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

Social Cooling (2017)

socialcooling.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 299 posts

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#111

Post by harrisoned »

komali2 wrote: post #11

Is the self censoring of big boy and girl worlds like "murder," "suicide," "execution," "Nazi," and "genocide" on videos and posts related to this? It's been driving me crazy. Do not go quietly into that night and whatnot... Do not comply in advance. The idea of changing my speech so my words look nice next to a Toyota advertisement fills me with disgust and anger.

That's something that drives me crazy as well. I don't actually use the big 'algorithmic social media' sites, only Telegram and Discord mostly, and seeing screenshots/memes with those words censored there made me wonder why, at first. Then i saw people auto-censoring themselves in those places where there's no such thing as algorithmic de-ranking. The social media generation already find it normal, acceptable, and is specially ironic to me that a lot of people who are vocal against those services have conformed to what they say to stand against.

That behavior also highlights how people within those services care so much about reach, clout, 'going viral', instead of communicating with other people.

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#112

Post by immibis »

harvey9 wrote: post #87
BlueTemplar wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have a better solution to the paradox of tolerance, I'm all ears. (People still using platforms : the likes of Facebook, Discord, LinkedIn, Github, or ChatGPT being amongst the ones that undermine democratic ideals and that ought to be socially shamed, and, in some cases, beaten up.)

Do you mean you want to metaphorically beat up a website, or literally beat up people whose views you disagree with?

I think they mean arrest and jail time. Which is a form of violence.

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#113

Post by immibis »

msuniverse2026 wrote: post #67
BlueTemplar wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have a better solution to the paradox of tolerance, I'm all ears. (People still using platforms : the likes of Facebook, Discord, LinkedIn, Github, or ChatGPT being amongst the ones that undermine democratic ideals and that ought to be socially shamed, and, in some cases, beaten up.)

When you come to a paradox its probably better to reassess axioms than embrace the paradox.

Can you be more concrete about this? How would you resolve this specific paradox without throwing out any obviously true axioms or introducing any obviously false ones? If it was easily resolved, it wouldn't be called a paradox.

Banach-Tarski is a paradox. You can resolve it by deleting the axiom of choice. But the axiom of choice is obviously true, at least as much as B-T is obviously false. That's why it's a "paradox" and not just "a proof that the axiom of choice is false"

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#115

Post by cluckindan »

Jensson wrote: post #90
cluckindan wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you rotate IPs and browser fingerprints for each identity and alter your visited sites, usage patterns, typing speed and style, mouse movements etc. etc. the data brokers will be able to connect your ”inconsistent” identities.

Most attacks on people are done by those who just google your name and see what comes up so some very minor privacy work helps a lot. Its a lot of work to be completely safe but its very little work to be basically safe.

This was not about targeted attacks/doxxing, but systemic data gathering and enrichment.

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#116

Post by csomar »

arthurofbabylon wrote: post #34

The Americans (†) who grew up with constant surveillance (social media, cameras everywhere) aim for ordinariness. The entire generation is less likely to express a non-consensus opinion than prior generations. For good reason: with everything being recorded and broadcast, personal errors are both accentuated and persist longer with no corresponding rise in upside. Bold opinions and creative ideas are simply too risky…

> And I worry about a "chilled" populace too afraid to express morality when it becomes socially inconvenient.

The social cooling effect always existed. It is just, previously, information and reactions traveled way slower. We are just adjusting to the new speed. Culture is a complex emergent product of the various basic human interactions. My guess is that this product doesn't make much sense when reactions travel fast as culture changes very slowly.

So instead, the future will be culture-less. You decide your behavior everyday based on your first few (100) shorts/snaps/tiktoks of the morning. It does help that these snaps disappear by tomorrow. This new society will have no memory.

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#117

Post by Dumblydorr »

sirsinsalot wrote: post #92

I'm more concerned about the fact I have no idea if the article and the HN comments are all AI generated or not. Can you tell if this comment is AI or not? What happens when social discourse is polluted by noise that is identical to signal? Is there anyone else out there?

Question: Is there any study or analysis of HN done thus far analyzing bot/AI activity? I’d be curious!

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#118

Post by pseudalopex »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #93
01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It worries me that "the herd" is not anyone I know in person, not anyone I respect, not anyone who loves me, but an abstraction that helps someone else make money, or helps someone else win an election. I think that is an obvious bad thing. It is one thing to say like "I won't call my friends' political beliefs stupid when we're hanging out" versus "If I want to criticize my government, I should use a ULID and not my…

> If I want to criticize my government, I should use a ULID and not my legal name. Oh, hell, that's even older. Criticizing the government has always been fraught. The founders of the United States signed their death warrants, when they signed the Declaration.

A declaration of rebellion is more than criticism.

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#119

Post by Jensson »

cluckindan wrote: post #115
Jensson wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most attacks on people are done by those who just google your name and see what comes up so some very minor privacy work helps a lot. Its a lot of work to be completely safe but its very little work to be basically safe.

This was not about targeted attacks/doxxing, but systemic data gathering and enrichment.

The comment you responded talked about attacks/doxxing:

> I don't want to feel like someone can just dig up something I've said or shared 5 years ago and use that against me

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#120

Post by nothrabannosir »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #93
01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It worries me that "the herd" is not anyone I know in person, not anyone I respect, not anyone who loves me, but an abstraction that helps someone else make money, or helps someone else win an election. I think that is an obvious bad thing. It is one thing to say like "I won't call my friends' political beliefs stupid when we're hanging out" versus "If I want to criticize my government, I should use a ULID and not my…

> If I want to criticize my government, I should use a ULID and not my legal name. Oh, hell, that's even older. Criticizing the government has always been fraught. The founders of the United States signed their death warrants, when they signed the Declaration.

> Oh, hell, that's even older.

So is slavery.

Whether it’s reversion to the mean or an innovation by modern society is orthogonal to the question of “are we going downhill as a society.” We are, in this particular respect.

Post reply on HN