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

The internet is already over (2022)

samkriss.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 283 posts

Re: The internet is already over (2022)

#271

Post by lazide »

JohnFen wrote: post #207
lazide wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO, it’s due to burnout due to pathological manipulation. Which is also playing out in politics and the media/advertising, and the macroeconomic fed rate situation. They’re all related. Business cycle wise: - it starts out mellow, with lots of positive ROI and few downsides. Few know about it at first. - as awareness grows, so does competition. While there is a ton of room to grow, this isn’t a problem. Growth doesn…

> in 20-30 years, there will be a lot of older folks who are very hard to fool or manipulate. I doubt this. The entire history of humans indicates otherwise.

So you’re saying experienced older people don’t exist?

Re: The internet is already over (2022)

#272

Post by smackeyacky »

_heimdall wrote: post #240
archagon wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A single crazy in a sea of normalcy will be diluted. A congealed group of crazies, however, has political and social power.

I get that crazy ideas can spread, but what is the actual concern? Are you worried about people believing the ideas, or people acting on them? If the latter, are you worried about them acting in ways that aren't already illegal?

Anti-vaxxers putting the greater population at risk.

Storming pizza parlors.

Protesting election results in violent and extreme ways.

Coalesced crazy is dangerous, full stop. Stupid ideas being dragged out into the sunlight used to work but these folk are being fed nothing but crazy by the algorithms of social media, so it stopped working.

The solution is regulation of social media.

Re: The internet is already over (2022)

#273

Post by imiric »

Nasrudith wrote: post #270
imiric wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ignoring the problems of global interconnectedness doesn't make them go away. Information can be weaponized and used against you in ways that are difficult to detect and prevent. We know that propaganda, like advertising, is highly effective, and the internet is the best medium we've invented yet for broadcasting it. At what point do you prioritize issues of national security that threaten your society and way of lif…

Sorry, National Security as an excuse is still utterly broken from its abuse in the early 2000s. We aren't buying this "bomb the village in order to save it" bullshit doublethink.

It's not an excuse. It would be ignorant to not acknowledge the existence of information warfare, and its very real effects. The irony is that the tools the US built and gave away for the world to use are being used against it, and will likely cause its downfall. Do you think the current sociopolitical climate is unrelated? The Cambridge Analytica leak confirmed that small independent agencies can effectively disrupt democratic processes and topple governments. What do you think state actors can do?

FWIW, I don't have a dog in this fight, and I'm speaking as a neutral observer. I don't like the idea of giving more control to governments either. But it's clear that something has to be done to defend countries from this type of attack. Traditional military might can't defend you from an invisible enemy.

Re: The internet is already over (2022)

#274

Post by _heimdall »

smackeyacky wrote: post #272
_heimdall wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get that crazy ideas can spread, but what is the actual concern? Are you worried about people believing the ideas, or people acting on them? If the latter, are you worried about them acting in ways that aren't already illegal?

Anti-vaxxers putting the greater population at risk. Storming pizza parlors. Protesting election results in violent and extreme ways. Coalesced crazy is dangerous, full stop. Stupid ideas being dragged out into the sunlight used to work but these folk are being fed nothing but crazy by the algorithms of social media, so it stopped working. The solution is regulation of social media.

Those dangers already have legal solutions without regulating speech though. Talking about some conspiracy theories isn't, and shouldn't be, a crime. Acting on them, say by trespassing or commuting acts of violence are already illegal. Depending on what authorities can prove, conspiracy to commit certain acts is already a crime.

Regulating social media isn't a solution, and definitely not the solution. For one thing, if the state officially took a role in regulating speech on social media they would be bound by constitutional powers.

You could actually see censorship on social media sites decrease when they are required to respect individuals' rights to free speech and protection from government censorship. Why do you think they currently do it quietly and behind closed doors? As long as the government isn't openly censoring us on social media the censorship isn't unconstitutional. As soon as its government regulated we will see supreme court rulings likely deciding that the government censoring speech online is unconstitutional and a violation of the first amendment.

Re: The internet is already over (2022)

#275

Post by _heimdall »

avh02 wrote: post #260
_heimdall wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get that crazy ideas can spread, but what is the actual concern? Are you worried about people believing the ideas, or people acting on them? If the latter, are you worried about them acting in ways that aren't already illegal?

Some of them with wild ideas do things like try to storm the capitol on thought processes riddled with ridiculous ideas. I'm not an American, but watching that is scary. The same problem exists in other places and people believe absolutely wild things unquestioningly and act on them on a daily basis, sometimes harmlessly, sometimes very harmfully.

I am an American though was actually living in Europe when the capital was stormed. I was scared watching that in the middle of the night, and also confused as to how anyone pushing through barriers and doors were going through without being shot.

At least in the US though, speech is protected specifically from government censorship. Facebook can censor whatever they want, but the government can't take part in it at all. Historically, American culture has stood strongly behind free speech and we're very uncomfortable with the idea of punishing a person for what they say. Once you act on an idea that's a different story, but we have laws that already cover that.

Re: The internet is already over (2022)

#276

Post by shrimp_emoji »

_heimdall wrote: post #275
avh02 wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of them with wild ideas do things like try to storm the capitol on thought processes riddled with ridiculous ideas. I'm not an American, but watching that is scary. The same problem exists in other places and people believe absolutely wild things unquestioningly and act on them on a daily basis, sometimes harmlessly, sometimes very harmfully.

I am an American though was actually living in Europe when the capital was stormed. I was scared watching that in the middle of the night, and also confused as to how anyone pushing through barriers and doors were going through without being shot. At least in the US though, speech is protected specifically from government censorship. Facebook can censor whatever they want, but the government can't take part in it at…

> I was scared watching that in the middle of the night,

It sounds to me like you should lower your caffeine intake. Nobody sober-minded watching that on TV should have felt scared; it was obviously a mob of clowns goofing around, not an insurrectionist army.

> and also confused as to how anyone pushing through barriers and doors were going through without being shot.

Because it was obvious to everyone that it was just a mob of clowns goofing around, not an insurrectionist army. The tiny minority that got violent and probed too far got violently dealt with though.

> Historically, American culture has stood strongly behind free speech and we're very uncomfortable with the idea of punishing a person for what they say.

One funny thing to tie this with is that Congress is literally "the People's House". It would be a very American interpretation of things to say that anyone should have the right to protest at/in the Capitol. Those Congress critters shouldn't have run away and hid as if they're dictators holing up in the bunker when the peasant have surrounded the royal palace; they should have met the non-violent rioters and talked with them. Their job is to represent those people that are angry out there!

And, optically, that would have been a win-win for all of us: either they bravely diffuse the situation and get respect OR they get assaulted, in which case the "OMG INSURRECTIONIST" rhetoric would prove to be actually warranted.

Oh, also, another deeply American valence is revolution. Take for that what you will. ;D

Re: The internet is already over (2022)

#278

Post by _heimdall »

shrimp_emoji wrote: post #276
_heimdall wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am an American though was actually living in Europe when the capital was stormed. I was scared watching that in the middle of the night, and also confused as to how anyone pushing through barriers and doors were going through without being shot. At least in the US though, speech is protected specifically from government censorship. Facebook can censor whatever they want, but the government can't take part in it at…

> I was scared watching that in the middle of the night, It sounds to me like you should lower your caffeine intake. Nobody sober-minded watching that on TV should have felt scared; it was obviously a mob of clowns goofing around, not an insurrectionist army. > and also confused as to how anyone pushing through barriers and doors were going through without being shot. Because it was obvious to everyone that it was ju…

We have a very different understanding of the potential fallout from a takeover of the US Congress. Its easy to write them off as clowns now, but in the moment how is they known? Those people didn't go through security checks and it wasn't known what they may have been carrying with them.

What would have happened if they got into Congressional chambers? Or got their hands on congressmen? PR the VP? We simply don't know.

It wasn't caffeine that scared me. It was the potential for a civil war. That seems outlandish now that we know was Jan 7th looked like. But honestly, can you say it wouldn't have happened should they have reached Pence or Pelosi?

I don't like either of those politicians, or government in general. But its a for agile house of cards, and a mob of people forcing their way into the capital building while all of Congress is in session is a terrible sign. I don't know how you write that off as a clown show, and I don't know what tipped you off to that being a clown show rather than something potentially more serious. Maybe I just missed it.

Re: The internet is already over (2022)

#279

Post by kjkjadksj »

_heimdall wrote: post #232
kjkjadksj wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think the founding fathers much less the ancient greek democrats anticipated the level of idiocy in the public discourse we are dealing with today. A huge swath of the country has been manipulated by propaganda to the point of not believing in reality at all. It’s a dangerous position we find ourselves in today.

I think the founding fathers actually had a more educates populace than we do today. For all the modern education and fields of study we have today, is the level of idiocy an anomaly or is it a symptom of of modern education?

I would also say the propaganda environment the founding fathers found themselves in was very nascent. It certainly wasn’t so married with findings from neuroscience or psychology supported by data like it is today. The media market was also generally more competitive. When you are down to one regional paper and thats that, there is little incentive for quality journalism and informing people factually.

Re: The internet is already over (2022)

#280

Post by samastur »

chipsrafferty wrote: post #188
samastur wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not going to deconstruct the whole thing to appease a stranger, but let's just take the first point of the argument: That it’s easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of the internet. Setting aside what does "end of the world" actually mean, who's making this statement? Almost nobody is, since practically every instance is someone referencing somebody else with little commitment. Essentially this is a…

> It obviously can't be true since end of the world in any reasonable understanding contains end of the internet. No, it obviously can be true. I can imagine many ways "the end of the world" could occur. Also, maybe it's not crystal clear what "the end of the world" means to you, but for me, and likely other people, it means the collapse of human civilization, which could happen from nuclear war, climate change, etc.…

All you did is bring back the point that "end of the world" is woefully undefined in his article and discussing it makes it therefore difficult at best.

We obviously disagree on what it means. For me it doesn't mean something of high value to me would end/disappear. It does mean in almost axiomatic way that if internet is still working, then the world hasn't ended as some part of civilization is clearly still running to a very high degree necessary for that to be the case.

Post reply on HN