-
Reading RiRi Williams / Iron Man controversy & extra discomfort: pieces that criticize (rightfully) the cover but use it as a featured img.
-
Of course, image is vital to the discussion inside most pieces, but isn't using an image you disagree w/as ad on social repeating the sin?
-
Like: I agree w/everything in this article, but to share it with you is it repeating original sin under discussion? hitfix.com/harpy/an-iron-man-cover-is-the-latest-example-of-why-pinup-artists-shouldnt-draw-teenagers
-
Marvel is 100% shitty for trying to make money off this img but by making it the share image of a monetized article, you just did the same?
-
I feel like we need to have a real discussion about the ethics of social shares as their own pieces of content in general.
-
This is even worse in cases where the social share image ends up being a beheading or dead on the streets, which has happened in the past.
-
Sometimes it is b/c we don't think about what it is we're doing, & other times because we do and we're not considering the ethical component
-
Diluting discussions of share cards to 'is it clickbait?' misses so many points. The problem is not just how purposeful we're being, but why
-
This shit matters, and not just because it gets people to read your article, but because it lives in an independent context in social sites.
-
Some people may never see more of your article than the share card & may interact and reshare it anyway. It doesn't have to just capture...
-
... your share card has to stand up to the same ethics of journalism and your internal standards that your article does.
-
We really need to think about this in public and really need to be more purposeful in our implementations.
-
PS: You know where else this really bothers me? Photos of victims of sexual assault used as featured images/share card images.
-
It doesn't matter if the victim has made the decision to be public and given you her photo... still, this is bad ethics on sites' part