Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: What are unintended consequences of new tech you've noticed?

news.ycombinator.com

101–110 of 387 posts

Re: Ask HN: What are unintended consequences of new tech you've noticed?

#101
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So life was better before google—when there was still the risk of wasting time and money, and only limited means of research?

Also the constant comparison... and constant advertisements convincing you how you should be. We used to be able to just live and commercials were contained in commercial breaks and billboards. Now the content we consume is mixed with commercials in imperceptable manners.

> Now the content we consume is mixed with commercials in imperceptable manners.

Product placement goes back to the 19th century. Remember the candy brand in E.T.? It was chosen because the company paid $1M to get them eaten by the short green man. Then there was payola, wherein the music you heard was actually a commercial paid by the record company.

Re: Ask HN: What are unintended consequences of new tech you've noticed?

#103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm guessing you want me to say Google. But I'd actually use Amazon. Or even just walking into a good book store and reading a few! What have you got to lose?

I was thinking that when buying books, people often take notice of recommendations from Amazon or random sites through Google or discussion sites like this one, but a recommendation from someone I know or interact with is preferable when I can get it. And it's not necessarily preferable because of a higher quality recommendation: a recommendation from a person implies some degree of meaningful interaction with them t…

Well, pre-internet, my city had three bookstores. None of the people working there read anything besides the popular trash; they couldn't tell you who wrote The Metamorphosis without looking it up. The store selection was based on catalogue recommendations by the publishers.

I think many easily turned to the web for recommendations because as wholesome these kind & knowledgeable book and movie human recommenders are, they simply weren't available to a lot of us.

Re: Ask HN: What are unintended consequences of new tech you've noticed?

#104
post #5

Something I've noticed a huge amount over the last couple of years in particular - no one has any change for the homeless / those on the streets / those collecting for charity. Contactless has been a 'thing' for a while now, but it really seemed to kick up a gear when phones and watches had wallets and the buses and a decent amount of restaurants went 'card only'.

Having been almost 100% cashless for the last decade it's only a matter of time before homeless people use contactless payments as an attempt to defeat my excuses.

You're going to have to start saying "I don't have that app"

https://probonoaustralia.com.au/news/2018/08/barcode-donatio...

Re: Ask HN: What are unintended consequences of new tech you've noticed?

#105
I do not know how to start with this. Reading through the comments, however, is enjoyable :)

my short and random list of less important things:

a) annoyingly difficult to leave a window slightly open on an otherwise locked vehicle (live in desert).

b) lack of control over raw data on instrumentation due to gui and locked code. impacts science...wherein people are not field and not CS.

c) wanton disregard for self-image due to perceived shield of teh webs. vast majority of us do not know how exposed we are.

d) total collapse of previously accepted informational authority.

e) we need societal help, but we dont know why or how.

Re: Ask HN: What are unintended consequences of new tech you've noticed?

#106
For me, tech has turned into a crutch when I don't know what to do. I've caught myself in the middle of automatic behavior and it's a bit scary - opening Reddit or HN, closing it because I've already read everything on the front page, then opening it again a few seconds later without even thinking about it.

I wonder what I would be doing without it. Creating art? Going out? I'd have to do something. It's something I want to explore more. Maybe I'll schedule just an hour each day where every device is turned off.

Re: Ask HN: What are unintended consequences of new tech you've noticed?

#107

The biggest societal altering impacts may be in terms of dating and reproduction. This has major cultural consequences. * There’s more than 1 reason for this, but approach patterns have changed. Men approaching women in real life is now rarer than it was in favor of online meeting through Apps. * Many relationships now happen based on online dating. In a sense, a series of algorithms are already dictating human repro…

Dating apps have changed things, but wow this is a super shallow take.

> Approach patterns have changed. Men approaching women in real life is now rarer than it was in favor of online meeting through Apps.

Absolutely, because often women don't like being approached in person and find it creepy. Bars and clubs still absolutely have dating approaches. Also, we've gotten past the point that men are expected to make the first move in heterosexual encounters, and that's only going to become more true.

> Many relationships now happen based on online dating. In a sense, a series of algorithms are already dictating human reproduction.

Sure, but there's also a ton of people that you interact with on these apps to even express interest. I don't think the apps are actually having that much of an effect on who people pick, they are just making finding people you're interested easier.

> Before Apps, people mainly shacked up with equivalent looking people at a fairly young age, but today women have access to the best men in town they’d otherwise never have a chance to meet.

Why is that not a good thing? It also goes the other ways, I'm not sure why you're focusing on women looking for men

> The dating marketplace is pretty skewed with roughly 80% of women chasing after 20% of men.

I think the real issue is the statistical quality of the genders. We have a 50/50 balance, so there's no reason it should be skewed one directionally like this naturally. I think that a lot of shitty behavior masculinity has historically been is getting called out now, and toxic masculinity is only just getting called out. The answer to being in that 20% (and expanding it as a result) is not something outside of people's control, it's just hard. Toxic masculinity negatively affects all genders.

> Elite men can get dozens of sex partners. Women can usually get sex, but not commitment from lots of men they like.

This just feels like stereotyping without reason.

> Average or subpar men are essentially invisible in the dating market as evidenced by declining rates of sex by most people. This causes a lot of problems in society as many men drop out and exist as gamers in a dull existence or turn to drugs due to lack of ability to find a connection.

This feels far more related to ethical/political/societal beliefs than apps. The only thing apps are doing is making the process more efficient. Looks are not everything, personality and interests have not gone away from dating because of apps. While everyone loves to talk about Tinder, there are far more than aren't hookup focused than are.

> Alpha males are enjoying life shacking up with the women all chasing after them. Women while away their younger years in careers and chasing after unrealistic men before settling at an older age and maybe having 1 kid.

People have been having children later and less long before apps, I again don't see how this follows. Ironically this is caused by a cultural shift and being reflected in technology, not the other way around.

> As far as cultural impacts go, can’t go bigger than the consequences to reproduction changing.

The only thing that happened was that finding a more ideal mate become more efficient, ever so slightly, and you have a larger natural pool. Everything else is cultural here.

Re: Ask HN: What are unintended consequences of new tech you've noticed?

#108
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn't lead to free exchange of ideas and values, it has created polarized societies Technology created polarized society? Before internet search, we were better educated and understood each other better?

Newspapers were at least, historically at least in the 20th century, were expected to inform and keep a separation between opinion and news. They clearly had a political slant, but they couldn't just ignore facts that they found inconvenient, or only mention them in hit pieces meant to discredit them. Exceptions to this, like Yellow Journalism and Hearst's use of his papers for personal and political ends were at lea…

> Newspapers were at least, historically at least in the 20th century, were expected to inform and keep a separation between opinion and news. They clearly had a political slant, but they couldn't just ignore facts that they found inconvenient, or only mention them in hit pieces meant to discredit them. Exceptions to this, like Yellow Journalism and Hearst's use of his papers for personal and political ends were at least considered failures of journalism in hindsight.

This is part of the myth making that took hold after the New Deal, when the Establishment decided how things were going to be and made it so. If you have licensing powers over broadcast media you can use this to ensure that discussion stays inside the bounds of discourse you deem acceptable. Because these local media companies often had both broadcast and publishing arms they had a strong incentive not to piss off the regulators who could take away their broadcasting licenses.

This long period of manufactured consent lasted until the people who realised it was artificial retired or died and then technology allowed more diversity of opinion. Cable and talk radio allowed many, many more voices to be heard and expanded the Overton window, bringing the US back to normal politics where people really, really hate each other unless there’s an external enemy to hate more.

In the immediate post colonial period Aaron Burr killed Hamilton in a duel. In 1856 Preston Brooks beat Charles Sumner with a cane on the floor of Congress. Andrew Jackson was held in much the same esteem by large swathes of the US population as Trump is now. In the 1960s there were over 3,000 domestic bombings and riots and demonstrations aplenty.

The media being hyper partisan is not new. What’s new is how obvious it is. It took decades for Walter Duranty’s lies about the Holodmor, the Ukrainian Holocaust to be exposed, and the Pulitzer Prize Committee still hasn’t revoked it. This for a cover up of millions of deaths in the pages of the NYT.

The prestige press is no more unbiased than Mother Jones or Breitbart.

https://deadline.com/2016/11/shocked-by-trump-new-york-times...

> For starters, it’s important to accept that the New York Times has always — or at least for many decades — been a far more editor-driven, and self-conscious, publication than many of those with which it competes. Historically, the Los Angeles Times, where I worked twice, for instance, was a reporter-driven, bottom-up newspaper. Most editors wanted to know, every day, before the first morning meeting: “What are you hearing? What have you got?”

> It was a shock on arriving at the New York Times in 2004, as the paper’s movie editor, to realize that its editorial dynamic was essentially the reverse. By and large, talented reporters scrambled to match stories with what internally was often called “the narrative.” We were occasionally asked to map a narrative for our various beats a year in advance, square the plan with editors, then generate stories that fit the pre-designated line.

Post reply on HN