They didn’t ask to go viral • Hacker News Board

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#191

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 11:31 PM UTC

dude187 wrote: post #180

bandyaboot wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

[deleted]

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#192

Post by bloopernova » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 11:44 PM UTC

kedean wrote: post #190

bloopernova wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah agreed. It's pretty depressing, to be honest. So many people who are really nasty and hateful.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#193

Post by bandyaboot » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 11:52 PM UTC

dude187 wrote: post #180

bandyaboot wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

> [have the government] Create a negative outcome for companies that perform politically biased censorship

Let’s not leave out an important few words.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#194

Post by raydev » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 11:59 PM UTC

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…

I think it's a mistake to assume this will always be the case.

A decade ago, more than half my 40+ yo extended family was still only beginning to get exposed to the internet due to touchscreen phones and basic data plans becoming the default in the US. A few of them are now brain-fried Facebook conspiracy group people.

It seems reasonable that eventually most people will have a "safe space" on the internet to share their thoughts. And eventually, mass hysteria and mobs and general opinion that used to only exist online will (and clearly already has started to) become an IRL phenomenon.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#195

Post by j45 » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 11:59 PM UTC

inglor_cz wrote: post #125

j45 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has little to do with education or intellect. The disease of righteousness is available to all. Being able to reflect and examine one’s own thoughts and beliefs is harder than fitting in and being righteous.

Smarter people are better at rationalizing away their bad behavior, though. You need certain cognitive capacity in order to engage in sophistry.

Fair, there's plenty of extremely cognitive and smart "uneducated by higher education" people.

I don't know if that makes it less worse, or worse.

Enabling righteousness, where others are wrong, or missing the details, or thinking there can't be any understanding in something they don't understand or disagree with is a big problem.

Lots of people whack others over the head to externally validate their beliefs. I think Evangelism might even fall under that category by some definitions, no offence.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#196

Post by bandyaboot » Sun, Aug 06, 2023, 12:19 AM UTC

brewdad wrote: post #176

mvncleaninst wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The important principle is that people should be generally free to do what they want in public if it’s not harming others. It’s natural that it becomes more difficult to decide how to apply that principle when you begin talking about vague notions of harm, or potential harm, or harm that’s dependent on the personality or opinions of the person potentially being harmed.

Edit: I meant for this to be a reply to the parent comment.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#197

Post by SV_BubbleTime » Sun, Aug 06, 2023, 12:58 AM UTC

plagiarist wrote: post #189

dude187 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You have now in this thread accused two HN members of being far right… while being completely incapable of linking far right activity on Reddit you claim is all over the place.

You may have a religion you aren’t aware of.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#198

Post by plagiarist » Sun, Aug 06, 2023, 1:05 AM UTC

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #197

plagiarist wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You have now in this thread accused two HN members of being far right… while being completely incapable of linking far right activity on Reddit you claim is all over the place. You may have a religion you aren’t aware of.

Again, you think a subreddit purpose-built around supporting lifelong con man isn't far-right. Not even after he has been indicted for insurrection and stealing secret documents is it clear to you.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#199

Post by DropInIn » Sun, Aug 06, 2023, 1:44 AM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #136

dml2135 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> there is no requirement to gather release forms from someone you happen to film in public Right, the filming is fine -- it's the commercial distribution that's the problem. And I'm assuming those civil suits have existing and succeeded in the past? So my question is still whether social media ought to be considered commercial distribution, since it's generally ad-supported. I mean, broadcast TV is entirely ad-suppo…

Hmm... can a not for profit use content involving a party without waiver/contract?

I don't think profit is the key issue is it?

Not a lawyer so I'm not sure, just seems like the issue has always been an individuals "right to privacy" and "right of publicity" and whether or not the work is journalistic, for private use, etc.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#200

Post by evandale » Sun, Aug 06, 2023, 1:53 AM UTC

plagiarist wrote: post #198

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have now in this thread accused two HN members of being far right… while being completely incapable of linking far right activity on Reddit you claim is all over the place. You may have a religion you aren’t aware of.

Again, you think a subreddit purpose-built around supporting lifelong con man isn't far-right. Not even after he has been indicted for insurrection and stealing secret documents is it clear to you.

I don't understand why you can't link to a single _existing_ alt-right subreddit. You keep referencing a single one that was purged years ago.

You're claiming they're still on Reddit but using a long gone subreddit as proof of Reddit being alt-right today? How does that even work? If you can't link to something today you can't say the problem still exists today.