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

101–110 of 122 posts

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

#101

Post by slededit »

sh_tinh_hair wrote: post #81
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In the 70s when police officers carried a baton and a revolver you'd encounter a lot more talk, diplomacy and second chances. In the age of terrorism and tazers that has become rarer in my experience. Police officers need to have an 'edge' that is missing in normal people. Normalizing their experience with people and re-humanizing them isn't the best idea for their career and longevity in this day and age. Let them b…

That was dependent on who you were and the location. A long haired hippy was not getting many second chances in the south. Watch the movie Easy Rider as an example.

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

#102

Post by ajeet_dhaliwal »

In the games industry dealing with abusive online players can get demoralising too. In a lobbby and someone has black sounding voice? Abuse. A woman's voice? Abuse. It becomes an ethical and business issue because these are paying customers on services like Xbox Live and PlayStation Plus. There a ToS and abusive people are a minority but in gaming it can be a large minority. Developers do write algorithms to help deal with these people (won't go into details intentionally) but without outright banning them its not always full proof.

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

#103

Post by lacampbell »

jessaustin wrote: post #54
Brakenshire wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

We don't allow bakeries to choose which weddings they will cater

I think it's incredibly entitled to want the government to punish private businesses for refusing to do a job. Not everyone has to agree with your ideas or provide you a service. Getting the state involved to literally force a small business to make a cake is an insane, authoritarian over-reaction. The fact that it seems OK to you because you have no problem with gay marriage (neither do I, btw) is really besides the point.

By all means - boycott the bakery. Call them stupid for the bad PR and lack of work they'll get for not making the cake. But coercing them under the threat of force to do a job they don't want to do? Absolutely insane, and I can't agree to it.

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

#104

Post by anonnyj »

ManFromUranus wrote: post #88
_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…

Isn't reddit already the paid version of reddit?

The key difference is that you can still read/post without ever paying.

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

#105

Post by wallace_f »

jessaustin wrote: post #54
Brakenshire wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

>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.

Excellent point. It is very well worth noting that pragmatically speaking, current law treats diversity > free speech, as is illustrated in your example.

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

#106

Post by wallace_f »

lacampbell wrote: post #103
jessaustin wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

We don't allow bakeries to choose which weddings they will cater I think it's incredibly entitled to want the government to punish private businesses for refusing to do a job. Not everyone has to agree with your ideas or provide you a service. Getting the state involved to literally force a small business to make a cake is an insane, authoritarian over-reaction. The fact that it seems OK to you because you have no pr…

I agree with you. I don't know why or how it came to be that diversity is the greatest virtue in Western society and every White Western country is being forced to take in so many that Whites will be a minority. Meanwhile an educated Chinese or Japanese citizen has an incredibly difficult challenge in legally migrating to America or Western Europe. What the fuck is going on here? I don't like bigotry, but this just doesn't seem right.

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

#107

Post by jessaustin »

lacampbell wrote: post #103
jessaustin wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

We don't allow bakeries to choose which weddings they will cater I think it's incredibly entitled to want the government to punish private businesses for refusing to do a job. Not everyone has to agree with your ideas or provide you a service. Getting the state involved to literally force a small business to make a cake is an insane, authoritarian over-reaction. The fact that it seems OK to you because you have no pr…

I sympathize with that point of view, and I think e.g. discriminatory preachers and wedding photographers are protected by the 1st Amendment (and rightly so). However I find myself fairly indifferent on the topic of wedding cakes (and gay marriage, for that matter). Baking a cake is not a religious act; it is a mundane service provided in exchange for payment. No one has objected to baking e.g. Super Bowl party cakes, even though those don't honor St. Paul the Judgmental Ass either. Lots of other mundane service providers, like mechanics, taxi drivers, grocers, etc. might like to reject the custom of those of particular races or religions, but we have laws against that too. There are well-known reasons for those laws; we don't live in an ahistorical libertopia.

Still, yours is an salutary consistency. My original statement wasn't directed at you but rather at the sort of SV person who "boycotts" Indiana and North Carolina but still talks about the "rights" of a social media service.

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

#108

Post by nostrebored »

jessaustin wrote: post #83
nostrebored wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Studies are all fairly conclusive: indulging in watching porn related to your paraphilia makes you want to act on that paraphilia. Suggesting otherwise is completely absurd.

Would you care to point us to these studies?

A cursory google about the catharsis myth should do the trick. Not terribly invested in convincing you.

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

#109

Post by [deleted] »

lacampbell wrote: post #103
jessaustin wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

We don't allow bakeries to choose which weddings they will cater I think it's incredibly entitled to want the government to punish private businesses for refusing to do a job. Not everyone has to agree with your ideas or provide you a service. Getting the state involved to literally force a small business to make a cake is an insane, authoritarian over-reaction. The fact that it seems OK to you because you have no pr…

[deleted]

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

#110

Post by [deleted] »

jessaustin wrote: post #107
lacampbell wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't allow bakeries to choose which weddings they will cater I think it's incredibly entitled to want the government to punish private businesses for refusing to do a job. Not everyone has to agree with your ideas or provide you a service. Getting the state involved to literally force a small business to make a cake is an insane, authoritarian over-reaction. The fact that it seems OK to you because you have no pr…

I sympathize with that point of view, and I think e.g. discriminatory preachers and wedding photographers are protected by the 1st Amendment (and rightly so). However I find myself fairly indifferent on the topic of wedding cakes (and gay marriage, for that matter). Baking a cake is not a religious act; it is a mundane service provided in exchange for payment. No one has objected to baking e.g. Super Bowl party cakes…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN