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

The Human Toll of Protecting the Internet from the Worst of Humanity

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 122 posts

Re: The Human Toll of Protecting the Internet from the Worst of Humanity

#51

Post by mindslight »

Brakenshire wrote: post #37
drdaeman wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[Edit: parent was edited, I was replying to a house example] Not exactly. The comparision doesn't account for scale, and in case of largest platforms (like Facebook) it's more like "leave our country bloc"... except for such comparisions are probably a bad idea, because there are always too many differences that break them. ----- But parent comment has a point anyway. Political censorship had (ab)used moderation syst…

Yes, apologies for that, I changed it a few minutes after posting to be more constructive/reasonable, the original comment was flamebait on reflection. Facebook shouldn't be some kind of universal substrate on the internet anyway. Alternatives should be encouraged, and people can make their own choice about the kind of environment they want to spend their time in. If you're saying that's impossible, and facebook is s…

> Facebook shouldn't be some kind of universal substrate on the internet anyway. Alternatives should be encouraged, and people can make their own choice about the kind of environment they want to spend their time in.

Wholeheartedly agree that this is the ultimate resolution, but in order to actually get to that point we need a fundamentally different software architecture than the current centralized approach of "the web".

> Private people and organizations are well within their rights to set their own rules

Sure, but that does not imply that it isn't censorship. It's just within their rights to censor.

> If you're saying that's impossible, and facebook is some sort of utility, or common carrier, then you can have rights which are enforced upon the space.

It's not impossible, but it is Facebook's goal to have this level of necessity in people's lives. So, by their own framework, it does make sense to talk about rights on their service. The purpose of this isn't to incite government action of enforcing such rights, but to keep users' and devs' perspectives clear about the lack of freedom on centralized platforms.

Re: The Human Toll of Protecting the Internet from the Worst of Humanity

#53

Post by EGreg »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #11
kartan wrote: post #4

> constant exposure to the worst of humanity on a daily basis takes an undeniable toll. This is one of the troubles police officers find in their daily work. When they are not part of the society where they work it is hard for them to empathize, as they just see the worst parts of that society. In the police case also to have members of the police that are part of the communities they serve. But counseling also is ne…

This is exactly why I wish we'd just hire more police so the existing ones can spend a shift a week doing positive community work. Helping folks, getting to know the 'normal' folks. This is when I get to the problem: I don't know what exactly I'd ask them to do, but it would be things like: Free (or very low cost) 2-hour windows of child care on the weekends to give parents a stress break, delivering hot food to elde…

You don't know? Here are some easy to implement ideas:

http://www.positivetickets.com/

Re: The Human Toll of Protecting the Internet from the Worst of Humanity

#54

Post by jessaustin »

Brakenshire wrote: post #31
wallace_f wrote: post #25

Political censorship cleverly wrapped in a much more palatable package delivered to you for your acceptance.

Yes, in the same way that not inviting a neo-nazi or an anarcho-syndicalist, or a vegan, to talk on your radio programme is political censorship. Private people and organizations are well within their rights to set their own rules. If you want no moderation that's your choice, go to 4chan or a similar site.

Private people and organizations are well within their rights to set their own rules.

Aren't we tired of saying this by now? That's fine, everyone can express her own views on Facebook, unless one is a Kurd who would like to say something about Kemal Atatürk? Should the Kurds have to create their own Facebook? Who's next, Trump voters? Do we really want them to sink further into their filter bubble?

At some point a service offered to the public must actually serve the public. We don't allow bakeries to choose which weddings they will cater. If you'll bake a wedding cake for $200, then you have to get baking, even if the happy couple with $200 are two dudes or whatever.

Re: The Human Toll of Protecting the Internet from the Worst of Humanity

#55

Post by Spooky23 »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #11
kartan wrote: post #4

> constant exposure to the worst of humanity on a daily basis takes an undeniable toll. This is one of the troubles police officers find in their daily work. When they are not part of the society where they work it is hard for them to empathize, as they just see the worst parts of that society. In the police case also to have members of the police that are part of the communities they serve. But counseling also is ne…

This is exactly why I wish we'd just hire more police so the existing ones can spend a shift a week doing positive community work. Helping folks, getting to know the 'normal' folks. This is when I get to the problem: I don't know what exactly I'd ask them to do, but it would be things like: Free (or very low cost) 2-hour windows of child care on the weekends to give parents a stress break, delivering hot food to elde…

Many do. That's why you have organizations like PAL where police do just this.

Re: The Human Toll of Protecting the Internet from the Worst of Humanity

#57

Post by wott »

bitlax wrote: post #24
_callcc wrote: post #20

I think we'll see more stratification on the internet in the coming years with subscriptions, etc. There's probably even a market right now for a paid version of reddit or HN. The sad fact is that the internet has gradually become a shithole as the entirety of humanity has joined in. Twitter, for example, is being dragged down by low quality user accounts that add nothing but noise. It's actively hurting the stock pr…

> The sad fact is that the internet has gradually become a shithole as the entirety of humanity has joined in. In what year do you feel the Internet was better than it is now?

Pre- or beside-Internet, the days of FidoNet; the days of Usenet before its decadence; the days before Web 2.0; the days before business shifted from traditional forms to Internet; the days before smartphones, etc.

There's no clear point, but when it was loosely "reserved" to a certain "elite" (financial, technical, cultural, scientific) which showed genuine interest in it, it was in a much better condition than now. It sounds terrible to say that, but as the masses joined in, the media dumbed down and what it carries dumbed down as well. Another step towards dumbness happened when kids were massively allowed to enter the arena. Again, this sounds harsh, but that's the pitiful reality of humankind. And businesses and capitalism know very well how to encourage the most vile behaviours in order to make more profit.

It also shifted from a confidence & collaboration mode to insecurity & defiance. Now it's "oh my God how this protocol / library is insecure, how could one design such a stupid thing?" Well, I am not sure who is most stupid.

Remember when a 'troll' was just someone who was just pulling a prank teasing a few other people? Well now the same word means a stupid, racist, hateful, mean guy who drowns out a forum or a site with his feces and whose attacks impact real life of its victims.

Which brings me to tell that another big difference is that when Internet was disconnected from real life, it was much better. That was a big turning point too. You used to be able to write everything under your real name and not fear some acquaintance, school mate, employer or any other peeping Tom or enemy would search for it.

So there's not a single year to point out, but during the last 15 (20?) years a series of steps gradually turned Internet in the shithole (and supermarket) it is now. And none of those steps was positive.

Re: The Human Toll of Protecting the Internet from the Worst of Humanity

#58

Post by stephancoral »

village-idiot wrote: post #39
losteverything wrote: post #28

The internet is a voluntary vice used by some to earn a living. It's not food, shelter, clothing AND the internet. Staying away from the internet is the next health craze.

Maybe. It's also so crucial to so many careers that you need to be in a pretty special place to pull that off constantly, along with all the money it takes to entertain yourself sans internet.

A library card is free in many cities.

Re: The Human Toll of Protecting the Internet from the Worst of Humanity

#59

Post by severine »

lsd5you wrote: post #44
losteverything wrote: post #28

The internet is a voluntary vice used by some to earn a living. It's not food, shelter, clothing AND the internet. Staying away from the internet is the next health craze.

Couldn't agree more. It is more like we need to protect humanity from the internet.

Yeah, let only the powerful use it /s

Re: The Human Toll of Protecting the Internet from the Worst of Humanity

#60

Post by mr_spothawk »

jedanbik wrote: post #52

Can we get a collective thank you for the moderators on this website? It's a hard job with lots of nuance-against-shouting-people, and now has probably been the hardest time to be a moderator in the history of the internet.

+1.

I'm constantly delighted (and informed/encouraged/challenged/etc...) by the content available to me through this community, and by the hard work of its moderators.

Thanks.

Post reply on HN