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

The future of loneliness

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 82 posts

Re: The future of loneliness

#61

Post by Kiro »

toothbrush wrote: post #51

So, slightly off-topic, but serious question: I don't use FB on principle (tracking, walled garden, evil in various ways), but I also don't know how to convince my "normal" friends to communicate in other ways... Does anyone have suggestions to avoid falling out of contact with faraway people? I emigrate every now and then, and I have yet to maintain connections after having left another city. It's rather frustrating…

Honestly, if you don't have any better reasons not to use Facebook I think you should just stick to it and keep a minimal profile. I'm pretty sure that as soon as something becomes mainstream enough to be used by "normals" you will classify it as evil and not use it out of principle.

Re: The future of loneliness

#62

Post by toothbrush »

Kiro wrote: post #61
toothbrush wrote: post #51

So, slightly off-topic, but serious question: I don't use FB on principle (tracking, walled garden, evil in various ways), but I also don't know how to convince my "normal" friends to communicate in other ways... Does anyone have suggestions to avoid falling out of contact with faraway people? I emigrate every now and then, and I have yet to maintain connections after having left another city. It's rather frustrating…

Honestly, if you don't have any better reasons not to use Facebook I think you should just stick to it and keep a minimal profile. I'm pretty sure that as soon as something becomes mainstream enough to be used by "normals" you will classify it as evil and not use it out of principle.

I hear what you're saying, but my gripe is not at all it's "mainstreamness" -- it's that FB plays notoriously fast and loose with privacy as well as copyright: I'm not quite prepared to sign off copyright to everything I post (notably photography, for example). Plus, it's also got to do with a US-based company knowing precisely what my social graph looks like that makes me uneasy (although as I said Google mostly knows already, so ok).

> if you don't have any better reasons

Finally, I am curious: don't you think freedom is a reasonable reason? If Diaspora were magically to become mainstream, I'm unlikely to classify it as evil in the same way I would with FB. (i.e. you can transfer away your data, spin up your own server, etc.)

EDIT: also, be the change you would like to see -- if I'm still on Facebook, my friends would have even less incentive to move away than currently, where at least I can convince most people to email me.

Re: The future of loneliness

#63

Post by Kiro »

toothbrush wrote: post #62
Kiro wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, if you don't have any better reasons not to use Facebook I think you should just stick to it and keep a minimal profile. I'm pretty sure that as soon as something becomes mainstream enough to be used by "normals" you will classify it as evil and not use it out of principle.

I hear what you're saying, but my gripe is not at all it's "mainstreamness" -- it's that FB plays notoriously fast and loose with privacy as well as copyright: I'm not quite prepared to sign off copyright to everything I post (notably photography, for example). Plus, it's also got to do with a US-based company knowing precisely what my social graph looks like that makes me uneasy (although as I said Google mostly kno…

I'm with you on the copyright stuff. That's why I don't post anything on Facebook - my photo albums and feed are completely empty.

What I'm saying is that you want a tool to keep in touch with your friends and Facebook is that tool. If you don't use it for anything else I wouldn't say freedom is an issue, no.

Anyway, you have some valid and fair points so I won't argue about the rest (privacy, incentive to move away/email etc).

Re: The future of loneliness

#64

Post by hoeppnertill »

littletimmy wrote: post #49
obstinate wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may be fundamental attribution error. Has that been conclusively demonstrated in this particular case? If so, what proportion of the propensity to commit crime is based on circumstances? Presumably not 100%, considering psychopaths exist and are quite difficult to rehabilitate. As far as I'm aware, there's not any conclusive data to show that rehabilitative approaches are much better for recidivism. I'm in favor o…

> I'm in favor of the state doing whatever it can to make a more peaceful society. This sort of thinking has historically led to a lot of problems. It is also trivially false. For example, the United States would be a perfectly peaceful place if all Americans were dead. Would you implement such a solution?

I'm mostly nitpicking here, but you're talking of a peaceful location, whilst the quoted text talks of a peaceful society.

Assuming a society must consist of humans, a peaceful society depends on the existence of a society and thus the existence of humans, so you can't just kill everyone.

Re: The future of loneliness

#65

Post by [deleted] »

littletimmy wrote: post #49
obstinate wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may be fundamental attribution error. Has that been conclusively demonstrated in this particular case? If so, what proportion of the propensity to commit crime is based on circumstances? Presumably not 100%, considering psychopaths exist and are quite difficult to rehabilitate. As far as I'm aware, there's not any conclusive data to show that rehabilitative approaches are much better for recidivism. I'm in favor o…

> I'm in favor of the state doing whatever it can to make a more peaceful society. This sort of thinking has historically led to a lot of problems. It is also trivially false. For example, the United States would be a perfectly peaceful place if all Americans were dead. Would you implement such a solution?

[deleted]

Re: The future of loneliness

#66

Post by zo1 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #39
webwright wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry if this is a silly question-- but if that hangs over you like that, can you just (legally) change your name?

In the US, you're required to share information about past felony convictions on job applications and so forth, plus there are companies that specialize in tabulating that sort of information. So trying to start over by concealing your past is treated as inherently suspicious.

Criminals in America sound like they're treated as a de-facto permanent underclass. Less rights (no voting, custody, criminal suspicion, etc), less privacy (sex offender registry) and less opportunity with respect to job applications (job discrimination based on criminal record is legal?).

And then they're released back into the general population, expected to be upstanding, rehabilitated citizens that want to (and can?) contribute back to society.

Re: The future of loneliness

#67

Post by lindsey-lohan »

rambambam wrote: post #58
KFW504 wrote: post #36

"Loneliness centres on the act of being seen. When a person is lonely, they long to be witnessed, accepted, desired, at the same time as becoming intensely wary of exposure." We are all walking the line of putting ourselves out there enough in a meaningful, authentic way to feel an organic connection while also combating a fear (that of course varies with the individual) of vulnerability. The internet provides a litt…

Well spoken. Just perfect.

I liked it too

Re: The future of loneliness

#68

Post by reddytowns »

cubano wrote: post #6

In a world of selfies and shared profiles, how can someone whom has painful memories of seeing themselves in photos ever since childhood supposed to join the party? How can someone who suffers from a pretty serious criminal record ever feel comfortable meeting new potential partners who will almost surely run a background check and discover unsavory things that really cannot be explained away? I ask these question be…

I'm an outsider, too, but for different reasons. In my experience, you have to stop trying to fit in, and live for yourself. Forget about attracting a mate, or friends who cares about that stuff. They would be bad acquaintances anyway. After you can make yourself happy, you honestly won't care what others think of you.

A quote from Diogenes:

When some one said, "Most people laugh at you," his reply was, "And so very likely do the asses at them; but as they don't care for the asses, so neither do I care for them."

I found some people who felt like me by doing that, and we became better friends then I think most normal people ever do.

Re: The future of loneliness

#69

Post by draugadrotten »

xivzgrev wrote: post #21
obstinate wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this much different than many other technological changes in history? Most benefit a large group of people, while having negative consequences for the smaller group. I'm not sure what you mean about the photos thing, but there is obviously a benefiting party from the digital background checks. People can get a sense of folks they might date, and potentially avoid dangerous situations. It sucks that that hurts you…

I don't think it's trying to bury information. I think it's fear that people will jump to conclusion. Say you do a background check on a promising candidate and they have a felony. You may automatically pass on them. Even if they don't, you're branded as a risk for ever. Let's say you murdered someone and you e done your time. You're a risk. Maybe it was a crime of passion, but you're more liable to do again than som…

> While it makes sense from a cold, society level view, what is that person supposed to do if they really want to rehabilitate?

Build trust - it will literally take years, or even decades, but with time and effort you can earn the trust of the person in front of you, and build from there.

Re: The future of loneliness

#70

Post by cafard »

meric wrote: post #27
obstinate wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this much different than many other technological changes in history? Most benefit a large group of people, while having negative consequences for the smaller group. I'm not sure what you mean about the photos thing, but there is obviously a benefiting party from the digital background checks. People can get a sense of folks they might date, and potentially avoid dangerous situations. It sucks that that hurts you…

Most benefit a large group of people, negative consequences for a smaller group, and provide extreme benefits to a small tiny group. In terms of Social - Look at youtube videos with millions of views, people spending more time than ever reading about celebrities every ten minutes instead of people around them. Before internet people look at celebrities once a day during their TV sessions, and even before that, only l…

Do you shop at supermarkets? If the store isn't Whole Foods, chances are that the checkout aisle is racked with People Magazine, US, and goes on down from there.
Post reply on HN