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

Banned book library in a wi-fi smart light bulb

richardosgood.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 396 posts

Re: Banned book library in a wi-fi smart light bulb

#241

Post by prox »

miki123211 wrote: post #235
bilekas wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have abundant free flow of information today and yet I see a rise of tyranny. We have an abundance of allowed information today, there is more restriction than ever of the distribution of information. Social media censoring, takedown requests, shadow banning, government censoring.

We went from restricting the sharing of information to making information sharing unpopular. If you ban or censor a book, you immediately make the book seem more valuable. Because governments aren't omnipotent and all restrictions can be overcome (see the war on drugs as a particularly recent and pertinent example), you just Streisand-effect yourself. If, on the other hand, you take away the popularity and social sta…

You pretty much described why I quit “social” media wholesale. It’s a turf war and nothing goods comes from it that cannot be got elsewhere at a vastly higher quality.

Re: Banned book library in a wi-fi smart light bulb

#242

Post by latexr »

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #230
latexr wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it should be pretty obvious that dissemination of information and lies today—when you can’t even know if the person on the other side is real or from your own country—is much different than 300 years ago. The “information wants to be free” motivation is much closer to the world of today than the one in your distant past. More importantly, I don’t understand why you’re so hung up on that. What difference does…

> I think it should be pretty obvious that dissemination of information and lies today much different than 300 years ago. Of course, so what? If your implication is that none of the arguments made over 300 years are relevant today, I would say it is pretty obviously completely wrong. > when you can’t even know if the person on the other side is real or from your own country Did people in England and France use to kno…

> If your implication is that none of the arguments made over 300 years are relevant today

No, the point is that for the purposes of this discussion it is irrelevant when the arguments were first made. And reread the original:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48550066

Nowhere does it say that “information wants to be free” was the originator of the idea. It’s merely anchoring it to something recent HN readers have a good likelihood of being acquainted with. It’s like someone used Avatar to discuss how colonialism is portrayed in media, and someone came along to say “Pocahontas did it way before”. Alright, but that doesn’t matter for the argument. We’re discussing the idea itself, its origins do not make a difference for the matter.

I’ll ask again:

> If you agree with the conclusion, why are the dates of when the idea started so important?

Re: Banned book library in a wi-fi smart light bulb

#243

Post by Forgeties79 »

p-e-w wrote: post #192
Forgeties79 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can’t let perfect be the enemy of good. Generally speaking, tolerating other beliefs and opinions until it inflicts obvious harm or is itself intolerant is considered “good.” It’s one of those things we will never get perfect but I find we generally do it well enough to continue advocating for it. The problems start when people with extremely polarized beliefs fixate on marginalized groups that are not actually causi…

> “Live and [let] live” is a pretty good role of thumb to live by for most people in most cases Absolutely nobody follows that rule. People just disagree on what is acceptable to inflict upon others with violence.

Idk I have managed to live my whole life without inflicting violence on others. Literally never been in a physical altercation.

Re: Banned book library in a wi-fi smart light bulb

#244

Post by littlecorner »

okeuro49 wrote: post #219

As expected, the book examples given were not "banned". They're usually school libraries that are removing books from their collection that contain explicit material, usually at the request of parents.

The cynical side of me wonders if some books might be "banned" on purpose to have the distinction of being a banned book. Probably few books are actually that way, but these days it seems like a shortcut to notoriety

Re: Banned book library in a wi-fi smart light bulb

#245

Post by LudwigNagasena »

latexr wrote: post #242
LudwigNagasena wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think it should be pretty obvious that dissemination of information and lies today much different than 300 years ago. Of course, so what? If your implication is that none of the arguments made over 300 years are relevant today, I would say it is pretty obviously completely wrong. > when you can’t even know if the person on the other side is real or from your own country Did people in England and France use to kno…

> If your implication is that none of the arguments made over 300 years are relevant today No, the point is that for the purposes of this discussion it is irrelevant when the arguments were first made. And reread the original: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48550066 Nowhere does it say that “information wants to be free” was the originator of the idea. It’s merely anchoring it to something recent HN readers hav…

> No, the point is that for the purposes of this discussion it is irrelevant when the arguments were first made.

How is that irrelevant if the whole statement is literally about when the arguments were first made and supposedly disproven?

> Nowhere does it say that “information wants to be free” was the originator of the idea.

It literally says __now__ that we've seen how lies are also information and can travel even better using the same flow, as if it is something recent.

> It’s like someone used Avatar to discuss how colonialism is portrayed in media, and someone came along to say “Pocahontas did it way before”. Alright, but that doesn’t matter for the argument. We’re discussing the idea itself, its origins do not make a difference for the matter.

If someone says that our views on colonialism were naive before Avatar 2 changed our perception of Avatar, of course it is fair to mention Pocahontas and 300 years of nuanced discussions of colonialism.

Re: Banned book library in a wi-fi smart light bulb

#246

Post by pydry »

miki123211 wrote: post #235
bilekas wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have abundant free flow of information today and yet I see a rise of tyranny. We have an abundance of allowed information today, there is more restriction than ever of the distribution of information. Social media censoring, takedown requests, shadow banning, government censoring.

We went from restricting the sharing of information to making information sharing unpopular. If you ban or censor a book, you immediately make the book seem more valuable. Because governments aren't omnipotent and all restrictions can be overcome (see the war on drugs as a particularly recent and pertinent example), you just Streisand-effect yourself. If, on the other hand, you take away the popularity and social sta…

This is essentially how das kapital got discredited in the public consciousness.

If you browse any CS career forum though, at least 60% of the complaints about "the industry" happen in most capitalist industries and typically have one or more corresponding chapters in das kapital (e.g. one of the various forms of alienation, treadmill effect, capital accumulation, the creation of a reserve army of labour).

Re: Banned book library in a wi-fi smart light bulb

#247

Post by BeepyJoop »

aarond0623 wrote: post #222
okeuro49 wrote: post #219

As expected, the book examples given were not "banned". They're usually school libraries that are removing books from their collection that contain explicit material, usually at the request of parents.

Almost the entire article is about turning a light bulb into a Wi-Fi hotspot/web server, and your takeaway was, well actually, _The Color Purple_ is not technically banned. Unless I missed something I only spotted two book examples since that wasn't the focus of the article.

It's just tech enthusiasts being socially inept. There is literally no discourse to be had from this comment, infact it only serves to detract from the main point of the article

Re: Banned book library in a wi-fi smart light bulb

#248

Post by BeepyJoop »

towledev wrote: post #239
ktzar wrote: post #218

For someone so mindful of efficient software and use of energy, it's showing that images on that post are 5MB PNGs...

if anyone's writing a script with a nerd in it, this line would kill

I'd like to see a show with this kind of writing

Re: Banned book library in a wi-fi smart light bulb

#249

Post by goda90 »

okeuro49 wrote: post #219

As expected, the book examples given were not "banned". They're usually school libraries that are removing books from their collection that contain explicit material, usually at the request of parents.

What is your definition of banned then?

The book Nineteen Eighty-four contains sexual content. An authoritarian interested in reducing access to such literature about totalitarianism simply needs to get some parents worked up over sex.

Re: Banned book library in a wi-fi smart light bulb

#250

Post by JuniperMesos »

simplyluke wrote: post #14
K0balt wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actual banned books that are illegal to own? Such as?

Zero books are banned by name in the USA. Certain content is: Classified documents (although this is just illegal to share as the one with the original clearance, not to publish/read/possess after), child abuse material, and copyright violations all come to mind. The majority of "banned books" are books that a random school district/religious school in a conservative part of the country elected not to include in thei…

In 2021 the company that holds the rights to Dr. Seuss books, founded by his family after his death, announced that they would stop printing several of his books because they judged them to be racist against nonwhites: https://apnews.com/article/dr-seuss-books-racist-images-d8ed... . This isn't a government ban on the content of the books, but rather the legitimate copyright owner refusing to print them for their own ideological reasons.

Once the books go out of copyright they will no longer be able to legally prevent anyone else from printing the books, and copyright law doesn't prevent people from legally reselling their already-purchased copies of books. But if you go onto Amazon right now and look at prices, you'll find that a copy of one of the Dr. Seuss books that the rights-holder refuses to print more copies of, such as McElligot's Pool, costs over 100 dollars; whereas a Dr. Seuss book that the rights-holders haven't judged as racist, such as The Cat in the Hat, costs about $5.

Post reply on HN