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

Nonplussed

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 250 posts

Re: Nonplussed

#181

Post by lsc »

grahamburger wrote: post #172
lsc wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's very hard for me to imagine someone who wants to try so very hard to maintain a serious public image that they won't be caught liking a silly cat video on YouTube. That seems hilariously self-important. Eh, I think this idea that we must live our whole life in public (to the /same/ public using the /same/ identity) is a bit insidious. Especially in these days of "cultural fit" - it leads to this idea that you n…

That's still one of the primary ways Google+ tries to differentiate itself as a social network. In fact I remember some of their commercials describing an almost identical situation. 'Circles' let you share things with only the people you know who care about them. I don't know how this works with YouTube, I don't use it very much. But it's implemented pretty well on Google+.

does plus let you display different names to different circles? I didn't think so (but maybe I'm wrong. I'm a big advocate of one browser (or one profile) and one account per identity, so I haven't really messed with circles.) - without that capability, circles are... much less useful.

Re: Nonplussed

#182

Post by im3w1l »

jlees wrote: post #109
joelrunyon wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is the proof that "real names = better quality." That argument gets paraded everywhere but I've yet to see an actual study or proof of this.

Here's a recent paper: "Civility 2.0: A comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion" by Ian Rowe of the University of Kent. http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/events/epop2013/docs/Rowe_Ci...

“an easy fix - anyone receiving welfare should not be allowed to vote anyway they are effectively children that simple change would shave about 40million off the voting rolls where they have no right to be anyway.”

“Many revolutions start with one small spark, President Obama has set this one off with his presser with the children and his use of the executive orders. The question is, is this the revolution that he had in mind? Time will tell.”

These are examples of comments the authors count as uncivil. They advocate for using real names so that people will not (dare?) post such things. I am of the contrary opinion. I think it is important that such opinions are posted and debated.

The criteria they used: "A three item index was developed to determine whether or not online comments violated standards of democratic discourse as defined above. If a comment 1) verbalized a threat to democracy (e.g. proposed to overthrow a democratic government by force), 2) assigned stereotypes (e.g. associate person with a group using labels), or 3) threatened other individuals’ rights (e.g. personal freedom, freedom to speak), it was coded as uncivil and the type of incivility was noted."

They also, separately studied impoliteness, which I assume we can all be in favour of.

Interestingly, they found civility increased, while impoliteness did not "However, unlike incivility, both [anonymous] Website and Facebook comments contained a similar amount of impoliteness."

Thus I would argue that the conclusion would be that using real names lowers the quality of debate.

Re: Nonplussed

#183

Post by alayne »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #160
alayne wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That usage is incorrect. It's another case of a word misinterpretation taking over the historical meaning. It's from the Latin "non plus" meaning no further.

I'm not sure why you note the Latin etymology, that would tend more towards the neologistic definition IMO. Like "no more?" as in "isn't there anything else to it?". I don't see how "no more" suggests being flummoxed/confounded. [Yes I know that's not how "logo-genesis" works]

no more as in I'm speechless and can say no more

Re: Nonplussed

#184

Post by danielsiders »

ta_delited wrote: post #157
acjohnson55 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really psyched about Tent ( https://tent.io/ ) as an alternative model. If people start to build apps around it, the promise is a system that puts storage and sharing into the hands of the user, not the provider.

the second I read "build apps" I knew this is not even close to an alternative models. the only alternative model is decentralized, encrypted and pseudonymous/anonymous. Maybe something along the lines of btsync, btchat mixed with pursuit [1]. [1]: http://www.fp7-pursuit.eu/PursuitWeb/

Tent is decentralized-- most Tent apps connect only to the user's own Tent server (they aren't hosted and don't "phone home"). Tent supports client-side encryption and strongly encourages anonymity.

Re: Nonplussed

#185

Post by danielsiders »

naterator wrote: post #123
acjohnson55 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really psyched about Tent ( https://tent.io/ ) as an alternative model. If people start to build apps around it, the promise is a system that puts storage and sharing into the hands of the user, not the provider.

Friggin' awesome. I have been thinking of a way to do social media but strictly under your own control, on your own server (until you decide to share something). It sounds like that's what these guys are doing. Still, people like stranger-to-stranger social media as well, like with Instagram. I suppose that functionality will always lie with a third party, since no privacy can be assumed in that case.

Like the web, global search and recommendations can be easily powered by Tent search engines (actually easier on Tent than the web since content is pushed, not pulled). Tent also supports content licensing on the post level so users can choose how their data can be used.

Re: Nonplussed

#186

Post by fps »

gcb1 wrote: post #134
VLM wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Experiences like this led me to leave Facebook" I would go on a tangent to this, that I never got any actionable information or other life improvement from facebook. I tried, really hard, for six months, to participate and get something out of it, but it was just a huge time waster so I wiped it. Although supposedly youtube is only (or mostly) used for trash talking comments on kitten videos, I have occasionally got…

but you have option. like that fancy pants academic video? nice. thumbed up a silly cat video just to show someone later on your phone? too bad. its there now too.

why would you click thumbs up when you meant bookmark? that's the wrong button.

Re: Nonplussed

#187

Post by jfoster »

spodek wrote: post #19

Experiences like this led me to leave Facebook, then LinkedIn, a while ago. I haven't deleted my Google+ account only because laziness and fear of an experience like the article's author prevent me from going to the site. People describe leaving as trendy, as if leaving had something to do with other people as opposed to the sites' own repellent behavior. For me leaving was easy and fun -- http://joshuaspodek.com/lea…

I think you're underestimating the lengths people will go to in order to use the company whose products they are already somewhat familiar with. Google+ has certainly made a big mess of Google's accounts and settings systems, but I'll just stumble my way through all of that occasionally to avoid potentially getting burnt by some smaller company that I don't know as much about.

Re: Nonplussed

#188

Post by grahamburger »

lsc wrote: post #181
grahamburger wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's still one of the primary ways Google+ tries to differentiate itself as a social network. In fact I remember some of their commercials describing an almost identical situation. 'Circles' let you share things with only the people you know who care about them. I don't know how this works with YouTube, I don't use it very much. But it's implemented pretty well on Google+.

does plus let you display different names to different circles? I didn't think so (but maybe I'm wrong. I'm a big advocate of one browser (or one profile) and one account per identity, so I haven't really messed with circles.) - without that capability, circles are... much less useful.

No, it doesn't. All of my social circles are tied to me in real life in one way or another, so using a false identity isn't really something that's important to me. I can see how it would be in some cases though, especially if a particular social circle is entirely online.

Personally I'm a big fan of encouraging the use of real identities for reputation management in online communities instead of relying on fake Internet points. We'll have to wait and see how it all shakes down!

Re: Nonplussed

#189

Post by acjohnson55 »

Houshalter wrote: post #175
VLM wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Experiences like this led me to leave Facebook" I would go on a tangent to this, that I never got any actionable information or other life improvement from facebook. I tried, really hard, for six months, to participate and get something out of it, but it was just a huge time waster so I wiped it. Although supposedly youtube is only (or mostly) used for trash talking comments on kitten videos, I have occasionally got…

Not everyone wants the stuff they do online completely public. I don't want a potential employer to read a stupid comment I left 7 years ago, or my family to read something I said about atheism, or my friends to read my political comments. Let alone having to explain why I just watched or liked some video, not even leaving a comment. Just because you use a website only for professional stuff doesn't mean everyone doe…

My thing about anonymity and Internet commentary is that neither the producers of content, nor maintainers of the medium, should be under any obligation to provide the consumers with an anonymous forum. This isn't even an issue of "build your own video streaming site with a comments system you like"; YouTube has a nice API. Build your own anonymous community. Or just use Reddit or whatever.

At one point, the comments were probably really useful to YouTube. They probably increase the virality of the content, before Facebook and Twitter provided new ways to share. But now, it's a liability. Advertisers don't want their product to be juxtaposed with unaccountable commentary, and advertisers are the ones that finance the whole enterprise, for better or for worse.

I'm really glad Google finally decided to do something about their video comments. They host some of the vilest commentary I've seen on any mainstream site.

Re: Nonplussed

#190

Post by acjohnson55 »

ta_delited wrote: post #157
acjohnson55 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really psyched about Tent ( https://tent.io/ ) as an alternative model. If people start to build apps around it, the promise is a system that puts storage and sharing into the hands of the user, not the provider.

the second I read "build apps" I knew this is not even close to an alternative models. the only alternative model is decentralized, encrypted and pseudonymous/anonymous. Maybe something along the lines of btsync, btchat mixed with pursuit [1]. [1]: http://www.fp7-pursuit.eu/PursuitWeb/

You just described Tent!
Post reply on HN