Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Too many people have peed in the pool

stephenfry.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 555 posts

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#341

Post by letsbereal »

rblstr wrote: post #86

I watched the BAFTAs with my girlfriend last night and I have to say, when Stephen made that comment we both said 'woah that's a bit mean' out loud. Of course, being the general public we're not aware of Mr Fry's relationship with the lady who won the award but from an outside perspective it came across as a bit bullying. I only found out today about the twitter backlash and I don't think it should be lumped in with…

But if she has just been (yet again) nominated as one of the World's or Britain's best costume designers, how is poking fun at her current outfit, by a comedian of all people, "being mean"? Is it not that contrast that makes the joke?

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#342

Post by picrow »

poof131 wrote: post #259
AJ007 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no friendly way to say it, the mass market are morons. It might be derogatory jokes, but this can also include things like spreading urban legends which were debunked four decades ago. Just like Usenet and countless other online communities, what starts a a small group of fairly privileged and elite eventually degrades in to garbage as the reach increases. This is not so much an overall size issue but a rela…

The mass market isn’t so much “morons” as just the lowest common denominator. Everyone is “smart” about the niche areas that interest them. These niches seldom overlap. So the mass market is more about things that cross the boundaries: sports, weather, politics, jokes, etc. So what starts as a niche (not so much privileged or elite) either stays as a niche or appeals to a mass audience by finding the common denominat…

In the same boat as you, dude.

It's rough.

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#343

Post by zazen »

adrianN wrote: post #332
zazen wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very interesting question: when does a community become an echo chamber? To use the hunting example: I imagine sometimes the hunters talk about stuff to do with hunting itself; the merits of different rifles, or where to find game, or whatever. And this is a reasonable community discussion for them to have, and it wouldn't help to have activists shouting "hunting is evil" over conversations such as that. Bu…

That's the job of good moderation I think.

Perhaps. But I think it would take a particularly far-sighted and philosophical moderator to down-vote/remove a perfectly civil post whose message he agreed with, _just_ because it was contributing to an echo-chamber effect.

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#344

Post by Eiriksmal »

_yosefk wrote: post #269
enraged_camel wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>So is there ever any way to know when "the mass market are morons" means what it says literally or when it's a stand-in for "most people aren't agreeing with my strongly held beliefs". Absolutely there is. We have a measuring stick with which we can measure the validity of one's beliefs: empirical evidence. If you believe X, and scientists say we have sufficient empirical evidence that confirms that belief, and the…

There are many kinds of evidence and many ways to interpret it - and many kinds of science (physicists disagree with each other less than economists for a reason.) Incidentally, most "morons" disagree with you on matters where they can find a scientist on their side, or on issues of morality, or on inconsequential matters (like the origin of life, which is interesting to most but doesn't affect any practical decision…

Well said. Even when science means well, it can suck to be on the non-moron side.

For ~120 years, science "knew" that an element existed inside all ignitable substances that was released during burning. When the air was fully saturated with phlogiston, the burning stopped. Just put a candle in a jar and watch what happens. The theory's sound, right?

120 years is a few lifetimes, who knows what revelations will drop before the 21st century winds down?

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#345

Post by thomyorkie »

doktrin wrote: post #137
fideloper wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're (willfully?) ignoring the implication of a private feed: lack of discoverability (finding new followers), for those of us who use Twitter as a source of promotion for our side projects/businesses/careers.

> You're (willfully?) ignoring the implication of a private feed Egads! You saw through my duplicitous scheme! Alternatively, I was simply pointing out that this is - in fact - a feature. To your point, I'm not sure how you could both have audience selection and discoverability. How do you plan to both self-promote and cherry pick your viewers?

Could have a semi-private feed, where viewing is open but commenting is somewhat restricted.

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#346

Post by thomyorkie »

doktrin wrote: post #137
fideloper wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're (willfully?) ignoring the implication of a private feed: lack of discoverability (finding new followers), for those of us who use Twitter as a source of promotion for our side projects/businesses/careers.

> You're (willfully?) ignoring the implication of a private feed Egads! You saw through my duplicitous scheme! Alternatively, I was simply pointing out that this is - in fact - a feature. To your point, I'm not sure how you could both have audience selection and discoverability. How do you plan to both self-promote and cherry pick your viewers?

Could have a semi-private feed, where viewing is open but commenting is somewhat restricted.

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#347

Post by arjn »

I agree with Stephen. A while ago I came to the conclusion that widespread use of social media such as FB, tumblr and Twitter (especially twitter), has caused a severe degradation in public discourse and conversation.

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#348

Post by arjn »

I agree with Stephen. A while ago I came to the conclusion that widespread use of social media such as FB, tumblr and Twitter (especially twitter), has caused a severe degradation in public discourse and conversation.

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#349

Post by corysama »

Someone wrote: post #336
AJ007 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no friendly way to say it, the mass market are morons. It might be derogatory jokes, but this can also include things like spreading urban legends which were debunked four decades ago. Just like Usenet and countless other online communities, what starts a a small group of fairly privileged and elite eventually degrades in to garbage as the reach increases. This is not so much an overall size issue but a rela…

"There is no friendly way to say it, the mass market are morons." Yes there is, to some extent. The trick is to start with observations, not interpretations. If you ask a really angry guy "Why are you angry?" chances are the reply is "I AM NOT ANGRY" , possibly combined with a punch to your nose. Instead, ask "Why are you slamming with doors?" . That starts the discussion with something that is harder to deny, and do…

> "I don't like the noise of those slamming doors"

I've seen that described as a good way of dealing with children. IMHO, that pre-qualifies it as appropriate for aggressive Internet commenters.

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#350

Post by Eiriksmal »

Doctor_Fegg wrote: post #128
lmm wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anonymity helps a lot, I think. This site isn't completely anonymous but it de-emphasizes usernames such that it's easy to miss them. Explicit policies are the other thing, and strong personal leadership. It's when the moderators become an unaccountable committee that a site starts to go downhill.

Conversely, the best online community I know is our village website, where real names are required - on the basis that you're less likely to be rude to someone who you might meet in the street tomorrow. It's notable that the biggest aggro we have is generally from people who live outside the village and therefore aren't invested in making relationships work. And yes, I do realise it's all a bit Royston Vasey - "a loc…

I grew up on anonymous message boards in small communities, largely the ones surrounding video game music and chiptunes/"micromusic." There was some nasty behavior exhibited and I always figured it was the anonymous pseudonyms. Then I joined Facebook and saw the same thing playing out with real names and, usually, real faces as avatars.

In America, we have a social network called NextDoor that uses aggressive methods to keep outsiders from being able to post in your hyper-local community/neighborhood. Your village's site is the same concept, only maybe without the postcard-mailed address verification step.

It's a great concept. Just neighbors helping each other out, right? I thought that, besides the required real names, most members having profile pictures of their real faces, and many of them having their exact addresses listed on their profile page (oh, Bob lives 8 houses down from me!), would put a halt to the vitriol I saw on Facebook. It hasn't.

It must be something about looking at a picture on a screen instead of a human who's reacting, visibly, in real-time to our hateful words, that lets us do what we do online.

Post reply on HN