 Which statement would the author most likely support?
Some photographers will make someone look the way the photographer wants them to look, and not the way they appear, so they’ll pick the one picture out of 100 where the guy looks more egotistical than he really is. To me, uploading a picture that is not an easily recognizable picture of that person defeats the point, which I’m working toward, to try to express who they are. On the other hand, professional photographers usually have a subject whom they don’t know personally, so they end up having to try to capture an image that they’ve created based on who they think the person is or how they want that person to appear. For instance, a board meeting picture, like the one with Eric Saltzman: that was during a very tense discussion. And then, it also has the meaning that you are unencumbered legally, that you are free, as in ‘free software.’ There’s a paradox: with many people’s Wikipedia articles to which I’ve contributed, when it comes to the picture, many of these people don’t have any free photos of themselves on the web, so while they are “notable” on Wikipedia, their images aren’t free of the copyright of the photographer, or the institution who hired the photographer to take the picture. Often, even the subject of the article can’t make an image available to the Wikimedia/Wikipedia community. This means that a lot of people who have a Net presence have a legally encumbered Net presence.
 Humans want people to be viewed the way they view themselves
 Humans want people to be viewed the way they view themselves  Humans are too trusting in anything aligned with 'freedom' and 'creativity'  Humans are easily manipulated by powerful corporations  Humans have a proclivity toward a negativity bias