Automatically tagging politician when they use their phone on the livestreams

New regulation: AI-based tagging forbidden for use on politicians.

Some people use bits of time on their phone to ironically help them focus on the person they're talking to.

If I have to listen to someone with zero of what people would call "external distractions" I'm barely going to remember any of it. But if I can poke on my phone while I'm listening, maybe look up some information relevant to the topic, then I'm much more engaged and retain far more of what's being said.

There's a difference between "eyes glued to phone" and "eyes looking at phone occasionally and then returning to the room". Too often, people see the latter, and it's like looking at a second hand on a clock. They take the initial glance, it looks longer than it really is, and so "eyes glued to phone" is their takeaway.

> I had a manager once who, if she would spot someone on their phone in a meeting, would put them on the spot and ask them a question relevant to what the team was just discussing. Some people would call that a "dick move" but I'm actually supportive of it. If you're supposed to be paying attention, get off your phone.

That manager would be flabbergasted when I answer the question. Unfortunately her takeaway would probably be "he could answer that while still not paying full attention? how can I make him pay full attention!" despite the fact that what she would call "full attention" would make my brain more likely to drift.

> Like it or not, "eyes glued to phone" has become a pretty clear indicator of distraction, and I'm fine calling this out.

This is not like work meetings: 99% of meaningful policy work is happening behind closed doors. The publicly-televised sessions is where people give speeches for the cameras and then cast votes with (typically) pre-negotiated outcomes. So, I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to be upset if someone is browsing Reddit while an opposition politician is saying their piece.

> If I'm in a meeting giving a presentation, and I notice people glued to their phones during it, I'm not going to call them out on the spot, but I'll probably do something afterwards

A tip from the book The Charisma Myth: when you notice someone on their phone, just pause what you were saying, the sudden silence usually brings people back. If you also look at them when pausing, it will be very clear what’s going on without you even saying a word

This works both during presentations and conversations

>I had a manager once who, if she would spot someone on their phone in a meeting, would put them on the spot and ask them a question relevant to what the team was just discussing. Some people would call that a "dick move" but I'm actually supportive of it. If you're supposed to be paying attention, get off your phone.

Fully get it, and that manager was quite right to do what they did. I occasionally bring my phone to meetings, but it's because I run a company and sometimes I'll have interesting data that might be relevant at a given point in a discussion. It's more to help move the meeting or conversation along in a helpful manner. I generally bring pre-meeting notes in digital format, and then a pen/paper to actually take physical notes when I'm talking to people. People generally don't find it rude if I look down to write something important down versus looking at a hpone.

I'd like to be able to do this as well, but I might get pushback as most of the people I meet with are significantly younger than me (I'm 35 and do sales to health/wellness establishments, most of the time I'm dealing with 20-somethings).

>I really don't like how society has just normalized whipping your phone out in the middle of human interactions.

Agree 100%, however, in the context of biz meetings, there could be reasons for it. Perhaps I'm hard of hearing and want to record the conversation, for note-taking purposes, or perhaps, there's an interesting data point I might have in my digital notes that might back you up even more in a meeting. I'm just playing devil's advocate in a situation that is quite realistic. I personally hate when people are on their phones in meetings or otherwise important interactions.

I see your point, but many times people use their phone to look up data. It's where I keep many documents.

Would you be happier if they were reading some piece of paper in front of them? That looks very official and serious, but their brain could be drifting away to anywhere else.

A lot of politicians are against surveillance too, they just get outnumbered. I think it's an unfair assumption to assume the parent comment is for surveillance legislation, especially if they're someone who frequents HN and are therefore more likely to be technically literate.

Bear in mind that the person you're applying to is also not paid by the population. They said "former politician".

Yeah, I weighed up the possibility that people would perceive it that way. That also speaks to the negative perception of politics/politicians too of course...

They said "former politician", though. Also, this is a form of surveillance - I think most people on HN would be against that as well.

The fact that Belgium could function without too much issues for that long points to that it did not have much of an impact. This is because a lot of the things that a normal federal government does, is done by the regions in Belgium.

It's somewhat tricky to measure the effectiveness of your MP, because of course their work output is politics.

We have https://www.theyworkforyou.com/ in the UK, which is a fantastic site, listing everything your MP does in Parliament. But the truth is that most MPs always vote exactly how their party tells them, and rarely speak. The main chamber in Parliament is mostly national debate on how to run the country, and amendments and motions are put forward outwith that chamber, by teams of MPs communicating with the Speaker's office.

Most MPs in the Commons are just waiting their turn to speak, and they wrote their speech the day before. The rest only turn up at voting time, and vote how they were told to by their party, then leave again. They don't listen to speeches, it's not going to make them vote differently.

So perhaps we need all the MP's official emails and texts to truly scrutinize their activity. Their presence and focus in the chamber is of limited importance.

What's more useful, IMHO, are when MPs join the various Parliamentary committees and listen to witnesses, scrutinize legislation line-by-line, and such. Those are meetings where I'd like MPs to be fully focused.

> presence at a parliamentary meeting (...) which is what they were elected to do

Parliamentarians from all around the world gasp in shock and revulsion

> they arent really selling anything i would consider valuable or sellable (eye of the beholder?).

Which meshes well with art, so maybe the OP, in fact, is an artist.

"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."

I suspect you may just not value artists or art because your comment is quite dismissive. There are artists putting significantly less effort into their creations than this who sell them for significantly more. This particular exhibit isn't even for sale.

Actually, Belgium has two (main) official languages so roughly 50% of the people present are now hearing their native language.

In other wording, if someone is speaking about a subject I'm not entirely familiar with, I'd likely be googling different details to get a more real picture than the one presented by the person proposing changes. Incentives and all that. An issue with political discourse in parliaments is that it's a meeting with a lot of important people so you can't really ask for clarifications again and again as you would in a 5 person meeting at work if you don't understand something you feel might be important. Partially because if everyone started asking for clarifications the topics won't get anywhere and partially because it's politics so you have to appear competent at all times.

There's a brand new AI law too. You'd likely need explicit consent of these people to have their personal data (face) processed by AI.

Facial detection is processing of article 9 GDPR data which requires explicit consent.

Oh I can use your personal private data for artistic expression?!?

Doubtful.

That does not give that right. It just asks states to carve out protections for journalism. Biometric data is very strictly regulated by the GDPR. The exceptions are listed in article 9.

> We are supposed to set an example in this place

I think that went out of the window a long time ago. All the shouting and booing - they're like kids watching a pantomime.