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

171–180 of 223 posts

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#171

Post by foerbert »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #164
foerbert wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the financial incentives question was so much a sincere question as it was bringing up a concern about other influences on his position. I think it's a valid one. Humans are really bad at fully separating and understanding our influences, never mind selectively ignoring some them. Given the perception of many YouTubers as being more 'pure' ideological advocates, I think it's reasonable to bring up. Now…

> Given the perception of many YouTubers as being more 'pure' ideological advocates What do you mean by this? Perhaps I haven't searched deep enough, but to me, YouTube these days consists primarily of: - Content creators, who are in it absolutely for the money, and whatever channel they run is just an excuse to get people to view ads (including product placement, and ads for creator's Patreon); - Conspiracy nuts, wh…

Right. I wouldn't put things quite so extremely, and I think many YouTubers would honestly disagree with you. Which is why I think the GP's point was relevant in the first place.

But that's where people end up, not where they begin. Usually. At least that's the perception, for the kinds of channels you probably find most of the HN folks watching - including the channel ran by the man in question.

Somebody starts a channel about something they're passionate about, and are able to bring something to the table in relation to it, which lets them make some really cool videos that most people couldn't do.

Over time, things start moving in the direction you mentioned as it turns from a passion project they expect to go nowhere into a living. However I don't think most viewers exactly see it this way. I think there are a variety of reasons for this, including in particular just how far the medium pushes parasocial relationships. The slow change is also a factor for both the audience and the YouTuber themselves, I think.

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#172

Post by max-ibel »

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…

But yet, if Nile Red whips up something dangerous, that’s ok?

I mean I see your point, but this kind of enforcement seems random or worse (take down is maybe effected by complaints of lobbyists- chemistry has maybe fewer of those)

No disrespect to Nike Red/blue, that’s a great channel.

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#173

Post by loup-vaillant »

kbenson wrote: post #97
sneak wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still censorship even if it's not the government. User A posts content. User B subscribes. Entity C decides that B is not allowed to read what A has to say. C is a censor.

There's the definition of censorship, and then there's people's perception of censorship as something the government does. Beyond that, it's not just that many people can't distinguish the two, but that they've merged aspects of each into the same thing in their head. Censorship is natural and expected in many, many contexts. Any time a parent punishes their child for saying something they feel is unacceptable, that'…

> YouTube does not control all expression through video. There are both other video streaming platforms,

For almost all intents and purposes, the audience is on YouTube only. Use anything else, and you are basically guaranteed to divide your audience by two orders of magnitude. Such is their monopoly on videos that are over 1 minute long.

This makes YouTube deplatforming very close to actual government censorship. The only meaningful difference is the lack of due process.

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#174

Post by foerbert »

equality_1138 wrote: post #160
foerbert wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the financial incentives question was so much a sincere question as it was bringing up a concern about other influences on his position. I think it's a valid one. Humans are really bad at fully separating and understanding our influences, never mind selectively ignoring some them. Given the perception of many YouTubers as being more 'pure' ideological advocates, I think it's reasonable to bring up. Now…

The article mentions about selling kits, so it's pretty obvious that his videos would be at least partially motivated by commercial aspirations. Yes? I called the comment silly as it seemed to be saying "I not only disapprove of this entrepreneur's target market, he is also employing deceptive marketing tactics"

I mean yes, but also no? And I think a lot of it depends on how much you want to take from the overall tone of the comment vs a particular statement in it.

Not everybody is going to read the whole article. Not everybody is going to put 2 and 2 together while they're reading and reevaluate his previous statements with that new context.

I think it's pertinent information when evaluating his statements and coming to a decision about how you feel these things should be handled. I'd say mentioning his financial interest is more akin to a pointed summary

That said I don't think this was an attempt a deception, nor particularly deceptive given all the context. But still, it's relevant. Some people would give an explicit disclaimer, others not. I don't think this is clear cut enough to say one way is absolutely correct.

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#176

Post by marcus_holmes »

watwut wrote: post #144
mmahemoff wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

Many quacks and grifters have PhD. Youtube would had to actually verify content.

Also, isn't "having a PhD" and "used to work at NASA" the exact same credentialist approach he's arguing against?

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#177

Post by bumbada »

While I understand this man's position, I also understand his opponents'.

If something has become crystal clear with COVID is that there are secondary effects or unintended consequences coming from biological experimentation that could affect our life greatly.

In the same way as Wuhan's lab relationship with bats and COVID, there is a relationship between a laboratory that was experimenting with chimpanzees and viruses 30 kms near the origin of AIDS.

Playing at home could pose existential risk to society at large. You will have the best of intentions,like probably the Wuhan people had,but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#178

Post by dvdkon »

Barrin92 wrote: post #142
simorley wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>that I'm in shock You're in shock of the attitude that hackers should stay off mainstream commercial platforms and avoid pandering to a generic audience? You do realize why we're having this conversation on HN and not on Facebook right? The 2% of the young adults who are genuinely interested in science and tech and DIY maker culture will find him regardless where he is. That's how it always works when people actuall…

The thing you're ignoring is that available information shapes people. Would I be a programmer if I didn't know computers existed? Definitely not. It's not like one day people wake up and think "biohacking is cool, I'll go looking for 'underground' platforms that host content about it". People's interests are shaped by the content they are offered, ubiquitous monopoly platforms like YouTube have way more power than you might think if you view them as simple hosting platforms. Discovery is the real deal.

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#179

Post by dvdkon »

lolc wrote: post #103
nine_k wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marking is helpful. Removal is not. Very much like spam: filters are good but not 100% good, so there must be a way to look at what the filter has rejected, and allow the reader to judge.

The mails that make it to your spambox are a pithy few compared to the mass of dropped mail. You'd be very unhappy with your spambox if the filters weren't so judgmental.

I haven't actually set up my mail server to move mail flagged as spam to a separate folder, and I've gotten roughly 4 spam emails in the year or so I've had this address. My mail server also doesn't drop anything unless it fails DMARC.

I've had to deal with Microsoft outright dropping everything from a domain (not on this server), so I do know it happens, I'm just not convinced it's necessary.

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#180

Post by drran »

AussieWog93 wrote: post #49
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…

>"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…

> 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

I was banned on HN after questioning of QM and BB theories. 240 downvotes in one day, then ban.

Post reply on HN