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

The Crime of Curiosity

piratewires.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 223 posts

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#121

Post by exporectomy »

drumhead wrote: post #100

Youtube are a private company and as such can publish or not who or whatever they want. They arent obligated to publish anything. There are video platforms that however will, so he can use those instead. But I think the complaint in not rooted in Youtubes behaviour as much as it may be in the authors desire to be seen by as many people as possible. The ability to seek attention is much diminished on other platforms.

Why are people still repeating that private company nonsense? Your same argument was used against civil rights back when private companies were allowed to discriminate based on race. It's an appeal to the existing law and implies you believe the law is correct by default - whatever it might be - and needs no justification.

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#122

Post by marcosdumay »

amrocha wrote: post #61
nradov wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's such an arrogant, condescending statement. You're assuming that the general population is too stupid to be trusted with unfiltered information. But theories aren't dangerous. Actions are dangerous.

I think social media has proven pretty conclusively that giving the general population unfiltered information and enabling everyone to promote whatever they want is in fact a terrible idea

How so? Social media only started being a societal problem after it became heavily filtered.

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#123

Post by marcosdumay »

ve55 wrote: post #27

The potential costs of systemically removing correct but controversial/fringe content are extremely detrimental to scientific progress in general. Sure, we remove thousands of obviously false and likely harmful posts, and there are cases to be made for why that may be good, but sometimes hidden within those thousands of posts was something that may have had a tremendously positive effect, but yet could not be separat…

> because we're already banned from questioning a lot of areas of science on most major tech platforms

Or, in other words, those platforms have banned science. It doesn't matter what exactly their dogma is, science can not happen there.

This may not be a problem, we don't need every single platform to support science. But it's not aligned with those platforms PR.

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#124

Post by reginold »

RIMR wrote: post #81
reginold wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are surprised and or angered by this because they aren't as clear on the law as you are. It's understandable, and they need help to better understand how it works. With that in mind, got any other services that would be replacements?

Why do people always ask "What other privately owned service I don't have control over can I use?" instead of asking "How can I make my own platform that I have control over?". Peertube, off the top of my head, would be the exact tool for the job.

Most interested in open source, decentralized, self hosted. Thread here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28558599

Come join!

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#125

Post by reginold »

djoldman wrote: post #79
reginold wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are surprised and or angered by this because they aren't as clear on the law as you are. It's understandable, and they need help to better understand how it works. With that in mind, got any other services that would be replacements?

You're right and I posted in frustration :( Other services... Well I think you can still view YouTube without an account. As for publishing, Vimeo?

It happens to me as well, appreciate your thoughtfulness. Vimeo is still the same deal - same weaknesses as YouTube, just less popular.

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#126

Post by LeonB »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #106
kbenson wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is censorship, it's just that not all censorship is bad, and people should care more about the details than that the definition fits for a word they have knee-jerk reactions to.

"Censorship" always has a context. When a government censors, it is (generally) saying "You may not say or print this in our society". When a parent censors a child, they are generally saying "You may not say this within our family". When a particular social group censors a member, they are saying "You cannot say this within our social group". When a social media platform censors someone, they are saying "You may not…

The parent and the government ones are similar because the censored individual can’t easily switch government or switch parents.

(And when the social media platform (google) owns not just the video site but also the search engine and the browser - it starts to move closer to the government/parent example.)

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#127

Post by equality_1138 »

foerbert wrote: post #120
Barrin92 wrote: post #62

The author conflates two things. The right to biohack at home and Youtube's alleged obligation to let him broadcast his material. The first one is okay, as long as we're not talking about experiments that may be dangerous to the public. (which he seems to categorically reject for some reason, while home made bioterrorism is a real threat), the second one just doesn't follow at all. Youtube has no realistic way to tel…

I didn't get the impression the author alleged YouTube had any obligation to let him broadcast his material. He even mentioned understanding why YouTube would be wary of his content, and mostly was unhappy that YouTube did not put some of their profits into being able to discriminate between home-made science and the quacks exploiting the vulnerable. But none of this article made me even think the author believed You…

Exactly. I read this as a much broader critique of the scientific community. As YouTube is seen as a mass media company, it's not hard to accept their content decisions. He didn't fight it. I also believe any company that markets themselves as tech industry should not be this cagey about their relationship to science. It's an ethical question not a legal one. Jumping to the legal aspect seems like a big misunderstanding of the piece.

Also funny to question whether the guy is acting on financial incentives to promote his ideas. Of course he does.

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#128

Post by angelzen »

andyxor wrote: post #111

you cant even ask a question these days without being canceled. This is probably the most unscientific timeline we are living in now where everything is politicized and questioning the "experts" is considered sacrilege. Even Nicki Minaj is being harassed for doubting the party line https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/nicki-minaj-says-shes...

During the American Golden Era people were free to take whatever position they wanted separately for each individual issue. In 2021, if someone takes position X on an issue, one is expected to take position X on all issues, or suffer social consequences for dissent.

> Using a broad set of issues from the American National Election Studies, we identify rapid growth in the correlations between political attitudes from 2004 to 2016. This emergence of issue alignment is most pronounced within the economic and civil rights domains, challenging the notion that current “culture wars” are grounded in moral issues.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00490...

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#129

Post by azirbel »

Barrin92 wrote: post #62

The author conflates two things. The right to biohack at home and Youtube's alleged obligation to let him broadcast his material. The first one is okay, as long as we're not talking about experiments that may be dangerous to the public. (which he seems to categorically reject for some reason, while home made bioterrorism is a real threat), the second one just doesn't follow at all. Youtube has no realistic way to tel…

What I got from the article was that system as a whole is consistently throwing roadblocks in the way of experimental/small-time science. The author focuses on YouTube, but also cites a government investigation as well as deplatforming by PayPal, Square, LinkedIn, Amazon, Facebook, and Patreon. These are private companies, with their own policies, but private companies are part of the system too. So I don't think the concerns are conflated.

Regarding YouTube, I think the author would agree with you:

> The problem is big tech companies making billions of dollars aren’t capable of doing basic analysis of scientific work, or hiring a team that can, which is why the best they’re capable of on the pandemic front, for example, is attaching a link to the CDC website on every post that mentions “Covid” or “vaccine.”

I don't think we need to assign blame to YouTube here, but it's still the reality, and we should consider what it means for access to science.

Maybe we (as a society) should in fact keep experimental science off YouTube. (I don't agree, but I can see an argument.) Even in that case, the decisions made here are disproportionate. The author starts the article by describing how he's banned from even logging in, not just uploading; he ends by saying how he has to worry about being locked out of his email. I agree with the author that we're in dangerous territory by giving companies unilateral control over this process, even if we do it for good reasons.

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#130

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

LeonB wrote: post #126
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Censorship" always has a context. When a government censors, it is (generally) saying "You may not say or print this in our society". When a parent censors a child, they are generally saying "You may not say this within our family". When a particular social group censors a member, they are saying "You cannot say this within our social group". When a social media platform censors someone, they are saying "You may not…

The parent and the government ones are similar because the censored individual can’t easily switch government or switch parents. (And when the social media platform (google) owns not just the video site but also the search engine and the browser - it starts to move closer to the government/parent example.)

I'll grant both points. But ...

We traditionally grant children less rights (at least as far as self-determination) than adults, so this aspect is really in keeping with broader cultural norms.

And sure, the google.com/YT/chrome empire does move closer to the government example, but how much closer is a matter of some considerable debate. I'd argue not by much, but I know others would disagree.

Post reply on HN