Belgian artist Dries Depoorter created "The Flemish Scrollers," an art project using AI to detect and publicly shame Belgian politicians caught using their phones during parliamentary livestreams. The project automatically clips videos of these instances and posts them to a Twitter bot account, tagging the politicians involved. Depoorter aims to highlight politicians' potential inattentiveness during official proceedings.
FOSDEM 2025 offered a comprehensive live streaming schedule covering a wide range of open source topics. Streams were available for each track, allowing virtual attendees to watch presentations and Q&A sessions in real time. Recordings of the talks were also made available shortly after each session concluded, providing on-demand access to the entire conference content. The schedule webpage linked directly to the individual streams and included a searchable program grid, making it easy to find and follow specific talks or explore different tracks.
Hacker News users discussed the technical aspects and potential improvements of FOSDEM's streaming setup. Several commenters praised the readily available streams and archives, highlighting the value for those unable to attend in person. Some expressed a desire for improved video quality, particularly for slides and diagrams, suggesting higher resolutions or dedicated slide cameras. Others discussed the challenges of capturing the atmosphere of in-person attendance and the benefits of local caching or mirroring to improve access. The lack of embedded timestamps or a proper search function within the videos was also noted as a point for potential improvement, making it difficult to navigate to specific talks or topics within the recordings.
Summary of Comments ( 105 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43278473
HN commenters largely criticized the project for being creepy and invasive, raising privacy concerns about publicly shaming politicians for normal behavior. Some questioned the legality and ethics of facial recognition used in this manner, particularly without consent. Several pointed out the potential for misuse and the chilling effect on free speech. A few commenters found the project amusing or a clever use of technology, but these were in the minority. The practicality and effectiveness of the project were also questioned, with some suggesting politicians could easily circumvent it. There was a brief discussion about the difference between privacy expectations in public vs. private settings, but the overall sentiment was strongly against the project.
The Hacker News comments section for the post "Automatically tagging politician when they use their phone on the livestreams" (regarding the project "The Flemish Scrollers") contains a robust discussion with a variety of perspectives on the project's implications.
Several commenters express concerns about privacy and surveillance. They question the ethics of publicly shaming politicians for using their phones, arguing that it's a form of public shaming and doesn't necessarily indicate wrongdoing. Some highlight the potential for misuse of this technology and the slippery slope towards increased surveillance of individuals. The idea that this could normalize such tracking and lead to its application to everyday citizens is a recurring worry. Some also point out the potential for false positives and the lack of context surrounding phone usage. A politician might be responding to an urgent matter or using their phone for work-related tasks, and the automatic tagging system doesn't differentiate between these scenarios.
Others see the project as a valuable tool for transparency and accountability. They argue that it holds politicians accountable for their attention during public sessions and allows the public to see how engaged their representatives are. Some suggest that it could discourage distractions and encourage politicians to be more present during important discussions. The sentiment that the public has a right to know what their elected officials are doing is prevalent in these comments.
A few commenters discuss the technical aspects of the project, including the use of facial recognition and AI. They delve into the accuracy of the system and the potential for biases in the algorithms. Some express interest in the technical implementation details and the challenges involved in identifying individuals and tracking their phone usage in real-time.
There's also a discussion about the broader implications of this technology beyond just politicians. Some commenters speculate about its potential use in other contexts, such as monitoring student attention in classrooms or employee engagement in meetings. The ethical implications of such applications are debated, with some arguing that it could be a useful tool while others express concern about the potential for abuse.
Finally, a handful of comments offer alternative perspectives or humorous takes on the situation. Some suggest that the project is more of an art piece or social commentary than a practical tool. Others joke about the potential reactions of politicians to being caught using their phones.
Overall, the comments section reveals a complex and nuanced discussion about the project's ethical, technical, and societal implications. There is a clear divide between those who see it as a positive step towards transparency and accountability and those who view it as a potentially invasive form of surveillance. The discussion highlights the important questions surrounding the use of AI and facial recognition technology in public spaces and the balance between privacy and public access to information.