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

181–190 of 234 posts

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#181

Post by dude187 »

plagiarist wrote: post #66
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…

Reddit is a cesspool. There are people actively using it for radicalization. It takes them far too long to shut down subreddits dedicated to far-right eugenicist delusions, if they do so at all.

Any examples of that? That sounds pretty far fetched

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#182

Post by dude187 »

plagiarist wrote: post #148
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Of course, this is what I expected to see when you claim far right content isn't a problem. You are severely biased to think that The Donald was anything other than a cesspool of radicalism. The dude has been a lifelong con man. He was an utter failure (and traitor) as a president, as was obvious from the start. Reddit is full of whatever a dogwhistle becomes when everyone can hear it. Just whistles, I suppose. It is…

So you're saying there's no examples, meaning that you're actually claiming such subreddits don't exist

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#183

Post by prepend »

dml2135 wrote: post #89
crazygringo wrote: post #75

But what about the legality? You don't need people to sign a release form if you're a photojournalist or anything considered to be an editorial source. But as professional filmmakers know, you absolutely do need a release form if you're producing anything commercial (for sale). Or if you're pushing the boundaries of this like they do when filming Law & Order, to at least put up prominent signs so Manhattan pedestrian…

AFAIK, there is no requirement to gather release forms from someone you happen to film in public. It is simply something done to reduce exposure to possible civil liability on commercial shoots. Avoiding lawsuits is the point of those forms, not winning them.

So I guess we can start seeing lots of lawsuits against people who didn’t take these steps to avoid this risk.

I wonder if class action suits against YouTube, TikTok will make it. And against specific big streamers.

I think it’s reasonable to ask for at least all revenue from a video, if not treble damages as these video producers aren’t even attempting to get consent before commercializing.

I don’t care too much, but anything that puts a damper on social media is good in my book. Kind of like I thought the reason Facebook got a bad rap in 2016 was dumb but was still happy because it harmed Facebook.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#184

Post by prepend »

crazygringo wrote: post #75

But what about the legality? You don't need people to sign a release form if you're a photojournalist or anything considered to be an editorial source. But as professional filmmakers know, you absolutely do need a release form if you're producing anything commercial (for sale). Or if you're pushing the boundaries of this like they do when filming Law & Order, to at least put up prominent signs so Manhattan pedestrian…

> Still, a blanket law against posting strangers without their consent would be draconian and unworkable. There are too many variables, too many circumstances, and simply too many cases.

There’s lots of revenge porn laws now and they seem to be helping to reduce the number of sites willing to post. And revenge porn is usually sent consensually but the victim doesn’t consent to the type of sharing. Obviously the harm is greater, I think, but there is a precedent for how a law could be structured.

It would also be quite easy to set up a “$100 statutory damages if you’re in someone’s video without consent” and watch the AI firms make a zillion dollars on recouping damages.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#185

Post by Dma54rhs »

scruple wrote: post #124
ipqk wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was asked to provide a quote for a silly fluff lifestyle piece my friend was writing for the college's newspaper. 20 years later, that piece is number 5 when searching my fairly unique name (I've done as much as possible to scrub myself from the public internet).

I wonder if there's a service that could be created here, using AI to create sterile/whitewashed ghost accounts, and flood them all over social media, etc., for people so that the real, human identity is pushed down on the search results. For sure against TOS, but I'm not sure that I personally care.

It's a common PR SEO service, no AI.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#186

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

plagiarist wrote: post #158
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>racists commenting about IQ and 13/50 bullshit I don’t know what you are saying. Explain?

You've thoroughly proven you have no clue you would recognize far-right content when you used the Donald as a counter-example of it, no need to continue.

Why are you having difficulty explaining all the things you are saying are so commonplace?

You are making claims but unwilling to back any of them up.

Imagine for a moment… if you were so far left that everything looked “far right” to you, how would you know?

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#187

Post by neilv »

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…

I think two-term US President George W. Bush provided one pre-Twitter but modern example of how this effect could work, maybe not intentionally.

Here's a bit from a 2004 NYT piece that stuck with me:

> That was explained to me in late 2002 by Mark McKinnon, a longtime senior media adviser to Bush, who now runs his own consulting firm and helps the president. He started by challenging me. "You think he's an idiot, don't you?" I said, no, I didn't. "No, you do, all of you do, up and down the West Coast, the East Coast, a few blocks in southern Manhattan called Wall Street. Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered 2 to 1 by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read The New York Times or Washington Post or The L.A. Times. And you know what they like? They like the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence. They have faith in him. And when you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it's good for us. Because you know what those folks don't like? They don't like you!" In this instance, the final "you," of course, meant the entire reality-based community.

https://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/faith-certainty-...

I'd guess this might've been a political effect/tactic that's been known or rediscovered for thousands of years.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#188

Post by plagiarist »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #186
plagiarist wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've thoroughly proven you have no clue you would recognize far-right content when you used the Donald as a counter-example of it, no need to continue.

Why are you having difficulty explaining all the things you are saying are so commonplace? You are making claims but unwilling to back any of them up. Imagine for a moment… if you were so far left that everything looked “far right” to you, how would you know?

I'm not having difficulty, I'm choosing not to follow the directives of someone who thinks the Donald wasn't far right radicalism.

"You didn't write responses on my terms so you're wrong and biased to the point of delusion." No, actually, you think a far-right echo chamber finally getting banned for agitating users towards shooting police officers is somehow Hillary Clinton's fault.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#189

Post by plagiarist »

dude187 wrote: post #182
plagiarist wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, this is what I expected to see when you claim far right content isn't a problem. You are severely biased to think that The Donald was anything other than a cesspool of radicalism. The dude has been a lifelong con man. He was an utter failure (and traitor) as a president, as was obvious from the start. Reddit is full of whatever a dogwhistle becomes when everyone can hear it. Just whistles, I suppose. It is…

So you're saying there's no examples, meaning that you're actually claiming such subreddits don't exist

From your comment history on vaccines and illness I presume you are more familiar than I with far-right subreddits. Perhaps you should list a few here to satisfy yourself, since I won't be entertaining the question.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#190

Post by kedean »

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's permeating into HN too, since so many people starting abandoning reddit. I've noticed a distinct shift during the last few months, that very distinctly started in mid June. It's gradually becoming a less positive place, and "antiwoke" posts in particular are becoming commonplace where they used to be unheard of.
Post reply on HN