4 ms·

The fact that people haven't commented "this is bad" doesn't mean lots of people don't think it's bad. But such comments don't change anything, and the site gui

by tlb 7y ago

The fact that people haven't commented "this is bad" doesn't mean lots of people don't think it's bad. But such comments don't change anything, and the site guidelines specifically discourage them because they just add noise. Insulting people, however, tends to derail any useful discussion.

state_less 7y ago
I've said the obvious before, but technology is going to make mass surveillance relatively easy. Natural protections are no more. We have to reaffirm our liberties and not tolerate unreasonable search. Also, let's cut out the criminality when it comes to drugs. The rationality this rests on can be chopped out from under it if we just regulate the drug industry better. Give drug users the drugs with limitations, which is better than having them served via some barbarous criminal enterprise.
- iscrewyou 7y ago
  Seriously. The constitution must stay general. We can’t let them narrow down our rights.
- turk73 7y ago
  The only way to do what you suggest is...you know. That's the only thing that will roll it back even a little. I'm available whenever, but I have no misconceptions about how brutal it will be. Just locally where I live I've watched the total state moving forward. Police are moving in unmarked/low marked vehicles a la Gestapo, intersections all suddenly have cameras, I've read articles about how LE have tracked people via their cell phones--there is a "digital fence" that the police automatically get notified if someone prohibited enters with their phone. Is that not total surveillance state? When you can't even move around without someone tracking you? Granted, they can turn off the phone or put it in a Faraday bag, but the point is, we should not have to! Slippery slope may be a fallacy, but damn, it sure doesn't seem like it when all the dots start getting connected. I'm not on board with any of it. I am not some kind of serf, peon, or resource to be exploited. If some shit has to burn down to make that point, well, that's what will have to happen.
  - pdkl95 7y ago
    > technology is going to make mass surveillance relatively easy > a la Gestapo In 2013 Tom Scott made an incredibly prescient sketch of our grim surveillance-state future. It absolutely terrifying. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIuf1V1FhpY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIuf1V1FhpY It's terrifying because it's the power of Stasi-style informants modernized into a simple Uber-like app. No more scary clandestine meetings, now you can inform on your friends, family, and neighbors with one click from the comfort of your own home. Similar to the "social credit" system, Tom's "Oversight" could work, because they both efficiently incentivize close peers against each other. "You should stop spending time with your friend John. I heard him talking like a dissident recently... that could damage your Social Credit rating!" > enters with their phone Which is exactly why I follow Dan Geer's advice[1] and don't carry around a tracking device. He's been trying to warn us for years[2], and we still aren't listening[3]. [1] https://www.wired.com/brandlab/2015/06/cia-cybersecurity-guru-dan-geer-doesnt-use-cell-phone/ https://www.wired.com/brandlab/2015/06/cia-cybersecurity-gur... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT-TGvYOBpI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT-TGvYOBpI (transcript: http://geer.tinho.net/geer.blackhat.6viii14.txt http://geer.tinho.net/geer.blackhat.6viii14.txt ) [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbDEbfijxNY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbDEbfijxNY (transcript: http://www.bsidesdc.org/history/geer.html http://www.bsidesdc.org/history/geer.html )
almostdeadguy 7y ago
The site guidelines and moderation policies are intended to steer the comments towards as prissy, non-critical, de-politicized conversations as possible. Anger is a perfectly reasonable part of political discourse, and political discourse and thought is an important part of being a person in the world w/ agency. I think most would agree that there's a "beating a dead horse" point in comment sections, but the amount of preemptive moderation of anything mildly heated about politics is goofy, and not actually conducive to the goal of making a place for conversation that's "intellectually curious" or whatever. There is no topic that can be discussed in a political vacuum, and there's no conversation that's politically honest if there's not a little bit of struggle, but the mods on this site treat that like its a 5-alarm emergency.
- dang 7y ago
  You have some good points and I agree with most of this, but you're overestimating the capacity of a large, open internet forum to host intelligent angry discussion. This isn't about being prissy, it's about not dying a death of boredom. Flamewars get stupider and more tedious as they burn, and each one turns the site a bit more into hell. So we take a broken-windows-theory approach. If you think otherwise, I'd like to see an example of an large, open internet forum having intelligent no-holds-barred political debate. In my opinion you're underestimating how dumb that gets, and how quickly. For the sort of conversation you're talking about to be high-quality, you need a community that is closed and vastly smaller. This has been the case with that sort of debate in the past—for example, exchanges in journals or between writers in opposing journals.
- jesssse 7y ago
  Yep. Hacker News is a product not a community. The headlines are interesting but the comment section is offputting. I am largely unable to communicate using only Hacker News approved tone and words; I don't speak beige.
resters 7y ago
> Insulting people, however, tends to derail any useful discussion. She didn't insult anyone, please explain how you got that from the text of the comment. Most likely HN users are fearful of retaliation from the mods for participating in a discussion that will likely be deemed "political" or a "flame war". I suggest you not reply to this or else your account might get shadow banned. YC is heavily invested in Palantir and many similar "defense contractor" style firms, so it's reasonable that the mods try not to let content exist that might agitate investors.
- rashkov 7y ago
  This is, in my opinion, a really baseless claim. There’s plenty of critical discussion on HN that runs against YC interests. There’s also plenty of intelligent political discussion on here. The modded stuff is modded because it is content-free, off topic for the discussion, trollish, or ad-hominem and other low forms of debate. I’m personally very thankful that it gets moderated.
- deathanatos 7y ago
  > You all deserve the tyranny that is coming. That's the bit that feels insulting. I don't want this mass surveillance, but I also don't really have anything at the top level to comment about it that hasn't been hashed and rehashed. > so it's reasonable that the mods try not to let content exist that might agitate investors. Having read the discussions, I feel like there are often many commentators — and articles — that point out and criticize the surveillance state, to the extent that if there is censoring being attempted, it's not really very good. I'm not sure everyone who reads here is convinced, so maybe, IDK, it is still worthwhile to try to change some minds. I do feel like I see back and forth to bad arguments like "But I have nothing to hide!", so I don't think everyone here is on the same page, though HN is orders of magnitude more aware of it than the public. If we are ever to effect real change, either we need to convince the public that this matters and that they should care or maybe the ACLU/EFF can pull something off for us. (So, you know, donate to them if you believe they would help do good.) Tech stuff often gets lost though behind other issues like gay rights, abortion, climate change, guns&terrorism. (Which, honestly, might be more important, so can we please get those settled and move on to the tech stuff maybe?)

by tlb 7y ago

state_less 7y ago

I've said the obvious before, but technology is going to make mass surveillance relatively easy. Natural protections are no more. We have to reaffirm our liberties and not tolerate unreasonable search. Also, let's cut out the criminality when it comes to drugs. The rationality this rests on can be chopped out from under it if we just regulate the drug industry better. Give drug users the drugs with limitations, which is better than having them served via some barbarous criminal enterprise.

iscrewyou 7y ago
Seriously. The constitution must stay general. We can’t let them narrow down our rights.
turk73 7y ago
The only way to do what you suggest is...you know. That's the only thing that will roll it back even a little. I'm available whenever, but I have no misconceptions about how brutal it will be. Just locally where I live I've watched the total state moving forward. Police are moving in unmarked/low marked vehicles a la Gestapo, intersections all suddenly have cameras, I've read articles about how LE have tracked people via their cell phones--there is a "digital fence" that the police automatically get notified if someone prohibited enters with their phone. Is that not total surveillance state? When you can't even move around without someone tracking you? Granted, they can turn off the phone or put it in a Faraday bag, but the point is, we should not have to! Slippery slope may be a fallacy, but damn, it sure doesn't seem like it when all the dots start getting connected. I'm not on board with any of it. I am not some kind of serf, peon, or resource to be exploited. If some shit has to burn down to make that point, well, that's what will have to happen.
- pdkl95 7y ago
  > technology is going to make mass surveillance relatively easy > a la Gestapo In 2013 Tom Scott made an incredibly prescient sketch of our grim surveillance-state future. It absolutely terrifying. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIuf1V1FhpY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIuf1V1FhpY It's terrifying because it's the power of Stasi-style informants modernized into a simple Uber-like app. No more scary clandestine meetings, now you can inform on your friends, family, and neighbors with one click from the comfort of your own home. Similar to the "social credit" system, Tom's "Oversight" could work, because they both efficiently incentivize close peers against each other. "You should stop spending time with your friend John. I heard him talking like a dissident recently... that could damage your Social Credit rating!" > enters with their phone Which is exactly why I follow Dan Geer's advice[1] and don't carry around a tracking device. He's been trying to warn us for years[2], and we still aren't listening[3]. [1] https://www.wired.com/brandlab/2015/06/cia-cybersecurity-guru-dan-geer-doesnt-use-cell-phone/ https://www.wired.com/brandlab/2015/06/cia-cybersecurity-gur... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT-TGvYOBpI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT-TGvYOBpI (transcript: http://geer.tinho.net/geer.blackhat.6viii14.txt http://geer.tinho.net/geer.blackhat.6viii14.txt ) [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbDEbfijxNY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbDEbfijxNY (transcript: http://www.bsidesdc.org/history/geer.html http://www.bsidesdc.org/history/geer.html )

almostdeadguy 7y ago

The site guidelines and moderation policies are intended to steer the comments towards as prissy, non-critical, de-politicized conversations as possible. Anger is a perfectly reasonable part of political discourse, and political discourse and thought is an important part of being a person in the world w/ agency. I think most would agree that there's a "beating a dead horse" point in comment sections, but the amount of preemptive moderation of anything mildly heated about politics is goofy, and not actually conducive to the goal of making a place for conversation that's "intellectually curious" or whatever. There is no topic that can be discussed in a political vacuum, and there's no conversation that's politically honest if there's not a little bit of struggle, but the mods on this site treat that like its a 5-alarm emergency.

dang 7y ago
You have some good points and I agree with most of this, but you're overestimating the capacity of a large, open internet forum to host intelligent angry discussion. This isn't about being prissy, it's about not dying a death of boredom. Flamewars get stupider and more tedious as they burn, and each one turns the site a bit more into hell. So we take a broken-windows-theory approach. If you think otherwise, I'd like to see an example of an large, open internet forum having intelligent no-holds-barred political debate. In my opinion you're underestimating how dumb that gets, and how quickly. For the sort of conversation you're talking about to be high-quality, you need a community that is closed and vastly smaller. This has been the case with that sort of debate in the past—for example, exchanges in journals or between writers in opposing journals.
jesssse 7y ago
Yep. Hacker News is a product not a community. The headlines are interesting but the comment section is offputting. I am largely unable to communicate using only Hacker News approved tone and words; I don't speak beige.

resters 7y ago

> Insulting people, however, tends to derail any useful discussion. She didn't insult anyone, please explain how you got that from the text of the comment. Most likely HN users are fearful of retaliation from the mods for participating in a discussion that will likely be deemed "political" or a "flame war". I suggest you not reply to this or else your account might get shadow banned. YC is heavily invested in Palantir and many similar "defense contractor" style firms, so it's reasonable that the mods try not to let content exist that might agitate investors.

rashkov 7y ago
This is, in my opinion, a really baseless claim. There’s plenty of critical discussion on HN that runs against YC interests. There’s also plenty of intelligent political discussion on here. The modded stuff is modded because it is content-free, off topic for the discussion, trollish, or ad-hominem and other low forms of debate. I’m personally very thankful that it gets moderated.
deathanatos 7y ago
> You all deserve the tyranny that is coming. That's the bit that feels insulting. I don't want this mass surveillance, but I also don't really have anything at the top level to comment about it that hasn't been hashed and rehashed. > so it's reasonable that the mods try not to let content exist that might agitate investors. Having read the discussions, I feel like there are often many commentators — and articles — that point out and criticize the surveillance state, to the extent that if there is censoring being attempted, it's not really very good. I'm not sure everyone who reads here is convinced, so maybe, IDK, it is still worthwhile to try to change some minds. I do feel like I see back and forth to bad arguments like "But I have nothing to hide!", so I don't think everyone here is on the same page, though HN is orders of magnitude more aware of it than the public. If we are ever to effect real change, either we need to convince the public that this matters and that they should care or maybe the ACLU/EFF can pull something off for us. (So, you know, donate to them if you believe they would help do good.) Tech stuff often gets lost though behind other issues like gay rights, abortion, climate change, guns&terrorism. (Which, honestly, might be more important, so can we please get those settled and move on to the tech stuff maybe?)