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

171–180 of 234 posts

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#171

Post by brewdad »

nonbirithm wrote: post #153
mvncleaninst wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I kind of wish that some billionaire would just get mad, buy reddit, and run it into the ground. The world would be a much better place Or better yet, round the redditors up and send them to Siberia

Be careful what you wish for, this has already happened to The Social Network Formerly Known As Twitter. I wonder if anyone who wished doom upon X in the past years is finally getting the satisfaction they wanted from watching its steady demise. Personally I don't see anything stopping someone from just making Twitter: The Sequel and starting the whole cycle all over again. There's nothing that outlaws the creation o…

There was little of lasting value on Twitter. It was great for breaking news or timely discussion but I’ve rarely had the need to go back and reread old tweets. Reddit, at least in the right subs, is often a StackExchange with a much broader scope and less pedantic moderation. I probably refer to old Reddit posts multiple times a week.

I don’t miss Twitter. I would absolutely miss Reddit.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#172

Post by Eumenes »

laputan_machine wrote: post #12
nullindividual wrote: post #4

Social media truly is the opioid of today's society. While browsing /r/all, I ran across a post from a very popular sub which had an airport worker stripping in the airport, flailing on the floor, etc. No one knows why, could have been drugs, could have been a mental defect. Yet many of the thousands of responses were laughing because they could see the man's flaccid penis. While we don't know what caused the man to…

I often think this about Ring / permanent surveillance that exists now. Nobody can even be free in front of their own house without the threat of something ludicrous happening to you and then it being on public record until the end of the internet. It's absolutely wild to me.

Ring cameras are wired and you can set them up to only turn on when you aren't home. Thats what I do. I also don't have neighbors and live in the woods.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#173

Post by chmod600 »

rightbyte wrote: post #163
dustincoates wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're largely right, but IMO the difference between what happens online and what happens offline is that you have to look people in the eye offline and you may encounter them randomly in person. There's a moderating function that generally (not always) keeps the heat down. Same for pile-ons. I'm not so naive to think that they never happen offline, but there's a higher cost to doing them than there is when a…

People that write on the internet are probably just on the average less sane. There are prevalent types on the interwebs that I just never meet outside.

Are they a different set of people online and off, or a just a different set of behaviors for the same people?

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#174

Post by arp242 »

bloopernova wrote: post #166
arp242 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Online I always try to talk about people as if the person I'm talking about would read it. It's always easy to be harsh when no one's watching, but the thing is that online you never know if they are. This doesn't mean I don't criticize posts or people, I just do it as if that person would read it. I started doing this after some of my weblog posts (mostly about programming) ended up on Reddit and HN, and I read some…

reddit is pretty bad now, I didn't realize when I was there regularly but after a break it's really shocking. I went there last night to read any first person accounts of the streamer riot yesterday in New York's Union Square. Instead there was a lot of racism and hate.

It really depends on the sub. "Reddit" isn't really one big forum, but more like a hosting platform for lots of mostly independent forums. Some are moderated quite reasonably, some are moderated very strictly, and some barely at all.

As a rough rule of thumb, the larger the sub, the worse it is. This holds true for communities in general in my experience – humanity doesn't really scale well to large groups.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#175

Post by unethical_ban »

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #167
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…

...I think we'll see detectable pressure for only risk taking narcissists to run for public office. Even beyond what is usual for politics... I know you added the "even beyond what is usual" part, but I think it's been clear since way before the US existed that decent people dont pursue power.

I reject the notion that no decent person seeks to lead.

I agree it is hard to stay in power without getting your hands dirty, but many good people have been leaders. And to normalize the idea otherwise would be a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#176

Post by brewdad »

mvncleaninst wrote: post #150
bandyaboot wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People like to make this "oh but you're in public so why can't I film you" argument and it's so strange to me that this is something people actively want - to not be allowed privacy from other peoples pictures and recordings. I don’t find it at all surprising that there’s disagreement about this. You have two entirely reasonable and important principles that are butting up against each other. Personal freedom is im…

> You have two entirely reasonable and important principles that are butting up against each other How exactly is being allowed to record someone else in public without their consent an "important principle"? Especially if the non-consenting person is the subject of the recording?

Why should I need your consent in public? Especially, if it’s incidental. If I follow you around all day, I see a problem. If you’re in the background of a video or photo I took of something else, I can’t see an issue.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#177

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#178

Post by brewdad »

spuz wrote: post #109
nullindividual wrote: post #4

Social media truly is the opioid of today's society. While browsing /r/all, I ran across a post from a very popular sub which had an airport worker stripping in the airport, flailing on the floor, etc. No one knows why, could have been drugs, could have been a mental defect. Yet many of the thousands of responses were laughing because they could see the man's flaccid penis. While we don't know what caused the man to…

I saw the same video on r/publicfreakout and I didn't see a single comment laughing at the guy. Most were expressing concern. Many were saying it shouldn't have been uploaded.

Different subreddits will have different reactions. Also, moderation and up/down voting will swing the tone over time. One of you may have seen the post early and the other later and you could both be right in your impressions.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#179

Post by brewdad »

nullindividual wrote: post #50
yosito wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why didn't you blur/crop/etc. them out, instead? Because they weren't the focus of the photo and I really didn't even notice them there. And I don't believe that it matters one bit if someone is caught doing something embarrassing in public on camera. They could have been the focus of the photo and I still think it would have been morally acceptable to post it. Whether it is acceptable according to the rules of the…

> They could have been the focus of the photo and I still think it would have been morally acceptable to post it. No. No it wouldn't have been. You have absolutely zero need to post any picture online. It is a choice; a choice to further humliate the individual, possibly even causing them greater distress. People who post pictures with justification like yours have caused those who are the target of the cruelty to co…

If you are so against posting on social platforms, why are you posting here? You don’t need to post anything.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#180

Post by dude187 »

bandyaboot wrote: post #149
xg15 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks a lot for that clarification. That actually changed my understanding of section 230: I always thought that the "shaping" of content was some sort of loophole that the section might have more or less accidentally enabled - I wasn't aware that this was its main purpose. Considering that we increasingly understand how much power lies in that ability to "shape" distribution of UGC, and how much platforms actively…

> Considering that we increasingly understand how much power lies in that ability to "shape" distribution of UGC, and how much platforms actively abuse that power, the people wanting to reform/repeal the section just got a whole lot more sympathetic in my view. I’m curious who you’re referring to as the people wanting to reform/repeal. Most of the discussion on section 230 that I’ve seen in recent years can pretty mu…

Yeah, that's the point. Create a negative outcome for companies that perform politically biased censorship, as many do. It gained a ton of popularity during covid because so many were against the government banning public assembly. Yet the only remaining avenues for broad speech censored views that went against the CDC's demands
Post reply on HN