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

They didn’t ask to go viral

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 234 posts

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#31

Post by madeofpalk »

Aurornis wrote: post #13
roenxi wrote: post #3

The "everyone:1" ratio of internet criticism also has had an interesting effect on politics. Given the sheer amount of vitriol directed at politicians no sane person would run for election. A plausible base-case scenario is a group of socially disabled internet dwellers dedicate their life to hounding you for imagined wrongs. Let alone the pressure of making any decision in a situation where large groups of people ar…

> A plausible base-case scenario is a group of socially disabled internet dwellers dedicate their life to hounding you for imagined wrongs. The intersection between the set of chronically online people who see this content and the set of people who actually vote is much smaller than you might think. Voter turnout is consistently very low among young people, despite how actively interested they may appear on sites lik…

This works both ways. Weaponising the non-voting chronically online naysayers to rile up your own base who _will_ vote.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#32

Post by blueflow »

madeofpalk wrote: post #29
blueflow wrote: post #8

The online shaming culture at tumblr, twitter and reddit was what convinced me that you need to stay pseudonymous on the internet at all cost. There are so many people that participate in this and haven't realized yet that they are being an asshole to random strangers.

Don’t try and pretend HN takes the moral high ground. This is something - regardless of how big of a problem you think it is - that permeates. Once a month there will be a link to some GitHub or issue where everyone will pile on about some stupid issue.

Then flag it, too. HN shouldn't be the torch & pitchfork store.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#33

Post by madeofpalk »

anon84873628 wrote: post #6

It seems like existing laws could already cover some of these scenarios if judged correctly. E.g. if a TikTok'er uploads a video lying about you, isn't that slander? The size of their audience and known effect of internet mobs makes it very clear to a reasonable observer that harm to the victim is expected/intended. And gaslighting children or abusing the elderly is already illegal, right?

“Lying” is not really all that illegal in the United States because of that pesky first amendment that people love to apply (and ignore) when it suits them.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#34

Post by unethical_ban »

newsclues wrote: post #7

Part of the power of social media, is that powerful people acting badly in public finally might face some public backlash or justice. Banning this, will certainly protect the powerful, and will likely continue to be unenforced for the average person.

There's a big difference between filming a public servant on duty misbehaving, and I random person having a bad day.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#35

Post by dustincoates »

newsclues wrote: post #7

Part of the power of social media, is that powerful people acting badly in public finally might face some public backlash or justice. Banning this, will certainly protect the powerful, and will likely continue to be unenforced for the average person.

> Part of the power of social media, is that powerful people acting badly in public finally might face some public backlash or justice.

Who are the powerful people in your opinion? Does it depend on their skin color? Their gender? Their perceived wealth? Their looks?

Try hard enough, you can find any kind of hook that will justify public shaming because this person has privilege and so it isn't punching down. Of course, nevermind that, what use is it for someone in Seattle to join the shaming of someone in London, nevermind Atlanta?

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#36

Post by rolph »

yosito wrote: post #18

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when in public. While it's certainly polite not to take photos of strangers and post them without asking if it's ok, you shouldn't morally or legally need permission. They're in public. Their actions can be seen by anyone else in public who crosses paths with them, whether online or off. There are cameras everywhere, and a random person with their smartphone should not be…

>> There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when in public this is the most incorrect statement i have seen today. you should experience what happens if you walk up to a woman with a purse and start rummaging through it. clothes would be unreasonable as well, you should look under peoples garments and tell them about how unreasonable they are being .

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#37

Post by rufus_foreman »

roenxi wrote: post #3

The "everyone:1" ratio of internet criticism also has had an interesting effect on politics. Given the sheer amount of vitriol directed at politicians no sane person would run for election. A plausible base-case scenario is a group of socially disabled internet dwellers dedicate their life to hounding you for imagined wrongs. Let alone the pressure of making any decision in a situation where large groups of people ar…

10% of US presidents were assassinated and 20% of them had assassination attempts. Congressmen have been assassinated, judges, state politicians, mayors. If you go into politics, getting made fun of on the internet is the least of your worries, you're going to need a thick skin. If someone is making fun of you on Twitter, at least you've got name recognition.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#38

Post by carlosjobim »

roenxi wrote: post #3

The "everyone:1" ratio of internet criticism also has had an interesting effect on politics. Given the sheer amount of vitriol directed at politicians no sane person would run for election. A plausible base-case scenario is a group of socially disabled internet dwellers dedicate their life to hounding you for imagined wrongs. Let alone the pressure of making any decision in a situation where large groups of people ar…

With the internet, citizens can anonymously criticize a politician, publish compromising information on the politician, ridicule the politician, and even call them insulting names!

With political power, the politician can restrict the freedom of the citizen, confiscate the property of the citizen, order the citizen to the front lines, declare the citizen a non-human, torture the citizen, execute the citizen, and exterminate the citizen's family. This has happened in every country on earth, including yours. It happens right now that you're reading this.

So the balance of power is far from being thrown by online free speech.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#39

Post by foogazi »

yosito wrote: post #18

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when in public. While it's certainly polite not to take photos of strangers and post them without asking if it's ok, you shouldn't morally or legally need permission. They're in public. Their actions can be seen by anyone else in public who crosses paths with them, whether online or off. There are cameras everywhere, and a random person with their smartphone should not be…

> They're in public. Their actions can be seen by anyone else in public who crosses paths with them

Yes, in public in that same instant - were public is constrained to be the people present there

Once it’s recorded it can be copied and transmitted to far off places and preserved in time

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#40

Post by mid-kid »

marginalia_nu wrote: post #14
roenxi wrote: post #3

The "everyone:1" ratio of internet criticism also has had an interesting effect on politics. Given the sheer amount of vitriol directed at politicians no sane person would run for election. A plausible base-case scenario is a group of socially disabled internet dwellers dedicate their life to hounding you for imagined wrongs. Let alone the pressure of making any decision in a situation where large groups of people ar…

Interestingly, the most successful politicians in recent years have adopted the techniques of old-school internet trolls. It goes like this: 1. Do or say something that's a bit edgy and controversial. 2. Pull out a lawn chair as the opposition attempts to stir up a shit storm. 3. Under no circumstances engage with the criticism directed at you, just be somewhere else when anything is coming your way. Never defend or…

Finally someone spells it out. Ever since the first twitter US president I've noticed a great uptick in politicians and other public figures doing deplorable things for the sake of attention. They'd be publically called out and ridiculed for months on end, and meanwhile you wouldn't hear anything about other people at all.

There's nothing I can describe this as other than "trolling", yet people always look at me confused when I mention that. Trolling is just being mean to people online, right? Surely there coudln't be an ulterior motive to it, right?

I guess we never learned to stop feeding the trolls.

Post reply on HN