3 ms·

Interesting, I'm surprised you would think that. Given the very first part about what's on-topic and off-topic, how would you categorize this post?

by FloorEgg 10mo ago

square_usual 10mo ago
You don't find it interesting that a major social media company enabled generating deepfake porn, and now faces global legal action for it? (I know for a fact you and people like you will say No, so posts about deepfakes and their legal consequences have been extremely relevant for HN; you just need one search to prove this: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=deepfakes https://hn.algolia.com/?q=deepfakes)
- FloorEgg 10mo ago
  > I know for a fact you and people like you will say No You "know for a fact" what about me exactly? And what do you mean by "people like me"? I think AI deep fakes were an interesting new phenomenon at one point but that time has past. I think this post falls under crime and outrage, and I would categorize it maybe 70/30 as off-topic / on-topic. It's not cut and dry for me, but it does skew more as off-topic than on-topic. The comment I was replying to was acting as if there was no explanation, yet the explanation is clearly laid out right in the top of the HN guidelines. There are so many places to go on the Internet if you want to be outraged or spread outrage about things that outrage you, HN is one of the few places meant to harbour intellectual curiosity, and outrage and intellectual curiosity unfortunately don't mix well, hence the guidelines.
afavour 10mo ago
> On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. Deepfakes and their implications are interesting, they’re technical, they’re of interest to hackers. A tech company operating globally and violating the laws in multiple jurisdictions at once? An interesting topic worth of discussion. Your attempt at gatekeeping here would be more believable if we weren’t all able to look at other submissions on the front page. A government site called “eat real food” has been on the front page for nearly a day now. It’s very convenient to selectively apply guidelines but it’s also transparently dishonest.
- FloorEgg 10mo ago
  Why didn't you also include the off-topic portion of the guidelines and make a case why this post doesn't classify as off-topic? In what way am I gatekeeping? You were asking for an explanation, and I was attempting to show you one. I sat back and wondered (without any emotional stake in this) "hmm, what is afavour implying here and why would this be flagged?" And then re-read the guidelines myself, and it was pretty clear how an interpretation of this post would classify as off-topic. I also don't understand your point about the front page or the "eat real food" post. What are you implying exactly? What this situation looks like to me: - you are outraged - you are making assumptions about political bias in the moderators choices to flag this post - you assume that I am siding with the moderators, rather than just pointing out how the moderators choices to flag this topic seems to align with the official guidelines. - you assume I fall into some political or ideological bucket, but I almost certainly don't. - the HN guidelines are there to foster intellectual curiosity, and part of that is acknowledging that topics that trigger outrage derail intellectual curiosity and are therefore off-topic. This post being flagged seems to be reasonably in line with this. - I misinterpreted your original comment as genuine curiosity. I conflated your "I'm curious how long this will take to be flagged" with the "ask yourself why", and assumed you would be open to an explanation for the "why". Clearly you were not. You've made up your mind already about the matter. You aren't curious about this at all, so maybe then we shouldn't be having a discussion about it on HN?
  - cholantesh 10mo ago
    >you assume I fall into some political bucket, when I almost certainly don't (I am not American and I don't follow American media). I don't use any social media other than HN and a couple private group chats. This is pretty meaningless; one can share an ideology with an official they did not or even cannot vote for, and can do so even if they don't have Twitter.
    - FloorEgg 10mo ago
      Are you implying that because I am pointing out how the HN guidelines state crime and other topics that trample curiosity are off-topic, I share some ideology with some American official that condones child porn?

Interesting, I'm surprised you would think that. Given the very first part about what's on-topic and off-topic, how would you categorize this post?

square_usual 10mo ago

You don't find it interesting that a major social media company enabled generating deepfake porn, and now faces global legal action for it? (I know for a fact you and people like you will say No, so posts about deepfakes and their legal consequences have been extremely relevant for HN; you just need one search to prove this: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=deepfakes https://hn.algolia.com/?q=deepfakes)

FloorEgg 10mo ago
> I know for a fact you and people like you will say No You "know for a fact" what about me exactly? And what do you mean by "people like me"? I think AI deep fakes were an interesting new phenomenon at one point but that time has past. I think this post falls under crime and outrage, and I would categorize it maybe 70/30 as off-topic / on-topic. It's not cut and dry for me, but it does skew more as off-topic than on-topic. The comment I was replying to was acting as if there was no explanation, yet the explanation is clearly laid out right in the top of the HN guidelines. There are so many places to go on the Internet if you want to be outraged or spread outrage about things that outrage you, HN is one of the few places meant to harbour intellectual curiosity, and outrage and intellectual curiosity unfortunately don't mix well, hence the guidelines.

afavour 10mo ago

> On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. Deepfakes and their implications are interesting, they’re technical, they’re of interest to hackers. A tech company operating globally and violating the laws in multiple jurisdictions at once? An interesting topic worth of discussion. Your attempt at gatekeeping here would be more believable if we weren’t all able to look at other submissions on the front page. A government site called “eat real food” has been on the front page for nearly a day now. It’s very convenient to selectively apply guidelines but it’s also transparently dishonest.

FloorEgg 10mo ago
Why didn't you also include the off-topic portion of the guidelines and make a case why this post doesn't classify as off-topic? In what way am I gatekeeping? You were asking for an explanation, and I was attempting to show you one. I sat back and wondered (without any emotional stake in this) "hmm, what is afavour implying here and why would this be flagged?" And then re-read the guidelines myself, and it was pretty clear how an interpretation of this post would classify as off-topic. I also don't understand your point about the front page or the "eat real food" post. What are you implying exactly? What this situation looks like to me: - you are outraged - you are making assumptions about political bias in the moderators choices to flag this post - you assume that I am siding with the moderators, rather than just pointing out how the moderators choices to flag this topic seems to align with the official guidelines. - you assume I fall into some political or ideological bucket, but I almost certainly don't. - the HN guidelines are there to foster intellectual curiosity, and part of that is acknowledging that topics that trigger outrage derail intellectual curiosity and are therefore off-topic. This post being flagged seems to be reasonably in line with this. - I misinterpreted your original comment as genuine curiosity. I conflated your "I'm curious how long this will take to be flagged" with the "ask yourself why", and assumed you would be open to an explanation for the "why". Clearly you were not. You've made up your mind already about the matter. You aren't curious about this at all, so maybe then we shouldn't be having a discussion about it on HN?
- cholantesh 10mo ago
  >you assume I fall into some political bucket, when I almost certainly don't (I am not American and I don't follow American media). I don't use any social media other than HN and a couple private group chats. This is pretty meaningless; one can share an ideology with an official they did not or even cannot vote for, and can do so even if they don't have Twitter.
  - FloorEgg 10mo ago
    Are you implying that because I am pointing out how the HN guidelines state crime and other topics that trample curiosity are off-topic, I share some ideology with some American official that condones child porn?