Live data from Hacker News

The Future of Privacy

nytimes.com

11–19 of 19 posts

Re: The Future of Privacy

#11
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lmfao. "I agree, stories like this are very triggering. I come here for code only. I don't want to know about anything related to governments, politics, and fake news EVER again. Thank you mods, please remove ASAP" EDIT: to downvoters, i'm confused, are you for censoring political posts or not? Cause I'm not, lol

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13108404

Thanks for the link, I saw this post yesterday and completely disagree with the "experiment".

You can see dang messed with one of my comment chains last week because my decent arguments "incited flame wars".

It's all fake and silly micromanagement over a non-existent problem

Re: The Future of Privacy

#15

This political story does not belong on HN.

lmfao. "I agree, stories like this are very triggering. I come here for code only. I don't want to know about anything related to governments, politics, and fake news EVER again. Thank you mods, please remove ASAP" EDIT: to downvoters, i'm confused, are you for censoring political posts or not? Cause I'm not, lol

I think that the detox week reeks of the terrible practice of faux "safespaces" and the inclination of technical people to not be as politically involved as they should be and simply deny the importance.

That said, it's not my website and if they want to try this for a week, we can. At the end of the week though, I expect that we'll have a discussion about it and hash out if it was a good decision or not.

(Im really hoping they'll release a list of posts that were flagged as part of political detox, so we can talk explicitly about which parts we think are good or bad to ban.)

Re: The Future of Privacy

#16
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only is privacy an inherently political issue, but the point of departure for the article is Apple resisting the FBI. I disagree with dang's decision to impose "political detox" on the site this week, but since he's done it, let's hold him to it.

Yes by all means, though the phrase "hold him to it" sounds odd to my ears. You're talking about giving us what we asked for, which I appreciate, especially since you don't agree with the idea, which I respect. I also appreciate your including the qualifier 'this week', because that's a critical detail and one thing I learned yesterday is that there's a risk of it getting lost in the shuffle. We don't want this to go…

Following absurd rules to the letter is a form of protest. That's what I understand "hold him to it" means.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work-to-rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_compliance

Re: The Future of Privacy

#17
As a security consultant who does a lot of privacy work, I found this article quite interesting (not enough depth for my liking, but interesting nonetheless).

That it has been flagged due to the one-week political hiatus is exactly the sort of thing I feared would happen when the hiatus was announced. I don't wish to debate the reasons for the hiatus itself, there are arguments on all sides to which I am sympathetic, both intellectually and viscerally.

What should be open to debate, however, is a matter of definition: What is (what are) politics? What constitutes a political topic?

The hiatus was announced without a sufficiently clear operational definition, IMHO. (It's a bit like the old arguments against pornography/obscenity: I cannot define it but I know it when I see it.)

I come to HN for interesting articles of appeal both intellectual and professional. Even with its echo chamber and nuclear downvoting, HN is still has the best signal-to-noise and highest value of any news aggregator I've checked. Since my work involves the intersection of security, policy, privacy, and governance, articles such as these are welcome in my feed.

Without a clearer definition politics, all we need is for someone who works outside a particular field deemed largely non-technical to assert that a post is political, and BAM! it's gone.

Like this one might end up being, despite the fact that fundamentally privacy is major unsolved issue of our technical era, an issue that has exacerbated by the very technology embraced by the bulk of us here on HN: This technology makes it possible to expose and share private information, whether as a direct and desirable effect (photo sharing) or as an indirect and undesirable effect (vulnerabilities and the like).

There are business opportunities here (privacy-protective services and systems) and there are stones to throw and derision to cast, for companies that services that fail to take privacy and security seriously.

That such a topic can run afoul of a loosely-defined hiatus is to me very unfortunate, a sad if not terrible side-effect of a well-intentioned but ultimately poorly defined decision.

Post reply on HN