Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study • Hacker News Board

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#111

Post by FD3SA » Mon, Mar 28, 2016, 9:29 PM UTC

dhimes wrote: post #42

p4wnc6 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. I have sometimes faced reply comments that are quite unreasonable and at times meant solely as insult. It's very rare here, but still a risk. But what's far worse is that the moderation of Hacker News functions with very little transparency. Even just Googling for the moderator `dang` turns up a lot of angry rants on other blogs and in other sections of the internet, full of people who feel wronged by bla…

I had no idea this kind of thing happened. I've never seen it (and known what I was looking at anyway). I have, however, looked at some hellbanned accounts to see what caused the hellbanning and sometimes it's not apparent- that is, replies that aren't particularly insulting or vapid or anything obviously antisocial. I figured they were banned for some other reason- like sneaking advertisements in or something (that…

You must be new here. Try mentioning anything to do with sexual dimorphism and/or genetics. You'll be banned within the hour, most likely by 'dang' himself.

I've apparently skirted the line quite a few times myself, but I'm definitely under a few rate restrictions and/or shadowbans.

It's comical how closely the HN community adheres to the stereotypical programmer trope. Zero knowledge of anything outside a very narrow scope, no life experience or perspective with the empirical sciences, viciously dictatorial with any power, etc...

I visit this place out of habit more than anything else. There are a few smart guys here and there, but mostly very confused and undeveloped human beings with a very narrow experience of life.

Oh well, that's humanity in a nutshell I guess.

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#112

Post by lmm » Mon, Mar 28, 2016, 9:29 PM UTC

Godel_unicode wrote: post #24

tn13 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. But the people who run the institutions will mostly reflect the majority and hence protect their kind. When the society was mostly anti-gay the government machinery was used to hurt these target homosexual groups. Now that society is pro-gay we see government forcing bakers to bake cake for gay weddings. I will not be surprised if the surveillance mechanism would be used to hurt Libertarians and anti-government…

That's an interesting premise, do you think that the heads of e.g. the KGB were representative of the majority of Soviets? It was my impression that there was a large class distinction between the Soviet intelligence apparatus and the proverbial average Joe. Note: I selected the USSR/KGB not for any particular resemblance to current Western intelligence agencies (much more human intelligence and shotgun mics back the…

I haven't studied the period, but my impression was that it was very much possible for a brilliant person from humble origins to rise to the top on the basis of their skills. Though becoming outright head would probably require networking/corruption as in any large organization.

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#113

Post by raverbashing » Mon, Mar 28, 2016, 9:33 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #29

justsaysmthng wrote: post #27

HN is the most intelligent and open minded online community of this size that I know online. I have deep respect for you guys and girls and your opinions are always enlightening and thought provoking. I really feel much smarter because I have access to all these very valid points of view that you are surfacing. But even this community suffers from this strange phenomena of "group think" which leads me to go into this…

I'd encourage you to stop 'self-censoring'. What matters a few karma points, if you have something important to say? You'll find that often an initial knee-jerk downvoting can turn around half a day later, as more considerate users join the conversation.

Yes

Sometimes I might recognize legitimate reasons for getting down voted, in this case I clarify or review my opinion

But sometimes I just keep the comment there, because that's my opinion and hopefully some other person shares it as well even if it costs some down votes

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#114

Post by forrestthewoods » Mon, Mar 28, 2016, 9:34 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #29

justsaysmthng wrote: post #27

HN is the most intelligent and open minded online community of this size that I know online. I have deep respect for you guys and girls and your opinions are always enlightening and thought provoking. I really feel much smarter because I have access to all these very valid points of view that you are surfacing. But even this community suffers from this strange phenomena of "group think" which leads me to go into this…

I'd encourage you to stop 'self-censoring'. What matters a few karma points, if you have something important to say? You'll find that often an initial knee-jerk downvoting can turn around half a day later, as more considerate users join the conversation.

I don't care about my karma. I've got plenty. It's easy to gameify to earn more.

But there's no reason to spend time on a comment if you know it will get downvotes and subsequently ignored. It's like yelling into a brick wall.

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#115

Post by dandrews » Mon, Mar 28, 2016, 9:35 PM UTC

Taek wrote: post #101

justsaysmthng wrote: post #27

HN is the most intelligent and open minded online community of this size that I know online. I have deep respect for you guys and girls and your opinions are always enlightening and thought provoking. I really feel much smarter because I have access to all these very valid points of view that you are surfacing. But even this community suffers from this strange phenomena of "group think" which leads me to go into this…

Anonymity often brings relief to people who weight otherwise self-censor. 4chan is a really good example of this. Though it's got a terrible SNR, the peak signal is actually really high and sometimes you see really intelligent discussions about taboo topics like incest, furrydom, and racism. The anonymity allows people to state beliefs that simply wouldn't be acceptable anywhere else. Maybe HN should have an 'anonymo…

Rather than an "anonymous feature", how about a "please moderate this post" flag? A post that requests moderation would not be eligible for upvotes or downvotes, or would even appear until it passed moderation.

Of course, that means added work for the mods, or a new class of moderators altogether.

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#116

Post by fucking_tragedy » Mon, Mar 28, 2016, 9:35 PM UTC

joshkpeterson wrote: post #23

ChuckMcM wrote: post #13

This suggests we should implement mass surveillance of law enforcement personnel. If, as many people assert, the bad behavior of law enforcement is the actions of a minority, then mass surveillance of law enforcement should provide a chilling effect on that minority and result in fewer examples of these abuses. Somehow I don't think that argument would win the day though.

You're literally describing body cams, which people are activists are actively working towards making ubiquitous.

Can they be turned off or conveniently covered, malfunction, repositioned, break, run out of power, stop recording, corrupt data or have the recorded data be 'just not in the system' when an officer is alleged to have committed a crime?

All of those things will happen because it happens all the time with video evidence from dash cams and audio from body mics when it's subpoenaed.

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#117

Post by DanBC » Mon, Mar 28, 2016, 9:37 PM UTC

lotharbot wrote: post #85

striking wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN rules don't say anything about the "wrong way" to use the downvote button. If anything, we're encouraged to use it in the way we feel is best.

in the past, pg has used the analogy that upvotes are not only for civility, so downvotes aren't restricted only to incivility. My own personal guideline: upvote = "I would like more comments like this" and downvote = "I would like less comments like this". My reason for wanting less comments of a particular type can be a lot of things -- incivility, factual incorrectness, being off-topic or distracting, being techni…

PG had a few comments about downvoting. Two were like you said - people use upvote for agree so it makes sense that they downvote to disagree. But he also said that downvote for disagreement was a problem. That's (one of the) reason(s) why comment scores are no longer visible.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=658683

Here's pg trying to address incorrect downvoting: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1057338

I think pg is wrong in this next comment, I think people vote to disagree, and I think there's a pile-on effect. But I don't have the data, and he (and dang) did (and do). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2403716

EDIT: Some of those threads talk about the "meanness" of HN. I know I'm sometimes dumb and sometimes mean, so please if you see me doing that downvote me, flag me, send me an email.

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#118

Post by justsaysmthng » Mon, Mar 28, 2016, 9:38 PM UTC

akamaka wrote: post #92

justsaysmthng wrote: post #27

HN is the most intelligent and open minded online community of this size that I know online. I have deep respect for you guys and girls and your opinions are always enlightening and thought provoking. I really feel much smarter because I have access to all these very valid points of view that you are surfacing. But even this community suffers from this strange phenomena of "group think" which leads me to go into this…

I looked at your comment history, and I don't think you got downvoted because of your opinions. It's more likely a matter of writing style. The folks here like efficient communication and concise, well thought-out arguments. Some of your long comments are more along the lines of Socratic self-debates where you are thinking through a subject in detail. There's nothing wrong with it, but it just doesn't fit the medium.…

Thanks for the analysis :)

I've been around for many years here on HN. I tend to change my password to something random from time to time, so I don't get too attached to my karma, burning man style. It helps.

I don't think there's a fixed HN style for comments. Some people like flash comments and replies, some people enjoy longer, more thoughtful conversations. I guess it depends on the article/subject.

I tend to be a slow thinker and a slow writer and apart from their length, I also spend a lot of time writing them.

But once again, thanks for taking the time and maybe next time I'll remember to keep it shorter and to the point :).

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#119

Post by ChuckMcM » Mon, Mar 28, 2016, 9:41 PM UTC

ta_donk_gt wrote: post #97

joshkpeterson wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're literally describing body cams, which people are activists are actively working towards making ubiquitous.

Not really, though, right? The body cams video would almost certainly be treated the same as dashcam video, would it not? Generally, dashcam video is extremely difficult to get released if it incriminates or disagrees with the reporting of the police in any way. That's not really surveillance by any meaningful definition.

That seems to be the case, for example the number of "broken microphones" in the Chicago PD[1].

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/01/29/...

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#120

Post by lazzlazzlazz » Mon, Mar 28, 2016, 9:41 PM UTC

Taek wrote: post #101

justsaysmthng wrote: post #27

HN is the most intelligent and open minded online community of this size that I know online. I have deep respect for you guys and girls and your opinions are always enlightening and thought provoking. I really feel much smarter because I have access to all these very valid points of view that you are surfacing. But even this community suffers from this strange phenomena of "group think" which leads me to go into this…

Anonymity often brings relief to people who weight otherwise self-censor. 4chan is a really good example of this. Though it's got a terrible SNR, the peak signal is actually really high and sometimes you see really intelligent discussions about taboo topics like incest, furrydom, and racism. The anonymity allows people to state beliefs that simply wouldn't be acceptable anywhere else. Maybe HN should have an 'anonymo…

I am often stunned at how eloquent some conversations are on 4chan, and am dismayed when I realize this is because anonymity allows us to be truthful without the baggage of reputation and consequences of controversy - which is how we make progress.

We must never lose our ability to remain anonymous when necessary.