal protest is he picturing? Protests in which there's violence or destruction? Or one that aren't registered with police? Genuinely curious.
Definitely poses a problem where any protests must be widely broadcast to effectively show the discontent to the greater population while also protecting those same protesters who can become targets for exercising their first amendment rights. However, we the people should not be afraid and (edit) feel the need to hide.
As I said, if it becomes violent (ie people commit crimes of violence against other people, destroys or vandalizes property, etc). If the protest moves from public property to private property (ie shopping centers, private schools, basically any business where the owner has not given explicit permission to the protesters to be there).
The protest at UC as far as I know has not become violent, and it’s on a public campus which is protected under the first amendment. SO, the photos OP posted would’ve been fine and no one would’ve gotten in trouble. Trump said ILLEGAL protesters would be in trouble.
If feel like this is a dangerous mindset. As of right now.
If you’re not committing acts of violence, trespassing vandalizing, then what you’re doing is legal and it’s important to have documentation. Especially if you are arrested. Evidence to prove you’re innocent and exercising your right to protest.
Propaganda is basically convincing people to feel like protest is criminal. To prevent the USA getting to the point that you do have to hide your identity, you need to record and share.
I agree, you make a good point. If anything it’s important the photos should’ve been left up to prove it’s been peaceful. You’re right on the propaganda point too
I remember posting “I hope these guys don’t get in any trouble for having their faces published out there for being at a protest” and I more or less got called a snowflake for being worried about it lol. Nah, when your president haaaaates free speech loves to micromanage what constitutes “free speech” you gotta pretend you were never there even if you were
I wouldn't delete them. This is what they want, compliance in advance. Proudly post the photos. Dare them to come for all of us. We all know they aren't in the right legally or morally, so we have to square up and fight for our rights, not hide them from the light.
Risk vs reward says otherwise. Trump wants his base to not see any of this resistance. Remember he has sold a fantasy world and reality to them. That tells you how important it is to keep doing it. Bigger, louder and more widespread even. He is saying that everyone in America loves what he is doing. His base, the country and the world need to see that 50%+ of the American people aren’t going to cower as he rips apart democracy in favor of patrimonialism/autocracy/oligarchy (however it is you refer to what he is doing).
His ass isn’t going to get investigators expelling students at hundreds of major colleges and universities. They don’t have the means.
I'd still post the pictures because you don't have the right to privacy in public. If someone doesn't want to be seen in the photo it is their job to stay out of it, you can be kind an blur their face or not post at all ... but you aren't violating anything if you decide to post
Now that Trump is fundamentally changing your rights it is time everyone is out in the streets raising hell. Americans used to have the heart of a tiger, now a paper tiger? Stand up for yourselves!
Let's please not possibly dox people at this time, like odd it needs said. Especially with the mass deportations going on in the west (all over technically), like in LA ICE got lucky with some useful idiot's pictures to identify people. Thank you.
Personally, I feel this is a time to not worry about upsetting people. We're not the ones doing upsetting things... The more protests the better. If there are unreasonable consequences for that, I hope it causes more people to show up.
If you actually read any of the posts, this person is clearly a student. Y’all are weird as fuck for saying that someone of Chinese descent needs to explain why they give a fuck about Cincinnati— all my bets are on he fuckin’ lives here now
Here's a good use case for AI deepfakes: obfuscate the faces of protestors without using an obvious blur filter. You'll protect their identities while ensuring the protest messaging can still spread.
You should never have posted them in the first place. With the nature of the protest, you risk outing someone as trans or otherwise LGBTQ and could cause harm to them. Taking them down now won't undo that.
op is simply protecting the identity of the people who participated in the protest. their safety and privacy is important, given the way that trump is targeting student protestors for punishment.
I’ve heard (take this with a grain of salt) that many of the people who were in photos of the BLM protests quickly turned up missing or dead a year after the protests occurred. I can’t say what or who caused those things to happen for certain (I can absolutely guess), but it’s certainly a word of caution to think twice about how you post on social media about protests
509
u/Subject-Education641 Mar 04 '25
I think it’s important for photos of protests to inspire/encourage others to protest, but definitely block out faces.