7 ms·

The article doesn't strike me as super biased, but it may be a bit shallow regarding the issues. If one doesn't start with the premise that Christian beliefs a

The article doesn't strike me as super biased, but it may be a bit shallow regarding the issues. If one doesn't start with the premise that Christian beliefs are bogus, then I'd be interested in: - How could someone realistically use the modern Internet and still avoid content that starts them down unwelcome paths? (A secular analogue might be suicide ideation.) - How could that guy's accountability partner have better recognized false positives? - How could that guy's accountability partner been more of a friend and less of a (seeming?) jerk? - Is an app store provider truly inclusive if they disallow apps that make privacy tradeoffs that appeal to one religion's adherents but not to another's?

jrs235 4y ago
To answer the questions about the guy's accountability partner: the guy didn't (truly and freely) choose his accountability partner, his "accountability partner", actually "monitor", chose him. Add: And it seems the guy was rushed ("forced") into installing the app and agreeing to the "solution".
- listless 4y ago
  That’s the way they wrote it. In reality, having an accountability partner is not new and it’s likely this guy signed on for it. Think of it like an AA sponsor - however poorly implemented here.
  - m000 4y ago
    If it was Jeff Bezos assigning an employee a "pee accountability partner", would you also say "this is what this guy signed on for" by working for him?
    - suggestion 4y ago
      Yes, no one is forced to work for Jeff Bezos
- hef19898 4y ago
  I cannot imagine how hard it has to be for a religious memeber of the LGBTQ community. One part of you, the religious part, is abused by religious leaders people you have faith in and trust, to deny the other part. But hey, the Catholic church has a tremendous history of accepting whatever abuse from priests while using some deeply rooted desires of their followers to accept that abuse. That being said, the "priest" in the story is just a simple and abusive cult leader.
  - powerslacker 4y ago
- dmurray 4y ago
  Gracepoint is a church targeting college students. He almost certainly signed up to this institution voluntarily: it's not something he was born into or will be shunned by his family for rejecting. So it's fair to say he chose this church, and the accountability partner is something that comes along with that. Of course, there are other instances of coercive behaviour by religious groups where this is not true.
LatteLazy 4y ago
>If one doesn't start with the premise that Christian beliefs are bogus I get where you're coming from, and as long as no one is compelling the "victim" I think they should be free to make their own mistakes. That said, it's very well proven that you cannot change your sexual orientation and anyone claiming you can is a fraudster whether they dress as a priest or medical professional or an "accountability partner" or anything else. That very much is a bogus belief.
- msackler1 4y ago
- powerslacker 4y ago
  There are numerous cases of changes to "sexual orientation".
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
    Would you mind providing citations of some of these cases?
    - powerslacker 4y ago
      I would mind. I can tell you that I have personal connections to persons who have abandoned their so called "sexual orientation". It is trivial to search for examples. There have been entire organizations of individuals claiming successful change of their sexual lifestyle. The problem is that you have a whole host of individuals and organizations who are opposed to the very concept of being able to change due to their assumptions and presuppositions about God and sin. This leads them to attempt to smear or discredit any movement or attitude that opposes their own. In my opinion, the onus of proof is on the communities, organizations, and individuals pushing the "born this way" rhetoric. In the 1990s and into the 2000s we were told there was a "gay gene" or that the right combination of hormones in utero was the culprit. It is now 2022 and no such 'smoking gun' has been found, yet there are still persons claiming they are no longer homosexual through the power of God.This is despite the media vitriol against such claims and the illegalization of even benign therapy. The naturalistic position claims the scientists just need more time and eventually they will find that people are born along some sexual spectrum instead of the traditional biblical position that sexuality and even attraction is behavioral. Sorry to not give you what you are asking for directly, but I'm not interested in debating the validity of specific incidents over HN. You might have good luck discussing the issue with a competent Christian theologian or pastor.
QuarterReptile 4y ago
>How could someone realistically use the modern Internet and still avoid content that starts them down unwelcome paths? (A secular analogue might be suicide ideation.) The bottom line is that you have to create a strong break that prevents inattentive browsing or "doom scrolling." I think the lowest impact version of that would look like something where you write out exactly what you're opening your browser for (and then stick to that.) A more severe implementation would be getting rid of your smart phone and only having browsing on a PC in a common space. Alternatively, you might get mileage out of a system that broke you out of bad patterns early rather than trying to keep you out initially. For example, an AHK script that throws a pop up every 10/20/30 minutes to ask what you're working on. There's more complexity than just "unwelcome path", and you would have to choose your method to match your particular problem.
- danjoredd 4y ago
  The way I try to stick to Christian ideals while browsing the internet, is there are certain sites I just don't visit that contain those things. Reddit, 4chan, Twitter, some Discord servers, etc. If you want to take religion seriously, you have to know what triggers sinful behaviors for yourself, nobody else will know so you have to know yourself in that regard, and avoid those places. These days outside of hackernews and Discord I don't use much social media any more. Social media leads to people being constantly angry and judgemental, as well as leading to other ungodly attitudes, and I find that I am a much worse person when I use those sites. There is no one path to keeping yourself from going down dark roads...it's as personal as the individual using the computer. As the Bible says in Philippians 2:12, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. Find what works for you as a Christian, and use it.
alkonaut 4y ago
> If one doesn't start with the premise that Christian beliefs are bogus This isn't so much about religion (or even morality or ethics) "protection" but rather a discussion about privacy. > How could someone realistically use the modern Internet and still avoid content that starts them down unwelcome paths? A simple content filter does a similar job, but without privacy invading surveillance. Even better if it has a way to circumvent it. E.g. the filter could just say "are you sure?" and then let me past. Many apps like that work well for self-accountabiluty. If that's not offering enough accountability then I'd argue the answer to the question is "you don't." > Is an app store provider truly inclusive if they disallow apps that make privacy tradeoffs that appeal to one religion's adherents but not to another's? While privacy is extremely important and app stores and device manufacturers are central to upholding it, I think a key here is that whoever willingly runs some kind of spyware app is willingly giving up their privacy. All the app store or device manufacturer should do is make sure that anyone who installs an app that spies on them, is aware that it's spying on them. For example, an app can't use GPS or Microphone on iOS without the user knowing and that's the way it should be. I cant't see where religion and inclusiveness comes into this eiher to be honest. I doubt there are religions appealed by privacy violations of the kind that would require (as in this example) always-on secret microphone recording in an app.
Barrin92 4y ago
I think if one takes Christianity seriously then they would recognize that sinning takes place in the mind, and that putting a chastity belt on your phone doesn't really change anything, not going down wrong paths is supposed to be a choice, not the product of community phone surveillance. God knows if you want to look at porn. I don't think there is a non-bogus version of this especially if you are a Christian. An 'accountability partner' sounds like something Scientology or the CCP assigns to you but not a Christian So if you're looking for the genuinely Christian solution: Have a relaxed attitude towards modern vices, you don't need to partake in them, just close the browser window. Little bit more faith in Christ, maybe switch the denomination, and less of whatever this is "Brit says she was asked to install the app by her parents after she was caught looking at pornography and that her mother and her pastor were both her designated accountability partners. “I remember I had to sit down and have a conversation with him [her pastor] after I Wikipedia’d an article about atheism,” she says. “I was a kid, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have some kind of right to read what I want to read.””
- imchillyb 4y ago
  Sin is a heart issue. There are only two choices on the shelf: Pleasing God, or pleasing self.
  - Viliam1234 4y ago
    Are you suggesting that God is completely opposed to everything we value?
    - DHPersonal 4y ago
      There are so many different versions of Christianity that it would be extremely likely to receive contradictory answers to your question.
      - Viliam1234 4y ago
        I am most curious about the ones who worship Evil God (the one who literally hates everything that humans consider good).

jrs235 4y ago

To answer the questions about the guy's accountability partner: the guy didn't (truly and freely) choose his accountability partner, his "accountability partner", actually "monitor", chose him. Add: And it seems the guy was rushed ("forced") into installing the app and agreeing to the "solution".

listless 4y ago
That’s the way they wrote it. In reality, having an accountability partner is not new and it’s likely this guy signed on for it. Think of it like an AA sponsor - however poorly implemented here.
- m000 4y ago
  If it was Jeff Bezos assigning an employee a "pee accountability partner", would you also say "this is what this guy signed on for" by working for him?
  - suggestion 4y ago
    Yes, no one is forced to work for Jeff Bezos
hef19898 4y ago
I cannot imagine how hard it has to be for a religious memeber of the LGBTQ community. One part of you, the religious part, is abused by religious leaders people you have faith in and trust, to deny the other part. But hey, the Catholic church has a tremendous history of accepting whatever abuse from priests while using some deeply rooted desires of their followers to accept that abuse. That being said, the "priest" in the story is just a simple and abusive cult leader.
- powerslacker 4y ago
dmurray 4y ago
Gracepoint is a church targeting college students. He almost certainly signed up to this institution voluntarily: it's not something he was born into or will be shunned by his family for rejecting. So it's fair to say he chose this church, and the accountability partner is something that comes along with that. Of course, there are other instances of coercive behaviour by religious groups where this is not true.

LatteLazy 4y ago

>If one doesn't start with the premise that Christian beliefs are bogus I get where you're coming from, and as long as no one is compelling the "victim" I think they should be free to make their own mistakes. That said, it's very well proven that you cannot change your sexual orientation and anyone claiming you can is a fraudster whether they dress as a priest or medical professional or an "accountability partner" or anything else. That very much is a bogus belief.

msackler1 4y ago
powerslacker 4y ago
There are numerous cases of changes to "sexual orientation".
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
  Would you mind providing citations of some of these cases?
  - powerslacker 4y ago
    I would mind. I can tell you that I have personal connections to persons who have abandoned their so called "sexual orientation". It is trivial to search for examples. There have been entire organizations of individuals claiming successful change of their sexual lifestyle. The problem is that you have a whole host of individuals and organizations who are opposed to the very concept of being able to change due to their assumptions and presuppositions about God and sin. This leads them to attempt to smear or discredit any movement or attitude that opposes their own. In my opinion, the onus of proof is on the communities, organizations, and individuals pushing the "born this way" rhetoric. In the 1990s and into the 2000s we were told there was a "gay gene" or that the right combination of hormones in utero was the culprit. It is now 2022 and no such 'smoking gun' has been found, yet there are still persons claiming they are no longer homosexual through the power of God.This is despite the media vitriol against such claims and the illegalization of even benign therapy. The naturalistic position claims the scientists just need more time and eventually they will find that people are born along some sexual spectrum instead of the traditional biblical position that sexuality and even attraction is behavioral. Sorry to not give you what you are asking for directly, but I'm not interested in debating the validity of specific incidents over HN. You might have good luck discussing the issue with a competent Christian theologian or pastor.

QuarterReptile 4y ago

>How could someone realistically use the modern Internet and still avoid content that starts them down unwelcome paths? (A secular analogue might be suicide ideation.) The bottom line is that you have to create a strong break that prevents inattentive browsing or "doom scrolling." I think the lowest impact version of that would look like something where you write out exactly what you're opening your browser for (and then stick to that.) A more severe implementation would be getting rid of your smart phone and only having browsing on a PC in a common space. Alternatively, you might get mileage out of a system that broke you out of bad patterns early rather than trying to keep you out initially. For example, an AHK script that throws a pop up every 10/20/30 minutes to ask what you're working on. There's more complexity than just "unwelcome path", and you would have to choose your method to match your particular problem.

danjoredd 4y ago
The way I try to stick to Christian ideals while browsing the internet, is there are certain sites I just don't visit that contain those things. Reddit, 4chan, Twitter, some Discord servers, etc. If you want to take religion seriously, you have to know what triggers sinful behaviors for yourself, nobody else will know so you have to know yourself in that regard, and avoid those places. These days outside of hackernews and Discord I don't use much social media any more. Social media leads to people being constantly angry and judgemental, as well as leading to other ungodly attitudes, and I find that I am a much worse person when I use those sites. There is no one path to keeping yourself from going down dark roads...it's as personal as the individual using the computer. As the Bible says in Philippians 2:12, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. Find what works for you as a Christian, and use it.

alkonaut 4y ago

> If one doesn't start with the premise that Christian beliefs are bogus This isn't so much about religion (or even morality or ethics) "protection" but rather a discussion about privacy. > How could someone realistically use the modern Internet and still avoid content that starts them down unwelcome paths? A simple content filter does a similar job, but without privacy invading surveillance. Even better if it has a way to circumvent it. E.g. the filter could just say "are you sure?" and then let me past. Many apps like that work well for self-accountabiluty. If that's not offering enough accountability then I'd argue the answer to the question is "you don't." > Is an app store provider truly inclusive if they disallow apps that make privacy tradeoffs that appeal to one religion's adherents but not to another's? While privacy is extremely important and app stores and device manufacturers are central to upholding it, I think a key here is that whoever willingly runs some kind of spyware app is willingly giving up their privacy. All the app store or device manufacturer should do is make sure that anyone who installs an app that spies on them, is aware that it's spying on them. For example, an app can't use GPS or Microphone on iOS without the user knowing and that's the way it should be. I cant't see where religion and inclusiveness comes into this eiher to be honest. I doubt there are religions appealed by privacy violations of the kind that would require (as in this example) always-on secret microphone recording in an app.

Barrin92 4y ago

I think if one takes Christianity seriously then they would recognize that sinning takes place in the mind, and that putting a chastity belt on your phone doesn't really change anything, not going down wrong paths is supposed to be a choice, not the product of community phone surveillance. God knows if you want to look at porn. I don't think there is a non-bogus version of this especially if you are a Christian. An 'accountability partner' sounds like something Scientology or the CCP assigns to you but not a Christian So if you're looking for the genuinely Christian solution: Have a relaxed attitude towards modern vices, you don't need to partake in them, just close the browser window. Little bit more faith in Christ, maybe switch the denomination, and less of whatever this is "Brit says she was asked to install the app by her parents after she was caught looking at pornography and that her mother and her pastor were both her designated accountability partners. “I remember I had to sit down and have a conversation with him [her pastor] after I Wikipedia’d an article about atheism,” she says. “I was a kid, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have some kind of right to read what I want to read.””

imchillyb 4y ago
Sin is a heart issue. There are only two choices on the shelf: Pleasing God, or pleasing self.
- Viliam1234 4y ago
  Are you suggesting that God is completely opposed to everything we value?
  - DHPersonal 4y ago
    There are so many different versions of Christianity that it would be extremely likely to receive contradictory answers to your question.
    - Viliam1234 4y ago
      I am most curious about the ones who worship Evil God (the one who literally hates everything that humans consider good).