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

Automatically tagging politician when they use their phone on the livestreams

driesdepoorter.be

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 157 posts

Re: Automatically tagging politician when they use their phone on the livestreams

#111

Post by blitzar »

float4 wrote: post #60
tpoacher wrote: post #50

This is beyond silly. You could be using your phone to factcheck something that relates to the ongoing discussion. Or having a side-chat with another member, privately expressing/requesting an opinion to provide context. Or to take quick notes. Or, nowadays, you might even be using an AI to keep a running summary of what the speaker has been rambling about in the last 50 minutes, translated from 'buzzspeak' to 'human…

You call it silly because you could be doing useful stuff on your phone. I'd go one step further and say that even if you're slacking off that's not necessarily a bad thing. Everybody, including politicians, slacks off from time to time. Be it due to stress, awful sleep because the neighbor's dog barked all night, illness, or something else. It's just human and there's little wrong with it as long as you do your job…

> I'd go one step further and say that even if you're slacking off that's not necessarily a bad thing

While I agree, the legislation that the politicians passed says the opposite it true.

Re: Automatically tagging politician when they use their phone on the livestreams

#112

Post by skeeter2020 »

noelrock wrote: post #96

As a former politician, I really don't love this. It's already difficult enough to get people of the capacities that most of us want to see (good, smart, could be employed elsewhere, empathetic) involved in politics as it's so negative and divisive. There are, as other comments highlight, loads of legitimate and reasonable reasons why somebody would be using a phone mid-debate: rebuttal research, communicating with c…

How do you think people NOT paid by the population feel about the idea of continuous surveillance, the potential for misinterpretation and huge impact on their lives? I suspect your discomfort and that of others in positions that create these types of environments is a feature, not a bug.

Re: Automatically tagging politician when they use their phone on the livestreams

#113

Post by CitrusFruits »

skeeter2020 wrote: post #112
noelrock wrote: post #96

As a former politician, I really don't love this. It's already difficult enough to get people of the capacities that most of us want to see (good, smart, could be employed elsewhere, empathetic) involved in politics as it's so negative and divisive. There are, as other comments highlight, loads of legitimate and reasonable reasons why somebody would be using a phone mid-debate: rebuttal research, communicating with c…

How do you think people NOT paid by the population feel about the idea of continuous surveillance, the potential for misinterpretation and huge impact on their lives? I suspect your discomfort and that of others in positions that create these types of environments is a feature, not a bug.

A lot of politicians are against surveillance too, they just get outnumbered. I think it's an unfair assumption to assume the parent comment is for surveillance legislation, especially if they're someone who frequents HN and are therefore more likely to be technically literate.

Re: Automatically tagging politician when they use their phone on the livestreams

#114

Post by ryandrake »

noelrock wrote: post #96

As a former politician, I really don't love this. It's already difficult enough to get people of the capacities that most of us want to see (good, smart, could be employed elsewhere, empathetic) involved in politics as it's so negative and divisive. There are, as other comments highlight, loads of legitimate and reasonable reasons why somebody would be using a phone mid-debate: rebuttal research, communicating with c…

Like it or not, "eyes glued to phone" has become a pretty clear indicator of distraction, and I'm fine calling this out. If I'm in a meeting giving a presentation, and I notice people glued to their phones during it, I'm not going to call them out on the spot, but I'll probably do something afterwards: Either 1. tighten up my invite list next time so as to only include people who really need to be there, or 2. politely ask the person what I could have done in my presentation to make it more engaging.

I had a manager once who, if she would spot someone on their phone in a meeting, would put them on the spot and ask them a question relevant to what the team was just discussing. Some people would call that a "dick move" but I'm actually supportive of it. If you're supposed to be paying attention, get off your phone.

I really don't like how society has just normalized whipping your phone out in the middle of human interactions.

Re: Automatically tagging politician when they use their phone on the livestreams

#115

Post by skeeter2020 »

It feels like a lot of people are interpreting this as a cheap attempt to drum up populist angst for "lazy politicians". That's one obvious take-away, and it's legitimate. I see that it's generating a strong emotional response: discomfort with the idea of being monitored; fear that the data is misinterpreted. I see this as very powerful, because a lot of the "nicer" government orders, such as those in Western Europe, are also the most aggressive surveillance states. I like that the artist has come up with a way to drive home the potential impact of the decisions that may be debated and decided in this very chamber. It has a nice symmetry, and I see that as cool art.

Re: Automatically tagging politician when they use their phone on the livestreams

#116

Post by LocalH »

ryandrake wrote: post #114
noelrock wrote: post #96

As a former politician, I really don't love this. It's already difficult enough to get people of the capacities that most of us want to see (good, smart, could be employed elsewhere, empathetic) involved in politics as it's so negative and divisive. There are, as other comments highlight, loads of legitimate and reasonable reasons why somebody would be using a phone mid-debate: rebuttal research, communicating with c…

Like it or not, "eyes glued to phone" has become a pretty clear indicator of distraction, and I'm fine calling this out. If I'm in a meeting giving a presentation, and I notice people glued to their phones during it, I'm not going to call them out on the spot, but I'll probably do something afterwards: Either 1. tighten up my invite list next time so as to only include people who really need to be there, or 2. polite…

Some people use bits of time on their phone to ironically help them focus on the person they're talking to.

If I have to listen to someone with zero of what people would call "external distractions" I'm barely going to remember any of it. But if I can poke on my phone while I'm listening, maybe look up some information relevant to the topic, then I'm much more engaged and retain far more of what's being said.

There's a difference between "eyes glued to phone" and "eyes looking at phone occasionally and then returning to the room". Too often, people see the latter, and it's like looking at a second hand on a clock. They take the initial glance, it looks longer than it really is, and so "eyes glued to phone" is their takeaway.

> I had a manager once who, if she would spot someone on their phone in a meeting, would put them on the spot and ask them a question relevant to what the team was just discussing. Some people would call that a "dick move" but I'm actually supportive of it. If you're supposed to be paying attention, get off your phone.

That manager would be flabbergasted when I answer the question. Unfortunately her takeaway would probably be "he could answer that while still not paying full attention? how can I make him pay full attention!" despite the fact that what she would call "full attention" would make my brain more likely to drift.

Re: Automatically tagging politician when they use their phone on the livestreams

#117

Post by plagiarist »

noelrock wrote: post #96

As a former politician, I really don't love this. It's already difficult enough to get people of the capacities that most of us want to see (good, smart, could be employed elsewhere, empathetic) involved in politics as it's so negative and divisive. There are, as other comments highlight, loads of legitimate and reasonable reasons why somebody would be using a phone mid-debate: rebuttal research, communicating with c…

No need to worry, politicians will make it illegal to monitor politicians in this way. Only workers will ever need to deal with always-on surveillance like this.

Re: Automatically tagging politician when they use their phone on the livestreams

#118

Post by xhkkffbf »

ryandrake wrote: post #114
noelrock wrote: post #96

As a former politician, I really don't love this. It's already difficult enough to get people of the capacities that most of us want to see (good, smart, could be employed elsewhere, empathetic) involved in politics as it's so negative and divisive. There are, as other comments highlight, loads of legitimate and reasonable reasons why somebody would be using a phone mid-debate: rebuttal research, communicating with c…

Like it or not, "eyes glued to phone" has become a pretty clear indicator of distraction, and I'm fine calling this out. If I'm in a meeting giving a presentation, and I notice people glued to their phones during it, I'm not going to call them out on the spot, but I'll probably do something afterwards: Either 1. tighten up my invite list next time so as to only include people who really need to be there, or 2. polite…

I see your point, but many times people use their phone to look up data. It's where I keep many documents.

Would you be happier if they were reading some piece of paper in front of them? That looks very official and serious, but their brain could be drifting away to anywhere else.

Re: Automatically tagging politician when they use their phone on the livestreams

#119

Post by aucisson_masque »

CitrusFruits wrote: post #113
skeeter2020 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you think people NOT paid by the population feel about the idea of continuous surveillance, the potential for misinterpretation and huge impact on their lives? I suspect your discomfort and that of others in positions that create these types of environments is a feature, not a bug.

A lot of politicians are against surveillance too, they just get outnumbered. I think it's an unfair assumption to assume the parent comment is for surveillance legislation, especially if they're someone who frequents HN and are therefore more likely to be technically literate.

> A lot of politicians are against surveillance too, they just get outnumbered

Well, politicians do vote and make laws.

if the majority of them are for privacy, there is absolutely no reason for them to vote against it each time they are asked to.

Usually a law is passed when the majority of politicians vote for it...

Re: Automatically tagging politician when they use their phone on the livestreams

#120

Post by rpmisms »

noelrock wrote: post #96

As a former politician, I really don't love this. It's already difficult enough to get people of the capacities that most of us want to see (good, smart, could be employed elsewhere, empathetic) involved in politics as it's so negative and divisive. There are, as other comments highlight, loads of legitimate and reasonable reasons why somebody would be using a phone mid-debate: rebuttal research, communicating with c…

Since you're on HN, I'll assume you're pretty cool, but most people take what politicians like as an inverse signal. If they don't like it, it's probably good.
Post reply on HN