9 comments

3
What about if you apply a filter? What if ou take a photo with a physical filter on?
5
Logically >What about if you apply a filter? You modified (retouched) the photo, The photo is not what the camera saved. > What if ou take a photo with a physical filter on? You did not retouch the photo. The photo is what the camera saved.
3
->Logic ->Law Pick one.
4
I think the problem is a lot more complex than that. Lots of cameras have digital filters on by default (also called beauty filters), some you can’t turn off. I’m addition all digital cameras have some form of processing, and sometimes the “beauty filter” is just an aggressive smoothing filter. This law feels poorly thought out, and as though it aims to solve a problem which doesn’t exist. The dumbest part is the best solution is to label all photos as “potentially retouched” just in case, making this the dumbest change to the internet since the EU required websites to warn you they use cookies
1
No, cameras are magic machines that make an infallible record of whatever you point them at.
1
This is not that logical. They have filter that alter the picture in the manner that they made the law for, that are applied before the picture is taken.
2
Why not just make Instagram illegal?
1
Good question.
2
Someone in norwegian parlement got catfished by a fat chick using filters and is mad. This is the reason and you can't convince me otherwise. An entire nation of thots just got patrolled :leo: