The Astronomer CEO's Coldplay Concert Fiasco Is Emblematic of Our Social Media Surveillance Dystopia | 404 Media
The Astronomer CEO's Coldplay Concert Fiasco Is Emblematic of Our Social Media Surveillance Dystopia
Archive link: https://archive.ph/aHrbK
I'm glad someone is saying this, because frankly this whole situation is nasty.
Are cheaters bad? Yes. Should people have informed the spouses? Yes. But that's not why people are posting memes about this non-stop, this is just schadenfreude.
There are reasons beyond cheating why 2 people may not want to be broadcast to the world as a couple. If this was 2 men, we'd all understand the problems with this, but social media is not going to allow us the nuance to differentiate; social media's desire to play righteous sleuth for its own entertainment and ego is not a good thing, and we can't make it only do good.
Is no one even considering whether their spouses want this level of attention, rather than the entire Internet deciding to make it national news for a week?
You're absolutely right, there are consequences for people other than the cheating couple, and that is something to consider. It just sucks that you can't even go to a concert anymore without thinking deeply about how you might be observed.
It is worth briefly considering the dystopia of this situation and its aftermath. It is not clear exactly how the Astronomer CEO was initially identified, but we have seen numerous cases where TikTok commenters and creators use Pimeyes and other readily available, often free facial recognition and social media research tools to identify a person. The Astronomer CEO’s name, his wife’s name, the head of HR’s name, and the third company executive’s name and social media profiles are all over the TikTok comments and Reddit comments. His latest LinkedIn post was full of comments about the incident, left before he disabled comments and ultimately deleted the post. Commenters have pointed out that his wife has removed his last name from several of her social media profiles.
Today Polymarket opened two new Byron-related bets. The first asks the question: “Andy Byron out as Astronomer CEO by next Friday?” As of this writing, the site is giving him a 40 percent chance of leaving. Polymarket doesn’t care if he resigns or gets fired, the bet pays out to its “yes” voters so long as he leaves.
The crueler bet, and the one with more activity, is the “Astronomer Divorce Parlay.” A parlay is a series or combination of bets, and this Polymarket listing requires both Byron and Cabot to get divorced. An announcement will satisfy the bet, it doesn’t have to be an official filing. But it can come from Byron and Cabot themselves or their spouses. The image attached to the bet is a screenshot from the moment the Jumbotron filmed the couple embracing.
Brands are using Byron and Cabot’s face to build hype. The NEON film studio posted a picture of the couple on X to promote its upcoming horror movie Together. Chipotle commented on the story with a picture of its billboard that reads “It’s OK to Cheat.” Most chilling, the NYC Department of Sanitation used the viral moment to remind everyone that it has cameras everywhere.
But one does not have to have sympathy or empathy for a CEO to see how this sort of thing could and often does go off the rails. This example is emblematic of the problem specifically because it’s easy to laugh at these people and because they’re doing something distasteful, but not illegal. The same technologies used to dox and research this CEO are routinely deployed against the partners of random people who have had messy breakups, attractive security guards, people who look “suspicious” and are caught on Ring cameras by people on Nextdoor, people who dance funny in public, and so on. There has been endless debate about the ethics of doxing cops and ICE agents and Nazis, and there are many times where it makes sense to research people doing harm on behalf of the state or who are doing violent, scary things in to innocent people. It is another to deploy these technologies against random people you saw on an airplane or who had a messy breakup with an influencer. And of course, these same technologies are regularly deployed by police and the feds against undocumented immigrants, regular people, and people wanting to visit the United States on tourist visas.
It was on the jumbotron - surely one or two of the thousands of people at the show knew who it was. And then we'd have people watching it remotely, or the show appearing on video services, etc.
Assuming this was discovered via "Social Media Surveillance" is a leap, and a weak argument about such surveillance (which is a real problem that I've been arguing against since the late 90's).
Again, this was on the jumbotron. Stuff on the jumbotron has made the media circles since the advent of the jumbotron.
Their reaction is what set it all off too. Even the singer immediately speculates that they're having an affair because of how they acted. So yeah, even if he wasn't a billionaire, somebody probably would have doxxed him anyway because there are tons of people that like drama and know they can make money off it. That he is a billionaire and doing something deeply unethical is what makes the story go viral all over social media. Lots and lots of people there want to make money and clout by exploiting any avenue for drama and engagement.
Perhaps the problems this exposes are not just our grim and omnipresent surveillance apparatus, but the attached system of gig-economy content creators all racing to the lowest common denominator for scraps of engagement and ad revenue? We've created a society of unempathetic monsters.
Is there a reliable source that he is a billionaire? I haven't seen that in any reporting. "Billionaire" is a four letter word around these parts, I would be careful about throwing the label around without solid evidence.
This I think is the real story. This isn't necessarily about our surveillance state, but more that we are constantly observed by the world and it is a specific type of hell that we cannot escape. The fact that this makes adultery more difficult is a bittersweet benefit, I guess, but there are no guardrails on this sort of thing. If this was in any other context besides a cheating CEO this would all be supremely fucked up, and that's why I think this is an article worth talking about.
Yeah… I am not sure how much this incident has to do with facial recognition or media surveillance. You went to a large concert for a globally known artist, where you can reasonably expect hundreds of cameras owned by both individuals and the venue. You brought your side piece, started touching all up on her. Recall the Jumbotron, which is famously used to highlight couples. Then you act shocked… That’s how you win stupid prizes
Most concerts don't have jumbotrons, though, and a jumbotron at a sporting event that is highlighting fans who are dressed in team colors is very different than just focusing on random people. There's a lot of ink that's been spilled on the creepiness of "kiss cams".
It can be both wrong to cheat, and also wrong for us as a society to act as though being outside your home is consent for people to take videos of you as a subject. We should all have the right to exist without being someone else's entertainment or content.
Was it dumb for them to be there together? Yeah, though mostly because it's dumb to cheat.
I think this situation is a horrifying lens into just how much surveillance and social media sharing of strangers people are accepting of.
You say, "you can reasonably expect hundreds of cameras owned by both individuals and the venue" as though there's nothing wrong with just recording everyone that is in public. Incidentally catching someone in a crowd is one thing, but zooming in on and singling people out is another. I don't think it's a particularly long leap to get from your quote to, "it's reasonable for police cameras to see you and know where you are if you're out in public".
Yeah, I’m all against social media surveillance, but this was on the jumbotron at a concert. Having said that, I do hate those segments in concerts and sports where they feature audiences on the screens without consent. It’s not like there’s a line in the customer agreement when buying tickets that you allow your face to be featured (unless there is?). That’s why I always make myself as boring as possible - either just sitting with a straight face, or eating something - so I don’t get singled out.
It's shitty, but there is. Hell, even at small venues there usually at least a line saying "By buying this ticket you agree to be recorded"