Discussion last night ("Just got an Amber Alert ..."): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6165026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6165026 had predominant

Discussion last night ("Just got an Amber Alert ..."): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6165026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6165026 had predominantly "think of the children, how can you complain about your minor inconvenience" prevailing tone. I wonder what makes this thread so different. More people are focused on the costs as well as the benefits (I agree that the costs are significant). If it's not just a random difference in the initial seeding of comments, I'd have to guess that it's the authority of latimes.com talking about how (many!) Californians are startled etc. Now this is a safe, approved line of thought. This calls into suspicion the independence of the typical HN comment. If you're just posting to be seen on the prevailing side, why comment at all? The less deeply you think before talking, the more you're swayed by subtle priming and attention-focusing trivia. Also interesting, a years-ago attempt to shame Apple into enabling Amber alerts: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=509741 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=509741 It sounds like a less intrusive amber-alert UI (a regular text, for example) would be accepted by most, although I'm sure if you tally up the attention spent vs. the increased odds of catching a criminal vs. increased harassment of near-matches, it's not a clear win.