6 ms·

Can't believe you've been downvoted. HN isn't homogonous, but too often has apologists for immoral and illegal behaviour, provided it's done by a technology com

by orra 4y ago

Can't believe you've been downvoted. HN isn't homogonous, but too often has apologists for immoral and illegal behaviour, provided it's done by a technology company.

stuaxo 4y ago
[flagged]
themitigating 4y ago
[flagged]
- nebalee 4y ago
  I don't think that's right. I feel people here are not generally anti-tech, but ask for tech that benefits users instead of exploiting them.
  - astura 4y ago
    People on HN have a pretty bizzare definition of "exploiting users," IMO.
    - fsflover 4y ago
      Could you elaborate?
      - omniglottal 4y ago
        Not op, but in a capitalistic economy where transactions tend to be using legal tender, companies providing things for "free" where the (hidden) cost is submission to Big Brother... well, that's exploitative at the least, dystopic in reality. Your unawareness of this being a BIG issue to those who cannot even choose to pay money for a product which is only "sold" for the price of your privacy... is pretty obviously a result of exploitative marketting and a control of tge dialogue which supercedes any source without a narketting/PR department. Especially while we're now "sold" ephemeral licenses instead of permanent products, and most of these products are bits which cost <$0.001 to reproduce, yet cost more today than a hard-copy did in the past, and the lion's share of profit goes to investors, management, CEOs, and other people who not only cannot produce product, but actively handicap and reduce functionality of products to squeeze ever more profit from the now-choiceless consumers. Does that clarify what has been achingly obvious to many of us who see this writing on the wall?
        fsflover 4y ago
        In my experience, this is actually the typical opinion of people on HN, and I agree and see nothing weird with it.
- bavell 4y ago
  A lot of people here were very dismissive of the Twitter files, showing how closely big govt and big tech work together. I even lamented [0] about it and got tons of pushback ("business as usual"). I had thought at the time this site was very clear-eyed about dangers like these but I'm much less confident in that now and it's apparent even us techies are easily blinded by partisan politics and self-interest. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33917602 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33917602
  - simonh 4y ago
    I think there’s a pretty wide variety of opinions represented here. You’ll find actual debate on almost any issue. For example, not everyone sees government and big tech working together as necessarily being a bad thing, depending what they’re actually doing and why.
  - john_the_writer 4y ago
    Another reason they're dismissive is because they knew it before the files were released. It's not that we aren't upset about it. It's that we were upset about it years ago and eventually (after being told we're over-reacting) stopped being upset about it. Oh hey HN people they're doing what you said they would, but we forgot you warned us. We're ready for you to be upset now. Clearly you're not so you're dismissive.
- ballenf 4y ago
  How are 3-5 'anti-tech'? 3. Tech shouldn't imply or require privacy compromises. 4. Piracy tools often drive innovation and technological progress. (Not to mention would we have subscription music services or even Netflix's non-DVD-by-mail business without the market pressure from piracy? Would they cost more?) 5. How does a position or preference on a business model imply pro- or anti-tech? And even #2 doesn't necessarily imply an anti-tech stance. I don't think it's anti-tech to resist putting computers in toasters, for example. The overuse of tech can be a step backwards and hurt overall technological progress, imho. Not sure what #1 means.
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
  > 2. There's too much technology in modern products (cars, tv, etc) Bad technology. Nobody would object to smarter cars with usable controls that didn't spy on you and have security holes. People, even here, would love smart TVs if they started as fast as the dumb ones, didn't have ads, didn't spy on you, and were generally actually in the user's control. People aren't against tech, they're against awful tech that's a straight downgrade from what came before. Actually, this goes for the rest of your points, not just 2.
  - Moissanite 4y ago
    Exactly this - most people here aren't in any way anti-tech, they've just read enough bleak sci-fi novels to know an approaching dystopian hellscape when they see one.
  - CorrectHorseBat 4y ago
    >Bad technology. I've seen many people complaining about modern safety features such as back up cameras and collision detection, I wouldn't call that bad technology.
    - omniglottal 4y ago
      So your complaint is that those (here) with an intimate understanding of tech and its capabilities are sharing their qualified and often nuanced opinion about tech implementatiioms without exclusively following the market's "everything is flawless and there are no anti-features" rhetoric? A love of tech should mean people care to point out the problems seen from an educated vantage - what do you expect? Are backup cameras flawless? Is collision detection flawless? Do humans lose anything by permanent delegation of their skills? What exactly are you saying is a problem here?
      - CorrectHorseBat 4y ago
        No they are not perfect, but they do have a proven track record. I expect a better reason than "I am a really good driver and don't need those things so they should not be mandatory" which I've seen here several times.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > Are you insane? This is the most anti-tech site I'm on. It's not anti-tech, it's just savvy enough to be skeptical and not to be enthusiastic about tech for tech's sake. A lot of people just uncritically buy into sales pitches, or are not confident enough to challenge them.
- alexseman 4y ago
  [dead]
- spacemadness 4y ago
  You seem to be conflating profit at all costs with pro-tech. Questioning how technology is used is a good thing that more engineers should be doing. And #4 is completely made up nonsense. I’ve never seen that sentiment here en masse.
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  The only technology in my home is a printer, and I keep a loaded gun next to it in case it starts to make weird noises.
- hooverd 4y ago
  It's also a tech site, so you're likely to see a lot more views about tech either way than on other sites.
weego 4y ago
It's the tech version of the US phenomenon of people believing they're 'temporarily broke'. If these issues are regulated now, what happens when it's their turn to be the millionaire startup CEO?

by orra 4y ago

Can't believe you've been downvoted. HN isn't homogonous, but too often has apologists for immoral and illegal behaviour, provided it's done by a technology company.

stuaxo 4y ago

[flagged]

themitigating 4y ago

[flagged]

nebalee 4y ago
I don't think that's right. I feel people here are not generally anti-tech, but ask for tech that benefits users instead of exploiting them.
- astura 4y ago
  People on HN have a pretty bizzare definition of "exploiting users," IMO.
  - fsflover 4y ago
    Could you elaborate?
    - omniglottal 4y ago
      Not op, but in a capitalistic economy where transactions tend to be using legal tender, companies providing things for "free" where the (hidden) cost is submission to Big Brother... well, that's exploitative at the least, dystopic in reality. Your unawareness of this being a BIG issue to those who cannot even choose to pay money for a product which is only "sold" for the price of your privacy... is pretty obviously a result of exploitative marketting and a control of tge dialogue which supercedes any source without a narketting/PR department. Especially while we're now "sold" ephemeral licenses instead of permanent products, and most of these products are bits which cost <$0.001 to reproduce, yet cost more today than a hard-copy did in the past, and the lion's share of profit goes to investors, management, CEOs, and other people who not only cannot produce product, but actively handicap and reduce functionality of products to squeeze ever more profit from the now-choiceless consumers. Does that clarify what has been achingly obvious to many of us who see this writing on the wall?
      - fsflover 4y ago
        In my experience, this is actually the typical opinion of people on HN, and I agree and see nothing weird with it.
bavell 4y ago
A lot of people here were very dismissive of the Twitter files, showing how closely big govt and big tech work together. I even lamented [0] about it and got tons of pushback ("business as usual"). I had thought at the time this site was very clear-eyed about dangers like these but I'm much less confident in that now and it's apparent even us techies are easily blinded by partisan politics and self-interest. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33917602 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33917602
- simonh 4y ago
  I think there’s a pretty wide variety of opinions represented here. You’ll find actual debate on almost any issue. For example, not everyone sees government and big tech working together as necessarily being a bad thing, depending what they’re actually doing and why.
- john_the_writer 4y ago
  Another reason they're dismissive is because they knew it before the files were released. It's not that we aren't upset about it. It's that we were upset about it years ago and eventually (after being told we're over-reacting) stopped being upset about it. Oh hey HN people they're doing what you said they would, but we forgot you warned us. We're ready for you to be upset now. Clearly you're not so you're dismissive.
ballenf 4y ago
How are 3-5 'anti-tech'? 3. Tech shouldn't imply or require privacy compromises. 4. Piracy tools often drive innovation and technological progress. (Not to mention would we have subscription music services or even Netflix's non-DVD-by-mail business without the market pressure from piracy? Would they cost more?) 5. How does a position or preference on a business model imply pro- or anti-tech? And even #2 doesn't necessarily imply an anti-tech stance. I don't think it's anti-tech to resist putting computers in toasters, for example. The overuse of tech can be a step backwards and hurt overall technological progress, imho. Not sure what #1 means.
yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
> 2. There's too much technology in modern products (cars, tv, etc) Bad technology. Nobody would object to smarter cars with usable controls that didn't spy on you and have security holes. People, even here, would love smart TVs if they started as fast as the dumb ones, didn't have ads, didn't spy on you, and were generally actually in the user's control. People aren't against tech, they're against awful tech that's a straight downgrade from what came before. Actually, this goes for the rest of your points, not just 2.
- Moissanite 4y ago
  Exactly this - most people here aren't in any way anti-tech, they've just read enough bleak sci-fi novels to know an approaching dystopian hellscape when they see one.
- CorrectHorseBat 4y ago
  >Bad technology. I've seen many people complaining about modern safety features such as back up cameras and collision detection, I wouldn't call that bad technology.
  - omniglottal 4y ago
    So your complaint is that those (here) with an intimate understanding of tech and its capabilities are sharing their qualified and often nuanced opinion about tech implementatiioms without exclusively following the market's "everything is flawless and there are no anti-features" rhetoric? A love of tech should mean people care to point out the problems seen from an educated vantage - what do you expect? Are backup cameras flawless? Is collision detection flawless? Do humans lose anything by permanent delegation of their skills? What exactly are you saying is a problem here?
    - CorrectHorseBat 4y ago
      No they are not perfect, but they do have a proven track record. I expect a better reason than "I am a really good driver and don't need those things so they should not be mandatory" which I've seen here several times.
tablespoon 4y ago
> Are you insane? This is the most anti-tech site I'm on. It's not anti-tech, it's just savvy enough to be skeptical and not to be enthusiastic about tech for tech's sake. A lot of people just uncritically buy into sales pitches, or are not confident enough to challenge them.
alexseman 4y ago
[dead]
spacemadness 4y ago
You seem to be conflating profit at all costs with pro-tech. Questioning how technology is used is a good thing that more engineers should be doing. And #4 is completely made up nonsense. I’ve never seen that sentiment here en masse.
LarryMullins 4y ago
The only technology in my home is a printer, and I keep a loaded gun next to it in case it starts to make weird noises.
hooverd 4y ago
It's also a tech site, so you're likely to see a lot more views about tech either way than on other sites.

weego 4y ago

It's the tech version of the US phenomenon of people believing they're 'temporarily broke'. If these issues are regulated now, what happens when it's their turn to be the millionaire startup CEO?