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

Jack White bans phones at gigs for “100% human experience”

nme.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 545 posts

Re: Jack White bans phones at gigs for “100% human experience”

#261

Post by matwood »

bonesss wrote: post #156
donretag wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of us old enough remember that cameras were often banned from venues, even non professional ones. It wasn't until camera enabled phones became popular that this rule was dropped. I have no idea why someone would want to watch a performance from behind a screen.

Why do people drop buttloads of money getting to the Grand Canyon and then spend their time behind a viewfinder taking landscape pictures that are infinitely worse than you'll find online or purchased from pros, ensuring they spend less (and sometimes no), time enjoying the scenery and environment?

I don't know the time to hike down and back up at the Grand Canyon, but I can assure you there is plenty of time to take photos and take in the scenery.

As an amateur photographer, looking for creative shots that I can't just find online lead me to see/find much more interesting areas when hiking/traveling/sight seeing.

Re: Jack White bans phones at gigs for “100% human experience”

#262

Post by orbitur »

rapnie wrote: post #232
davb wrote: post #87

I experienced the Yondr phone prison last night for the first time (at a Chris Rock show). While I detest people being disruptive with their phones, I don’t think this is the right solution. From a practical standpoint, it took a lot longer to get into and out of the venue when phones had to be locked up. Checking your phone when you pop out to the toilet meant waiting in a queue to have your phone unlocked, and bein…

i survived the era before mobile.. it wasn't that scary :)

You probably also survived an era without baby monitors. Doesn't mean life isn't unconditionally better with them.

Re: Jack White bans phones at gigs for “100% human experience”

#263

Post by rconti »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #9

FAN! FUCKING! TASTIC! Sorry, I'm aware that yelling is not appreciated, but this is a really cool idea. There's hardly anything more annoying at gigs than those dunces in front of you recording some ultra-shitty video that nobody ever looks at. Those small screens are a real distraction and phones also don't really serve as substitutes for lighters used, when Led Zeppelin started with Stairway to Heaven. A rant about…

I'm sorry you choose to be annoyed at this. Most/many of us simply don't care about things that don't impact us.

Re: Jack White bans phones at gigs for “100% human experience”

#264

Post by excalibur »

jasonthevillain wrote: post #188

I was about to buy Jack White tickets today and... I think I'll pass. Don't get me wrong. I've seen several shows, including Jack White, that politely ask the audience to keep their phones away for part or all of the show. That's fine with me and it basically works. But as much as I'd like to see Jack White again, I really don't enjoy being treated like a child.

As much as I enjoy being treated like a child, I really don't want to see Jack White.

Re: Jack White bans phones at gigs for “100% human experience”

#265

Post by calebegg »

salvar wrote: post #260
Zak wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the event of an emergency, this is a really bad idea. How difficult is it to defeat the Yondr cases with mechanical force? I'd normally suggest a pocketknife, but places like that probably search for and confiscate those as well. It doesn't look like the locking mechanism on those cases would be all that strong, such that most people could pull it apart with their hands if they made a real effort.

After they all gather their locked phones from a small confined area in an emergency?

The phones aren't kept anywhere; they go in a pouch, which you keep.

Re: Jack White bans phones at gigs for “100% human experience”

#266

Post by Zak »

salvar wrote: post #260
Zak wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the event of an emergency, this is a really bad idea. How difficult is it to defeat the Yondr cases with mechanical force? I'd normally suggest a pocketknife, but places like that probably search for and confiscate those as well. It doesn't look like the locking mechanism on those cases would be all that strong, such that most people could pull it apart with their hands if they made a real effort.

After they all gather their locked phones from a small confined area in an emergency?

It appears that how Yondr works is you put your phone in a locking pouch, which you then keep with you. Looking at photographs of said pouch, I think most people could forcibly defeat the latch mechanism with their bare hands.

Re: Jack White bans phones at gigs for “100% human experience”

#267

Post by salvar »

Zak wrote: post #266
salvar wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After they all gather their locked phones from a small confined area in an emergency?

It appears that how Yondr works is you put your phone in a locking pouch, which you then keep with you. Looking at photographs of said pouch, I think most people could forcibly defeat the latch mechanism with their bare hands.

Ah, I should have followed closer. Nevermind.

Re: Jack White bans phones at gigs for “100% human experience”

#268

Post by gknoy »

icebraining wrote: post #234
staplers wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. This should be a policy and etiquette issue not a forcible restriction of human communication. Imagine your teenage child attends a concert and needs to call you to escape a dangerous situation. There are so many situations of nuance that a blanket ban disrupts in a negative way. This is a very shallow way to deal with a complicated issue.

needs to call you to escape a dangerous situation Can you describe a scenario for me? Because I'm having a very hard time imagining one where the teenager is immediate peril (otherwise they could just unlock the phone in the next room) yet the best person to help them is not in the building. Maybe it's unfair, but it just sounds like helicopter parenting to me.

Let's imagine that my child is at a party or other social engagement and they want deniable reason to escape. [0] There may be excessive peer pressure, illegal activity, or any other pre-arranged reason they may need to bail on something without incurring the loss of face that could be socially devastating.

If I have my phone, they can text me with some pre-arranged message ("x"), and I will feign an emergency and get them out of the situation ASAP (or arrange for a friend to do similarly).

Sure, they could just leave (or get a taxi?), but having a GTFO script lets them exit a situation without the social losses of having been perceived as "too scared" to cave to peer pressure. They can say, "My dad just called and said something major just came up, and he's on his way to get me. Yeah, I know, parents, right? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯"

If their phone is locked up (or mine) there's a lot more friction to that interaction.

0: https://bertfulks.com/2017/02/23/x-plan-giving-your-kids-a-w...

Re: Jack White bans phones at gigs for “100% human experience”

#269

Post by salvar »

calebegg wrote: post #265
salvar wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After they all gather their locked phones from a small confined area in an emergency?

The phones aren't kept anywhere; they go in a pouch, which you keep.

Yeah I missed that part somehow. My bad.

Re: Jack White bans phones at gigs for “100% human experience”

#270

Post by Jach »

kakarot wrote: post #227
foolfoolz wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i think the whole point is not being able to check your phone adds to the human experience

What is the "human experience"?

For some people going an hour without checking their phone is like going into the hyperbolic time chamber for 10 seconds.
Post reply on HN