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

The fake Facebook profile industry

ici.radio-canada.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 274 posts

Re: The fake Facebook profile industry

#251

Post by bfuller »

redbeard0x0a wrote: post #245
Spearchucker wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I dislike that we have to be so Victorian about sex. It's the social climate we live in, but... Why?" It's religion. It teaches roughly 4 bn† people that sex is dirty, that nakedness is shameful, and that talking about it's acts and/or requisite body parts is taboo. † According to Wikipedia 2.4 billion Christians, and 1.6 billion Muslims.

The shamefulness of sex isn't even from Christianity (or Judaism), but rather a bastardized version of an Organized Religion. There is a whole book in the Bible that is all about sex (Old Testament: [Song of Solomon]( https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Song+of+Solomon... ). The only difference is that sexuality is supposed to be shared and enjoyed in a marriage. Then of course we get (big R) Religion, where…

not to mention there seems to be a pattern across religions of the people in power sexually exploiting the powerless while simultaneously telling people they are wrong for having sex

Re: The fake Facebook profile industry

#252

Post by Spearchucker »

otaviokz wrote: post #240
Spearchucker wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I dislike that we have to be so Victorian about sex. It's the social climate we live in, but... Why?" It's religion. It teaches roughly 4 bn† people that sex is dirty, that nakedness is shameful, and that talking about it's acts and/or requisite body parts is taboo. † According to Wikipedia 2.4 billion Christians, and 1.6 billion Muslims.

If that was true we wouldn't have politicians in UK stepping down for having once touched a woman's knee, or "scandals" about pornography found in a parliament PC.

Brits are less prude than Americans, but way more so than Europeans. Consider how topless sunbathing is ok on the mainland; is met with snickers, cat-calls and crude propositions in the UK; and downright illegal in the US.

Re: The fake Facebook profile industry

#253

Post by bfuller »

mullen wrote: post #102
dopamean wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know plenty of people who despite really, really disliking Donald Trump were very put off by the public discussion of the "pee tape" stuff. They called it kink shaming and said that on its own it shouldn't matter if that is the kind of stuff the President is into. I tend to agree and I think a lot of other sensible people do too.

The Pee Tape is an issue because the Racist President had prostitutes pee on a bed that the Black President slept on. That is what the issue is with the Pee Tape. It is not about kink or anything else, just a racist doing racist stuff.

The "pee tape" has been widely discredited. I'm not pro trump but using the word "racist" three times in two sentences and offering fake news as proof does not help your point, in fact it makes you look silly.

Re: The fake Facebook profile industry

#254

Post by bfuller »

MereInterest wrote: post #236
code_duck wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The climate of judging people for private sexual morality is slowly changing in the United States… Same with marijuana smoking. In the 90s, affairs or past pot smoking were considered a big deal. Since then, we have elected Obama and Trump, who would not have passed moral snuff in the 80s.

I'm curious what you consider to be Obama's moral failings, to say that he would not have passed in the 80s.

Can you imagine if during Reagan's campaign someone leaked nude photos of his mother? Or Bush? Do you really think Evangelicals would have gone for that?

Re: The fake Facebook profile industry

#255

Post by lostboys67 »

throwawayfish wrote: post #32

Using a throwaway account to keep things private Last year I was "sex-torted" on Facebook but not by a ring of French criminals. Instead, it was by someone I had chatted with on the internet years ago (while we were both still teenagers) She had recently gotten divorced and contacted me after many years away. We spoke about intimate things (I never shared intimate images, though she did) and were getting closer and c…

Could you not use the anti stalker laws ?

Re: The fake Facebook profile industry

#256

Post by jerf »

Spearchucker wrote: post #244
vlehto wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that was true, you should see significant differences between religions. And at the same time very little differences within religions. That does not seem to hold. Looks like religions just tend to echo some sort of natural chastity. And that is hardly surprising given how recent things religions are and how old thins STDs are. "Oh you have tingling feeling in your weewee, it's wrath of God!" and you just explaine…

If that was true, you should see significant differences between religions. And at the same time very little differences within religions. Not following you. The Decalogue exists in Judaism, Christianity and in Islam. The Decalogue, and marriage, are indeed extremely recent social constructs. I'm not promoting religion - I despise any form of it. I merely posit religion as being the source of humanity's prudishness (…

"I merely posit religion as being the source of humanity's prudishness (something the rest of nature does not share)."

Nature as a whole may not, but there are species even more monogamous than we are out there. I've sort of played a game of "construct an even remotely sensible sexual strategy no species uses" and so far I've come up empty; everything you can think of, including the closest equivalent to "prudishness", is used out there.

On that note, the "missing link" for you is probably that sex and reproduction are inextricably linked for all non-humans, and for all humans up until very recently. Hangups about sex are not hangups about sex; to put it in quite atheistic terms, they are hangups about whose selfish genes get to win out over whose. Start looking at it that way and it makes a lot more sense than your current model, probably.

Our current reproductive strategies are currently in total chaos because of the extremely recent introduction of effective birth control and I see little reason to believe that we have found the best response to that in what is still effectively just one generation, nor that our current responses will be stable over the generations, because the shock is simply too recent in generational terms. (Not to mention all the near-in-generational-term shocks that may be yet to come, including but not limited to: Effective male-directed birth control, effective sex robots for males, technology to permit cloning without loss, technology to edit genes in eggs or sperm, technology to permit taking children to term out of a biological womb, and in the craziest case, technology to completely digitize people and make biology essentially irrelevant.) In particular, it does not seem particularly clear to me that the idea that "sex is 100% just sex and nobody should be ashamed about anything as long as it is consensual" is going to win out, because that crowd tends to use birth control of one form or another, and therefore, in the next several generations can be expected to be bred out. By some definitions of morality it may well be moral, but it won't be stable.

Re: The fake Facebook profile industry

#257

Post by cr0sh »

tmpz22 wrote: post #131

Throwaway to share a valuable perspective. My dad is a chronic target for scammers, and falls for them at a rate where I can only think it intentional on some level. He'll allow fake MSPs to install programs as root, on the same machine he does banking and legal on. He'll call numbers when strange javascript alerts tell him he has a virus. He'll then pay people to "remove" said malware, giving them full access to the…

> my dad also refuses to write a will - but thats another problem entirely

Another problem, yes - but a huge one all the same. Does your mother have a will?

I went thru this with my parents; my dad had a will but my mom did not. My dad passed away; no biggie. But my mom never probated his will. I didn't find this out until after she passed away - without a will.

I ended up spending quite a bit of money with a lawyer, plus more than a few trips between where I live and where my parents lived (thankfully only a few hundred miles away - but still far enough to be annoying), plus gathering documents, and a whole host of other issues.

It was not fun. The only thing that saved my butt was the fact that before my mom passed, I was able to get power of attorney (as well as medical POA), because she ultimately slipped into dementia (my wife and I caught it in the nick of time, while my mother was still coherent enough). Without that, accounts would have been frozen preventing me from taking care of my mother before she passed, and later the estate, afterward (though I had to go thru a short process to be appointed as executor).

But without a will, and my dad's will not probated, things went slowly. There were fortunately no real major assets involved (a house and a couple of old cars were the only things), plus I was an "only child" - but I still had to go thru the process of no one contesting my dad's will (I did worry that something might come up from his past or from his family), or contesting me as sole heir.

Ultimately it worked out - but it could have turned into more of a logistical nightmare than the merely annoying situation it only turned out to be.

So - I implore you to try to fix this, especially if other family or large assets are involved. If not, and you don't care about things otherwise, you might talk with a lawyer about other options. I am not sure if this is possible, but it might be possible to "reverse disown" your immediate family (mother/father). It would be a very harsh thing to do, but it may be the only thing that keeps you from being dragged down into a potential economic morass.

Re: The fake Facebook profile industry

#258

Post by soundwave106 »

bfuller wrote: post #254
MereInterest wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious what you consider to be Obama's moral failings, to say that he would not have passed in the 80s.

Can you imagine if during Reagan's campaign someone leaked nude photos of his mother? Or Bush? Do you really think Evangelicals would have gone for that?

Muckraking is not a new phenomenon at all, even to this degree. The "nude photos" of Ann Dunham have been debunked as false. [1]

I speculate you are right, though, that less people these days would give a flip about whether one modeled for a underground fetish publication in the late 1960s, even if true.

Unfortunately, there are still a significant amount of people who would have an issue with this. But to me (and probably others), the claims made say nothing about Ann Dunham (even if they were true). But they say a heck of a lot of negative about the authors of what seems to be the primary source of this muckraking [2].

[1] https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/11135/are-these... (link warning, possibly NSFW) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreams_from_My_Real_Father

Re: The fake Facebook profile industry

#259

Post by bfuller »

soundwave106 wrote: post #258
bfuller wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you imagine if during Reagan's campaign someone leaked nude photos of his mother? Or Bush? Do you really think Evangelicals would have gone for that?

Muckraking is not a new phenomenon at all, even to this degree. The "nude photos" of Ann Dunham have been debunked as false. [1] I speculate you are right, though, that less people these days would give a flip about whether one modeled for a underground fetish publication in the late 1960s, even if true. Unfortunately, there are still a significant amount of people who would have an issue with this. But to me (and pr…

You are correct, the photos have been debunked. I should have clarified that. I was making a statement based on how many people believe they are real.

Re: The fake Facebook profile industry

#260

Post by bfuller »

koolba wrote: post #158
fnl wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But in an era when the truth is so easy to distort, what should you believe? What makes you think that in some time before it was easier to find the truth?

Prior to the internet and social media there was less noise, hence a higher signal to noise ratio.

I'm going to disagree with you there. I remember a time when everything written in print was taken as fact. You were treated like a schizophrenic if you suggested a newspaper printed something that wasn't true. Now people routinely fact check from multiple sources.

Sure there may have been more signal to noise ratio, but robber barons had much more influence. Like Bezos and WaPo but EVERY paper.

Post reply on HN