12.4M views · May 12, 2015 · 2:51 · 3 HN recommenders · 8 mentions · discussed 2015–2024
A three-minute animated video that explains sexual consent through the analogy of offering someone a cup of tea. It is based on a blog post by Emmeline May.
Why Hacker News points people here: Used as the classic analogy for consent, applied to opt-out data collection and privacy practices.
“Here’s a very educational video on how giving consent works”HN comment, 2021
“This video does a pretty good job of explaining consent”
Tea analogy explaining sexual consent clearly.
This video does a pretty good job of explaining consent for those that don't think AA's description sounds like rape: this video (Tea Consent)
“Have people seen the Tea consent video?”
Classic tea consent explainer.
> as it's often said when it comes to other people attempting to cross your personal boundaries, "'No' is a complete answer". I love that, so important! Have people seen the Tea consent video? this video
“Here’s a very educational video on how giving consent works”
Educational explanation of how giving consent works.
You know what else expresses lack of consent? Lack of consent. It’s very sad how this “you consent unless otherwise stated” ideology keep growing and growing. “We’re not spying on you, it’s just that you never expressed not wanting to be spied upon”. Here’s a very educational video on how giving consent works: this video
“If you're familiar with the tea analogy of consent”
Tea consent analogy applied to opt-out data policies.
The difference between what you are doing here and the other public profiles you mention is consent. When a user creates a profile on Stack Overflow or Hacker News, they are consenting to share whatever data they give on that particular platform. When a user created a profile on Triplebyte, up until now, they were consenting to that data being used in a private profile for the purpose of connecting them with job opportunities, privately. Now, you've emailed all of your users on a Friday evening to say "by the way, if you don't opt-out in the next week, we will take this data that you gave to us under the assumption that it would be private, and make it public (and potentially searchable)." By saying "we'll do it unless you say no", you are not getting consent. If you're familiar with the tea analogy of consent, a la this video , this would be like you saying "well, other users (not necessarily every user, or you, the user in question right now) have had tea (not necessarily the same type of tea) from other platforms. This is just like that. So, if you don't say no to our tea in the next week, we're going to drop the tea on you. We hope you enjoy!" You are not just "launching public profiles for a product that has not had them in the past", you are launching public profiles and on them you are _sharing data that was given to you under the agreement that it was private_. You are using data that folks gave you in a very, very different way than for the purpose they gave it. Finally
“the classic Tea Consent video, explaining the concept of consensual sex”
Classic explainer on consensual sex via tea analogy.
I guess it is. This conversation reminds me of the classic Tea Consent video, explaining the concept of consensual sex: this video
> most of modern Europe This is relatively recent, and has proven itself quite fragile. Democracies elect dictators. Dictators of powerful governments commit atrocities. There is no "don't elect dictators" solution. The only solution is to disempower the government. Also European nations are relatively small and relatively culturally homogenous. There is no functioning liberal democracy of a large multicultural state. > All societies impose involuntary obligations There is a vast difference between outlawing violent behaviour and mandating cooperation. The latter is indistinguishable from slavery. Free societies don't compel the cooperation of their citizens beyond the strict minimum necessary to maintain liberty itself. Even being conscripted into the army, which is slavery, can be justified if it is to defend against a foe who would destroy liberal society. It is however categorically not justified to mandate contribution to various insurance schemes and welfare programs. There is no picking and choosing here. I want my interactions with the state to maximize for consent [1]. I want the ability to out out. I am not owed medical treatment if I'm sick. I would like the ability to choose whether to incur an obligation or not. > freedom to do whatever the hell you want Yes! > no obligation to the liberty of others No. My rights to wave my fists around end where your nose begins. > freedom from hunger, freedom from fear, freedom from homelessness, freedom from pain These aren't
“perhaps the tea analogy didn't quite register with MS?”
Let's take a look at what the "opting out" looked like: "OMG OMG, there's a completely different thing in the computer than there was yesterday! Make it go away!! I didn't touch nothing this time!!!" And lo and behold, there was indeed a completely different OS, without any attempt at obtaining user consent (or, even worse, against the expressed denial of consent). Are you surprised that the users "opted out" of further violations of expectations? TL;DR: nonconsensual "upgrade" bad; perhaps the tea analogy didn't quite register with MS? this video
“I see your YouTube cartoon about consent and tea and raise you Knowledge Fight”
You can’t have it both ways. This: > freedom to do whatever the hell you want > Yes! Cannot be followed by this: > My rights to wave my fists around end where your nose begins. because the latter can only be prevented through either obligation or force. > There is no functioning liberal democracy of a large multicultural state. I won’t bother trying to argue against this, because it’s so vague that you will just change the definitions as we go along. But there are at least two very large countries that most widely-read people would consider to meet your definition. > There is a vast difference between outlawing violent behaviour and mandating cooperation. This is utter nonsense. Outlawing violent behaviour obviously requires cooperation, without which violence cannot be prevented. But of course, once again, you’re cherry-picking your obligations; the entire premise of your argument is flawed because your arguments are entirely subjective and internally inconsistent. > The latter is indistinguishable from slavery. You keep muttering this laughable nonsense as if it’s some kind of enlightenment, but all it does is trivialise slavery, and underscores how ridiculous your black-and-white views really are. > 1. this video I see your YouTube cartoon about consent and tea and raise you Knowledge Fight: link Neither are relevant to the conversation, I just really like Knowledge Fight. > freedom from fear? really? You say it like it’s a bad thing.
