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

Never Give Them Your Face

nevergivethemyourface.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 468 posts

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#171

Post by zelphirkalt »

MobiusHorizons wrote: post #122
ekall wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this kind of comment where you share the sentiment that you will ultimately admit defeat emboldens the factions that are hoping for people to be like you. I also think these kinds of comments may also bring doubt to people considering resisting these kinds of concessions. In other words I think the people pushing these kinds of "identification" methods would love you for spreading their silent message of this…

Are you really advocating for suppressing rational assessments for the likelihood of success because you think the analysis is too discouraging? If you already agree the resistance will ultimately lead nowhere, why not focus that energy on something with a better chance of success? Best guess would be partnering with someone like the EFF for a solution through lobbying And the courts.

Is it all that rational?

If everyone thinks so, then surely yes, but if people realize, that change starts in the small and they can be part of the change, perhaps at some personal cost, but that it might be worth it, then suddenly change is possible.

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#172

Post by huehehue »

vlucas wrote: post #88

The phrase "people will not just [...]" comes to mind here. The amount of people that let the TSA take a scan of their face when going through airport security - even when the signage clearly says you can opt out - proves that this effort, while noble, will fail. I (and the family members I am with) always opt-out, but every time I look around, I am the only one doing it. If I had to guess, I'd put a compliance figur…

Good heavens, the comments on that article make me want to vomit:

"Thanks to people with your mindset our streets and borders are not as safe as they should be."

This option is made freely available to passengers, but by choosing it you're signaling that you hate your country and public safety? It's no wonder people are scared to push back on invasive and discriminatory practices.

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#174

Post by jjgreen »

cormorant wrote: post #120
supriyo-biswas wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's all caused by a Meta lobbying initiative across multiple countries as documented in https://tboteproject.com/ (sadly, the website is down right now), but you can find references e.g. https://www.jwz.org/blog/2026/03/the-tbote-project/

> ...jwz.org... Holy fuck, man, visiting that with a HN referer serves up a rather NSFW rude image, and evidently sets a cookie to make sure it happens next time too. replacement link: https://web.archive.org/web/20260401175031/https://www.jwz.o...

Not that NSFW, could do with a trim though ...

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#175

Post by rockskon »

cortesoft wrote: post #162
munk-a wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are correct that your data isn't particularly impactful for these platforms - but you're also overestimating the value that many of these services have. A fair few of them have competitors with better features and privacy offerings so the only reason you need them is purely for the network effect of everyone else using them.

Just because the network effect is why you need them doesn’t make that need go away.

It represents an increase in cost to use the service. Most such services have a wealth of competitors for your time and attention.

"Need" is an extremely strong word that is not appropriate for many Internet services where facial recognition is being pushed for.

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#176

Post by ethagnawl »

wwweston wrote: post #114
munk-a wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are correct that your data isn't particularly impactful for these platforms - but you're also overestimating the value that many of these services have. A fair few of them have competitors with better features and privacy offerings so the only reason you need them is purely for the network effect of everyone else using them.

And increasingly, everyone isn’t using them, even if they’re on them. I’m on Insta and WhatsApp and I use them a few times per year. I’m on Messenger and have seen a dramatic dropoff in messages. I’m on FB frequently and notice only a small fraction of my friends bother anymore and it’s become an interest platform to make up the lack, so I’m trending toward less time there. I’m on Twitter/X but check in maybe once a…

No, I don't think you're unique at all. I think this all tracks and applies to more and more of the general population.

These mainstream services no longer provide what people signed up for: life updates, pictures of kids and dogs, etc. These value-add posts are becoming less frequent because of/and are being replaced by streams of posts from people _you should follow_ or content they're pretty sure will rile you up about ... whatever. Generally, the people who are still active and whose posts slip through (because it's their only outlet) are effectively monkeys slinging shit (e.g. uncles posting AI slop memes about Barack Obama's suits).

It seems like younger generations have moved on to more silo'd experiences. I don't use TikTok but it's my understanding that it's more about connecting with people who share common interests (more akin to HN or Reddit) and not as much about connecting with your high school Spanish teacher who has gone full MAGA and whose posts you don't care to see and/or who you don't want seeing your posts and trolling you in the comments. This same cohort also seems to be spending much more time in private group chats and, for the most part, the platform doesn't seem to matter; it's just a message broker.

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#177

Post by mockerell »

ekall wrote: post #81
harel wrote: post #44

It ends with "The platforms need you far more than you need them". And I think this is the misconception. No, they don't. The amount of people who will sign this, is a fraction of a fraction of a "platform"'s users. They will not care if they lose 50,000 users out of 2 Billion. A drop in the ocean. Not the target audience anyway. And that is the real shame. Because I don't want to have to give my face or do age verif…

I think this kind of comment where you share the sentiment that you will ultimately admit defeat emboldens the factions that are hoping for people to be like you. I also think these kinds of comments may also bring doubt to people considering resisting these kinds of concessions. In other words I think the people pushing these kinds of "identification" methods would love you for spreading their silent message of this…

I just wanted to tell you that I wholeheartedly agree with your statement and that you shouldn’t be discouraged by some of the nay-sayers in the replies. I feel that HN has many users who are techno-optimist, but are very pessimistic of the role of individuals and the possibilities of the society overall.

Even in the replies someone tries to appeal to some ideal of „rationalism“ which is nothing but defeatism to the status quo. They see any kind of passion, emotion or values as „irrational“ and categorically as something lesser.

But what is reason without values? Logic without axioms? Just treading in the trivial waters.

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#178

Post by inigyou »

harel wrote: post #44

It ends with "The platforms need you far more than you need them". And I think this is the misconception. No, they don't. The amount of people who will sign this, is a fraction of a fraction of a "platform"'s users. They will not care if they lose 50,000 users out of 2 Billion. A drop in the ocean. Not the target audience anyway. And that is the real shame. Because I don't want to have to give my face or do age verif…

They arguably don't need any users as long as they can maintain the delusion of being important and especially present that delusion to politicians.

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#179

Post by dwd »

fl4regun wrote: post #55
brettermeier wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean the analogy sounds about right, why downvoting?

it sounds wrong, on the account of I never had my "ability to buy groceries" taken away from me without proving my vaccination status, I've only ever seen it used for travel purposes.

Depends where you lived. There were a few grocery stores in Australia that banned entry without proof of vaccination at the time.

It was also widely discussed.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-06/morrison-businesses-r...

https://www.news.com.au/world/coronavirus/australia/supermar...

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#180

Post by SoftTalker »

Your face is already everwhere. Your supermarket records it as you check out. Every retailer records it as you enter the store. The state has it. The Federal government has it if you have a passport or other federal ID. Your mortgage company probably required it when you digitally "signed" your loan application. Socials have it from all the selfies you've posted. It's a lost cause.
Post reply on HN