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

181–190 of 223 posts

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#181

Post by drran »

bumbada wrote: post #177

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 virus…

LOL, virus escaped from "Vector" BSL4 lab in Novosibirsk, Russia, 16.09.2019: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_w7SAeNcXA8 .

They were not played at home. They were not amateurs. But, as you can see at 1:04 (see soldier in background), first responders just cracked bio-laboratories and stole equipment after blast, because they are "checking building for fire" (поетажная проверка на загорание).

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#182

Post by hutzlibu »

ssijak wrote: post #2

I don't understand this social platforms. Covid stuff and fake news aside, I reported maybe 20 times obvious scam videos, or posts with extreme hatred and threats of violence against a group of people and similar stuff where 99.99999% of us would agree that it should be removed without question, and only once they did remove it. All the other times I get a message that they reviewed my complaint, that it does not go…

"or posts with extreme hatred and threats of violence against a group of people and similar stuff where 99.99999% of us would agree that it should be removed without question"

Probably not worth debating this further, but I would contest that number.

I lean very much towards unrestricted flow of information (and I know, there are way more radical ones around here). Not total unrestricted, with excemptions like CP, but my default is also just not look at content I find disturbing. Which means I basically avoid most of those social platforms altogether, as I indeed find most the bs posted there disturbing.

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#183

Post by sionide »

type0 wrote: post #166
nix0n wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few days ago, I learned that "Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules"[0]. Maybe there's something like that happening on youtube also. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28512121

I'm sure it does something similar. The Big Media has utterly different standards on what counts as disinformation on Youtube, what was the last time any official media channels got de-platformed?

Last month https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/aug/01/sky-news-austr...

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#184

Post by ftrobro »

pvg wrote: post #168
Nevermark wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until you can personally sign a non-proliferation agreement and then order processed uranium, nuclear power has not been “democratized” in the sense being talked about here.

Private entities supply nuclear fuel all over the world https://nuclear.gepower.com/fuel-a-plant my main point, though, is that nuclear energy is a fairly strange, highly-regulated-at-all-levels beast with its own long complicated history so it's not a particularly straightforward parallel to a hypothetical weapon-of-mass-destruction-enabling genetic engineering

Private entities under strict regulation, yes. Individuals in basements? Not so much. Any such person will be placed in custody in most countries if caught. I remember that happening more than once. I'd provide you a link but would rather not google the subject...

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#185

Post by concordDance »

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 2% of the young adults who are genuinely interested in science and tech and DIY maker culture will find him regardless where he is.

This isnt true. Finding these kinds of things is nontrivial.

For instance, I hadn't heard of him and neither have, for instance, my friend with a PhD in molecular biology who found this pretty interesting.

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#186

Post by concordDance »

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.

And can you imagine how hard that would be in cases like this? Imagine having to take a week reading up on bioengineering and experimenting to be able to moderate one video! The stats would look terrible!

That said, I think only a very small proportion of videos would take that amount of verification, most could be dismissed far more easily.

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#187

Post by drumhead »

exporectomy wrote: post #121
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.

So facebook and twitter should unban Trump?

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#188

Post by jtbayly »

sionide wrote: post #183
type0 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure it does something similar. The Big Media has utterly different standards on what counts as disinformation on Youtube, what was the last time any official media channels got de-platformed?

Last month https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/aug/01/sky-news-austr...

That’s not being deplatformed.

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#189

Post by bloopernova »

marcosdumay wrote: post #122
amrocha wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I believe that is not correct. Social media is fine in basic forms, such as Reddit/HN style forum threads, and Facebook's keeping-in-touch-with-old-friends and arranging events.

Mixing news into social media, sharing stories to Facebook, turned it from a coffee shop into a town square with a million soap boxes.

Bad actors then seized that format and used it to spread propaganda and disinformation.

That's not to say that the basic forms of social media were perfect, far from it. They're just as susceptible to manipulation. There's just something about Facebook's link to (mostly) real identities that elevates it to a hugely effective propaganda platform.

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#190

Post by concordDance »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #170

I'm baffled why anyone would believe that bioterrorism isn't a possible threat. I'm also baffled why anyone would fail to understand that the practice of medicine is protected. And that vaccines require mass testing before certification and public release. Because every genome is different and it's not just about the fact that you rolled the dice on a new treatment and personally got lucky. And that people who don't…

I guess it depends whether you think we should let adults to risky things.

Most libertarians believe that we should let people do what they like provided they don't harm others, which includes experimenting on their bodies to change their gut flora or genes.

I say let people have their freedom, even if they use it in risky ways you find stupid, whether that's skydiving or anal sex or changing their genes.

Post reply on HN