131–140 of 157 posts
Pausing app reviews is annoying for sure, but not allowing new users to authorize their app is really bad. Meaning that new customers can't connect with facebook anymore to access their own data using OAuth! We don't need permissions about your friends, your photos, or whatever. Just accessing their own messages and posts (which is what our customers want to see in our app and pay for). I know they are shell-shocked…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple got this right from the beginning despite years of criticism about the "walled garden". They took arrows for years: all the "open always wins" from the FOSS types, all the press coverage of some app developer crying about App Store rejections or onerous rules. They didn't get it wrong because they know who butters their bread: customers. Developers are rightly prioritized last. Fun to give this Paul Graham essa…
> Apple got this right from the beginning despite years of criticism about the "walled garden". Being a walled garden is independent of privacy. The calendar app on macOS Calendar app allows me to share my calendars in an open format (ICAL) and interoperates with other calendar apps through that specification. It respects my privacy by not sharing anything I don't ask it to without being "walled". Signal is open and…
Facebook knows who butters their bread too, its the advertisers.
You are the product, not the customer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get downvoted on agreeable comments on 4 day old conversations....there's definitely bots or something going on.
A downvote on a 4-day-old comment is unlikely to be a bot, since it's likely that no one will even see it. If you're seeing agreeable comments being downvoted after several days, it's probably just a grouchy misanthrope or two catching up on HN on their day off.
Who's calling me?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get downvoted on agreeable comments on 4 day old conversations....there's definitely bots or something going on.
A downvote on a 4-day-old comment is unlikely to be a bot, since it's likely that no one will even see it. If you're seeing agreeable comments being downvoted after several days, it's probably just a grouchy misanthrope or two catching up on HN on their day off.
Is not possible since they turn downvotes off after 24 hours.
/pedant
As someone who incessantly refreshes HN and spends a fair amount of time on the Comments page, I see no reason why it wouldn't be people seeing new comments to older discussions via the Comments section rather than bots. Although I am a demographic outlier in multiple ways, I cannot possibly be the only person routinely cruising the new comments section.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A downvote on a 4-day-old comment is unlikely to be a bot, since it's likely that no one will even see it. If you're seeing agreeable comments being downvoted after several days, it's probably just a grouchy misanthrope or two catching up on HN on their day off.
A downvote on a 4-day-old comment ... Is not possible since they turn downvotes off after 24 hours. /pedant As someone who incessantly refreshes HN and spends a fair amount of time on the Comments page, I see no reason why it wouldn't be people seeing new comments to older discussions via the Comments section rather than bots. Although I am a demographic outlier in multiple ways, I cannot possibly be the only person…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A downvote on a 4-day-old comment ... Is not possible since they turn downvotes off after 24 hours. /pedant As someone who incessantly refreshes HN and spends a fair amount of time on the Comments page, I see no reason why it wouldn't be people seeing new comments to older discussions via the Comments section rather than bots. Although I am a demographic outlier in multiple ways, I cannot possibly be the only person…
Good point about the new comments feed. I think your parent either misspoke or misunderstood their parent's "[downvoted] comments on 4 day old conversations", which would mean a new (down votable) comment on a thread that started 4 days earlier.
The giveaway, imho, is a downvote on a completely inoffensive comment, combined with certain other increasingly common patterns.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're comparing Apples to oranges (I'm sorry) Apple doesn't have a social network. They also don't rely on advertising and 3rd party data brokering. It's easy for Apple to be the 'good guys' here when they have physical products as their profit generators. FOSS would have worked better in the Facebook case too as people and developers would know/discover a) where their data is and b) what risks it faces
I swear there is some kind of downvote bot on HN - reasonable posts are often down-voted grey within the first few minutes (like this one's parent), and then eventually climb up to a reasonable place, when, what feels like, the humans have had time to see it - has this been noticed or discussed before? I'd be curious to know if some accounts are serial downvoters, especially as soon as comments go up - does HN look f…
Between those two facts, I think downvote bots aren't a terribly likely explanation. You would need to establish an account with downvote privileges and then hope the mods don't revoke its downvote privilege in short order. It seems like a lot of work for probably not much pay off.
That doesn't mean there can't be downvote bots, but it just seems to me a much more likely explanation is people cruising the Comments page.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's still not the point though. How do I openly share social information with some people without sharing it with everyone? These principles are in conflict. I did some work way back when FB got popular on the idea of using probabilistic data structures (ie, Bloom filters) to store contact lists, which could then be shared so that (in theory) only people who knew the same people would also know that they knew them…
We've accepted trusted computing as a society, many phones have a secure element now, and I think this can migrate down to that level. That's the real trade-off: we reclaim ownership of our data with knowledge of where it goes and who's using it for what, but that means a full embrace of DRM (something our community has typically been against.)
I agree that could work though.
Our app which has only `email` permissions is still allowing new users to sign up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even in that case, he and his family will for a long time have the political benefit of deciding how the money will be spent. And political advantages usually translate into economical advantages, so it can also be viewed as a scheme at some level.
I don't think this cynicism is warranted. No matter how much benefit you think the goodwill of others is towards you for giving away your money, is dwarfed by the benefit of having billions of dollars . If the political benefit really outweighed the costs, then every single billionaire would be doing the same thing, purely out of selfish interest. How many of them are?