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

Facebook’s “I F*cking Love Science” does not love artists

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 100 posts

Re: Facebook’s “I F*cking Love Science” does not love artists

#61

Post by scotty79 »

robertpateii wrote: post #56
scotty79 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your analogy to reposting is a robbery? Really? Mine is, telling your friends a joke without bothering to establish who originally invented it.

I'd say the truth is somewhere in between. Closer to a comedian using another comedian's joke.

Is that because even though the show is free performer gets 2% of the popcorn viewers choose to buy?

Original authors of the jokes either don't earn any money with them or do it similar way that the "joke thief" does. Only they are not that popular as he is.

I think reposting is much less of an offence then one proffessional comediant using joke of another one without proper attribution.

Re: Facebook’s “I F*cking Love Science” does not love artists

#62

Post by malkarouri »

illuminate wrote: post #54
omegant wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you so sure? A person that is conditioned to follow an idea will behave in a conditioned way, I doesn't matter the topic. When you are conditioned to beleave and cheer a "scientific" fact, it is improbable that you'll allow new facts to replace your beleave. You have made a new religion wit a new "Idol".

"When you are conditioned to beleave and cheer a "scientific" fact, it is improbable that you'll allow new facts to replace your beleave. You have made a new religion wit a new "Idol"." Religion is the belief in an absence of evidence. Science is the whole of objective reality. You don't seem to understand what "science" and "religion" actually mean, but you really don't like persons who don't believe in anything, so…

"Religion is the belief in an absence of evidence." Quoi?

May be you have some particular religion in mind, but many beliefs coexist happily with science.

There is a domain where atheists and many religious people agree on. Which is the domain that is not covered by the particular religion and that is covered by the scientific method (do an experiment, analyse data, get conclusions, rinse, repeat). Choice of medicine is one such area. True, some religions believe in voodoo or other "alternative medicine" but that is not part of the definition of religion.

The critical question is what to do with things we have no physical evidence of, things which we have no data of, are uncertain of. Things that science has not reached a verdict on. Religions typically have loads of these. The existence of god/gods for example. Having such a belief does not contradict the available science at the time, so we can have a scientist who believes in gods carrying on his research cheerfully. Atheists don't believe in gods unless there is physical proof. That also does not contradict doing some scientific research. The issue comes when you mistake "SCIENCE", the tool we use daily, with "science", the set of propositions, heuristics, conjectures and half-baked theories that will always exist at the frontiers of research. That effectively means you choose to place your trust in the set of current researchers and if they get it wrong, you get it wrong.

In short, science is not and has never been the whole of objective reality. This assigns mythical powers to scientists, which some would certainly call a "religion".

Re: Facebook’s “I F*cking Love Science” does not love artists

#63

Post by dvt »

scotty79 wrote: post #60
dvt wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, are you seriously comparing Elise Andrew with Shakespeare? "Picking the right words and phrases and putting them in the right order" is not even in the same plane of existence as "looking at a picture and deciding if it's remotely funny or interesting."

Nope. Not seriously. I just feel that belittling her work on finding the right content is very wrong. More serious analogy would be photography. How you do make good photos? Do you create them? No. You just make hundreds of photos (adhering to some technical limitations) and the you pick and crop the right ones from all the photos you made. That's what Bresson did. Picking content is the creative part. The rest is ju…

Bresson was a pioneer of the French New Wave. Again, the comparison is just completely off-base, I'm afraid. What Andrews is doing is just plain theft. (Especially given the fact that she's making money off of IFLS.)

Re: Facebook’s “I F*cking Love Science” does not love artists

#64

Post by omegant »

illuminate wrote: post #54
omegant wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you so sure? A person that is conditioned to follow an idea will behave in a conditioned way, I doesn't matter the topic. When you are conditioned to beleave and cheer a "scientific" fact, it is improbable that you'll allow new facts to replace your beleave. You have made a new religion wit a new "Idol".

"When you are conditioned to beleave and cheer a "scientific" fact, it is improbable that you'll allow new facts to replace your beleave. You have made a new religion wit a new "Idol"." Religion is the belief in an absence of evidence. Science is the whole of objective reality. You don't seem to understand what "science" and "religion" actually mean, but you really don't like persons who don't believe in anything, so…

All that you say is true, but at the same time I don't think you are getting my point. Atthe human level religion is nothing more than emotion, social and group dinamics and conditioning. Then there are the folcloric items, like gods, prayers, popes, books... But as humans we are always susceptible of falling in all the conditioning, emotion and tribalism present in religion. Even in cience, even cientifics are able to take a useful and teorically neutral tool and make it into a "religion". Obviously thanks to the properties of science, a behaviour like that has a limited life span, and will fal under evidence. It doesn't mean it can not happen, and that is not going to create problems. Not just because someone thinks in himself as scientist, is automatically free of the burden of being human. In this matter is interesting, "The structure of scientific revolutions" by Thomas S Kuhn. On how old scientists resist to the new evidences(that eventually replace the old ones), because it will change everything their career is based on.

Re: Facebook’s “I F*cking Love Science” does not love artists

#65

Post by scotty79 »

dvt wrote: post #63
scotty79 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. Not seriously. I just feel that belittling her work on finding the right content is very wrong. More serious analogy would be photography. How you do make good photos? Do you create them? No. You just make hundreds of photos (adhering to some technical limitations) and the you pick and crop the right ones from all the photos you made. That's what Bresson did. Picking content is the creative part. The rest is ju…

Bresson was a pioneer of the French New Wave. Again, the comparison is just completely off-base, I'm afraid. What Andrews is doing is just plain theft. (Especially given the fact that she's making money off of IFLS.)

I'm not comparing her to Bresson. I'm comparing her to a photographer. Bresson is just an example. My friend who photographs does exactly the same. I just invoked Bresson to show that even masters in the field do that. Also it's a keyword for google so you can see what his creative process consisted of.

You just completely missed my point that picking content and reframing it is valuable creative activity.

Theft would be to resell those images as stock photos.

Besides seems your broad definitions of theft would classify half on the internet as such. That's not a very pleasent view of the biggest cultural invention since printing press.

Re: Facebook’s “I F*cking Love Science” does not love artists

#66

Post by Pwnguinz »

jimzvz wrote: post #57
drakaal wrote: post #2

Nor do they love science. Most of the things they post are not accurate. The picture of the universe and a synapse for example springs to mind. They are just a "Like" farm. They use their tracking of likes to mine relationships so you can get personalized spam that appears that it came from your friends.

This image[1] pretty much sums up why I can't stand pages/websites/blogs like i fucking love science. [1] - http://i.imgur.com/OAGFxOJ.jpg

What do you exactly disagree with? On first blush, that seems mostly agreeable--mostly.

Is it the tone that gets to you, the underlying message, or the overly idealistic picture it paints?

Re: Facebook’s “I F*cking Love Science” does not love artists

#67

Post by TeMPOraL »

vacri wrote: post #29
potatolicious wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These aren't simple extensions of good faith though - that would be more like wearing a pin "I believe in science!", which is a-ok. The problem arises when people share untrue information out of the notion that they're spreading science. Comprehension is indeed expensive and scarce, which means recognizing the borders of your own knowledge and the start of your own ignorance is extremely important. Pseudoscientific d…

It reminds me of the criticisms of Mythbusters. They do bad science a lot of the time, with shoddy understandings of underlying mechanisms. It's fair to criticise them as bad science for this. But on the other hand, they very much promote the idea of "think of something, suggest what might happen if you do it, then do it and see what you find (, and then publish it)". So while they may not do good science themselves,…

Your point was very nicely expressed in this xkcd: http://xkcd.com/397/.

Re: Facebook’s “I F*cking Love Science” does not love artists

#68

Post by TeMPOraL »

endgame wrote: post #35
drakaal wrote: post #2

Nor do they love science. Most of the things they post are not accurate. The picture of the universe and a synapse for example springs to mind. They are just a "Like" farm. They use their tracking of likes to mine relationships so you can get personalized spam that appears that it came from your friends.

See also: http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=youre_not_a_nerd

I second this, and generally, the entire page. While calling the way Maddox writes as "extremely offensive" would actually be a very nice thing to say, he usually does have a lot of really good points.

Personal favourite: http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=math.

Re: Facebook’s “I F*cking Love Science” does not love artists

#69

Post by cf »

scotty79 wrote: post #49
raganwald wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A fellow robs my house. I catch him and hold him for the police. He complains, "No fair! Most robberies are unsolved because we lack the manpower to chase every lead!!" Lie is indeed "unfair" to him in some statistical sense, but I am absolutely not being "unfair" to him in a moral sense. Or to put it another way, the reality of the Internet as you describe it is that a certain %age of copyright violations go unpurus…

Your analogy to reposting is a robbery? Really? Mine is, telling your friends a joke without bothering to establish who originally invented it.

It's not like many of the original artists want a payout. They just want attribution.

Re: Facebook’s “I F*cking Love Science” does not love artists

#70

Post by egypturnash »

rckrd wrote: post #9

Yes, I agree. But why call out something like this page? Surely there are more successful and profitable content farms. Not justifying the behavior, just saying that this example is the 'little guy'.

"After finding one of my photographs posted to IFLS yesterday without permission, I surveyed the most recent 100 images in the IFLS stream and tallied the percentage of images that were credited[...]”

From the article, emphasis mine.

Post reply on HN