The Crime of Curiosity • Hacker News Board

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#131

Post by ncmncm » Fri, Sep 17, 2021, 1:29 AM UTC

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #108

thatcat wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democratization of chem isn't responsible for the dispersal, the lack of regulation and proper labeling is. This occurs at the manufacture level not the level of research chemists.

If it turns out that SARS-COV-2 escaped from a lab, that will absolutely be at the level of research (bio)chemists. The problem with individual biohacking is that there's not even oversight by colleagues. Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but I'd expect someone working near/with a biochemist who was doing crazy stuff to speak out about it. There's no real equivalent for this if the work is going on in somebody's basement…

It's hard enought to get any of that stuff to work when you have a fully-stocked lab and a raft of PhDs poking at it from all angles. Some Joe in his garage might get something interesting to happen, but it is a long, long way from there to virulence. The viruses themselves are banging away at this all the time from literally trillions of different angles; how often do they land on a winning ticket?

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#132

Post by mmahemoff » Fri, Sep 17, 2021, 1:32 AM UTC

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…

"Youtube has no realistic way to tell whether someone producing home-made science on youtube is a phd ex-nasa biohacker who follows best practices or just a complete quack who tries to sell dangerous fake remedies to vulnerable people."

We shouldn't pretend someone with a significant following is banned or demonetized because The Algorithm Made Me Do It™.

YouTube has the resources to verify if a popular streamer is a genuine PhD and formerly worked at NASA. Far smaller companies do these kinds of vefrifications all the time. It just chooses not to, even in the process of banning an account.

Note I'm not arguing those credentials alone should mean very much. I just question in general, the argument that companies can't "realistically" take certain measures because it wouldn't scale. Most of the time, they don't take them because they're neither required to and it wouldn't improve their bottom line.

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#133

Post by ncmncm » Fri, Sep 17, 2021, 1:36 AM UTC

bserge wrote: post #28

ftrobro wrote: post #13

"Democratizing genetic engineering won’t suddenly unleash bioterrorism upon the world." How sure is he of that, and why? As a comparison, nuclear power has been of great utility for many countries, but I sure would not want to see it "democratized".

A motivated party can deploy and detonate several bombs in places with a lot of people any day, Covid rules notwithstanding. It's laughably/terrifyingly easy, the hardest part is building or buying the bombs. But you don't see it done regularly at all. Granted, a single nuclear or bio attack would affect way more people.

It is far, far easier (and perfectly safe!) to get there by selling a popular product that poisons millions of people.

All the lead paint and tobacco company executives retired to their yachts, scot free. The fats hydrogenation people responsible for millions of heart failures are walking around loose to this day. Nobody currently responsible for slow, painful deaths via liver damage from sugar poisoning, in the hundreds of thousands each year, is looking over his shoulder.

But people still talk about the Zodiac Killer (who I have no factual reason to believe is Ted Cruz).

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#134

Post by AussieWog93 » Fri, Sep 17, 2021, 1:42 AM UTC

hnisfullofshit wrote: post #54

AussieWog93 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"The Crime of Curiosity" is a great way to put it, because we're already banned from questioning a lot of areas of science on most major tech platforms. I think the keyword that, in my mind, justifies the censorship here is "on most major tech platforms". Nobody is banning the discussion of these ideas in academic journals or HN or other places where curious people can go to discuss things - it's just making sure un…

You can't actually discuss anything on HN that goes against the moderator's petty ideologies (or yc's profit motive) without being censored. Turn on show dead and take a scroll through nearly any topic. The irony is that many of the people who claim to be free-speech see nothing wrong with this platform blacklisting people who don't share in the groupthink.

I've had showdead on for months, mainly to read old Terry A. Davis posts. Generally the people I see are actual trolls.

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#135

Post by ncmncm » Fri, Sep 17, 2021, 1:47 AM UTC

generalizations wrote: post #117

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is total BS. Theories are dangerous. If they weren't, nobody would ever care about them. They are dangerous because they can be inspiring, sometimes inspiring action. You can say you don't want to ban the theory, only the actions, and that's a legitimate position. It reduces you to post-facto behavior only, however (which may be just fine for you). Many societies and people within them over time have not been fi…

> The general population is not equipped with enough information or enough time to meaningfully distinguish between bullshit and non-bullshit. How certain are you that you're not part of that particular subset of the 'general population'?

A clear majority of people are more ready to reject things that are true than things that are false.

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#136

Post by AussieWog93 » Fri, Sep 17, 2021, 1:53 AM UTC

nradov wrote: post #57

AussieWog93 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"The Crime of Curiosity" is a great way to put it, because we're already banned from questioning a lot of areas of science on most major tech platforms. I think the keyword that, in my mind, justifies the censorship here is "on most major tech platforms". Nobody is banning the discussion of these ideas in academic journals or HN or other places where curious people can go to discuss things - it's just making sure un…

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.

>You're assuming that the general population is too stupid to be trusted with unfiltered information.

I'm saying that bombarding the general population with low-quality, dangerous information from sources that appear authoritative (what the tech giants are suppressing) is a bad idea. People take the information seriously and use it to cause harm to themselves and others.

There are a certain group of people that like to fuck around with conceptual arguments for the fun of it, but the public square is not the place for that kind of play.

>But theories aren't dangerous. Actions are dangerous.

Ideologies absolutely are dangerous. They've started wars, genocides, and cults. When does a theory stop being a theory and become an ideology?

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#137

Post by kongin » Fri, Sep 17, 2021, 1:56 AM UTC

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…

https://web.archive.org/web/20200731213626/https://old.reddi...

Here's a version with a lot fewer deleted comments. If anyone wants to see what 1984s memory hole looks like this is it. You know what you remember but are told you're insane for remembering.

Thank god for the internet archive, and other archival sites, the retroactive modification of articles on the 'papers of record' have been particularly egregious in the last 6 years.

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#138

Post by ncmncm » Fri, Sep 17, 2021, 1:59 AM UTC

satisfice wrote: post #110

fxtentacle wrote: post #104

Wow this guy is ignorant. Not everyone who is intelligent is a good person. In fact, some people just like to see the world burn. It might only be 0.5% of the population, but I totally get why he's investigated all the time. Selling a kit that allows bacteria to grow where they normally don't just seems like an obviously bad idea to me, even if his science ambitions are good and noble. One can learn a lot about chemi…

I spoke with an inventor, author of many books, and semi-famous Silicon Valley millionaire— whom I respect deeply— who told me that as a teenager he toured a Wunder Bread factory and saw how they used high heat to prevent mold or something. He decided to breed a temperature tolerant mold in his home and then see if he could spread it at the factory on another tour. That’s curiosity and science, too. Fortunately, he l…

Anybody (even a teenager) could do that back then, and anybody (even a teenager) could do it today. Yet, they manifestly haven't. Evidently, it is not very easy to go from a fun experiment to global domination, gene recombination or no gene recombination.

Meanwhile, ranchers are actively breeding antibiotic-resistant bacteria, everywhere, with outstanding success, and sending the resulting strains straight to your local supermarket. Thousands die infected by those strains. Maybe that is a better place to devote attention than a mail-order science kit seller.

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#139

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Sep 17, 2021, 2:11 AM UTC

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…

[deleted]

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#140

Post by simorley » Fri, Sep 17, 2021, 2:15 AM UTC

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…

This comment is so antithetical to the "spirit of the internet" and hacking in general that I'm in shock.

> 77% of the Youtube audience in the US are 17-25 years old, it's not some niche forum for engineers and the notion that they can read scientific papers and weed out legitimate science created at home from misinformation is absurd.

Only PhDs or engineers are allowed to be interested? You think only people with CS degrees should learn about programming/hacking? Only people with electric engineering degrees should learn about circuits?

Also 17-25 is mostly adults. Also, wouldn't the people who watch his videos be self-selecting? I'm guessing 99% of the demographic you mentioned wouldn't be searching for his video.

> The author has a company that sells genetic engineering kits to people and by banning him from Youtube that impacts him financially.

Probably. But so what?

> I personally think Biohacking and eccentric science is cool

But people in the 17-25 year old demographics are not allowed to find it cool and enjoy it?

Your argument is that it could be harmful and therefore everyone 17-25 should be barred from it. That's the argument I heard in the 90s to prevent young people from learning to code/hack/etc. I don't understand how the culture of censorship and patronizing paternalism snuck into the "hacking"/tech environment.