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

The case against social media is stronger than you think

arachnemag.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 304 posts

Re: The case against social media is stronger than you think

#291

Post by scarface_74 »

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #288
scarface_74 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You call 60 years of racial segregation that affected an entire race of people in several states “cherry picking”? It’s a huge difference between “a few people being racist” and laws enforcing segregation and laws against interracial marriage. The racists have always been in power. You can look at the justice system, the disparity between sentencing for the same crimes across races etc. The Supreme Court said you can…

>You call 60 years of racial segregation that affected an entire race of people in several states “cherry picking”? Why are people who call themselves "progressive" so obsessed with events from half a century ago? >The racists have always been in power. It amazes me how quickly people forgot that we had 8 years of Obama. That was a lot more recent than racial segregation. >the disparity between sentencing for the sam…

Well not to bury the lede, a Fox News host just said that homeless people should be killed last week…

> It amazes me how quickly people forgot that we had 8 years of Obama. That was a lot more recent than racial segregation.

You mean the same 8 years that a large part of the country was saying he wasn’t really an American and that he was a secret Muslim wanting to bring Sharia law?

> Well yeah, if someone fits the description of a criminal suspect, why not?

So you’re okay with harassing all Hispanics because they “fit the description.”? Including American citizens?

Let’s look at what the government data says about discrepancy in sentencing…

https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-pu...

https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/one-in-five-racial...

https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-pu...

Re: The case against social media is stronger than you think

#292

Post by Chris2048 »

foxglacier wrote: post #285
Chris2048 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> aims to undo systemic racism ... they are the racists because of that this sounds like a suspicious characterisation - how are they trying to undo systemic racism, and what do they identify as "systemic racism"?

https://www.act.org.nz/defending-equal-rights-democracy For example, "Ended race-based waitlists" (for healthcare).

Which race was favoured? Did labour justify the racial-basis as addressing pre-existing inequality?

Re: The case against social media is stronger than you think

#293

Post by 0xDEAFBEAD »

scarface_74 wrote: post #291
0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You call 60 years of racial segregation that affected an entire race of people in several states “cherry picking”? Why are people who call themselves "progressive" so obsessed with events from half a century ago? >The racists have always been in power. It amazes me how quickly people forgot that we had 8 years of Obama. That was a lot more recent than racial segregation. >the disparity between sentencing for the sam…

Well not to bury the lede, a Fox News host just said that homeless people should be killed last week… > It amazes me how quickly people forgot that we had 8 years of Obama. That was a lot more recent than racial segregation. You mean the same 8 years that a large part of the country was saying he wasn’t really an American and that he was a secret Muslim wanting to bring Sharia law? > Well yeah, if someone fits the de…

You previously claimed: "The racists have always been in power." Now you've retreated to: "A country of 340 million people includes some individuals who have wacko political opinions." Those aren't the same thing!

>So you’re okay with harassing all Hispanics because they “fit the description.”? Including American citizens?

It's not the policy I would pursue if I were president. But I also wouldn't consider it harassment if a cop asked to see my ID.

If there's a community that has been breaking the law on a massive scale, there should be more shame associated with that lawbreaking than there is shame associated with enforcing the law. How are you going to have a functional society if there is more shame for enforcing the law than there is breaking it?

Your first link says that black men receive sentences that are 13.4% longer than white men. I think we should work to reduce that, but it's less than half the size of the male/female sentencing disparity from the same source (29.2%), and it's nothing compared to the 226% disparity in cross-racial crime victimization.

Re: The case against social media is stronger than you think

#294

Post by scarface_74 »

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #293
scarface_74 wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well not to bury the lede, a Fox News host just said that homeless people should be killed last week… > It amazes me how quickly people forgot that we had 8 years of Obama. That was a lot more recent than racial segregation. You mean the same 8 years that a large part of the country was saying he wasn’t really an American and that he was a secret Muslim wanting to bring Sharia law? > Well yeah, if someone fits the de…

You previously claimed: "The racists have always been in power." Now you've retreated to: "A country of 340 million people includes some individuals who have wacko political opinions." Those aren't the same thing! >So you’re okay with harassing all Hispanics because they “fit the description.”? Including American citizens? It's not the policy I would pursue if I were president. But I also wouldn't consider it harassm…

> If there's a community that has been breaking the law on a massive scale, there should be more shame associated with that lawbreaking than there is shame associated with enforcing the law. How are you going to have a functional

So exactly what should Puerto Ricans who are in the continental United States do to prevent being detained by ICE?

What should my six foot 2 Black stepson living in a lily white suburb of Atlanta GA (my wife and I moved to another state for reasons) do differently? Should he go to the inner city and change hearts and minds?

And you keep changing the subject. I am referring to how the government targets people - the only people who have qualified immunity and can take away an individuals rights. A random Black or White person cant legally detain me or stop me - not even in GA anymore after the Republican governor outlawed citizen’s arrest after it was used to harass and kill an unarmed black man walking down the street - yes it was caught on video.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Ahmaud_Arbery

Why do I find it hard to believe that you would be okay being randomly stopped and harassed walking down the street? I now live in a major diverse city. I can see it now. I a Black guy born in south GA being detained by ICE if they raid the Hispanic barber shop I go to - where three of the barbers are from Puerto Rico - because they hear me doing small talk in Spanish.

Re: The case against social media is stronger than you think

#295

Post by raziel2p »

mid-kid wrote: post #241
raziel2p wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there may not be an algorithm at work here as there is on Instagram or TikTok, but there's still a bubble - the name, design and discourse of HN itself works as a filter.

What you're describing is an echo chamber, when people willingly share only things that they know resonate with the group. While still somewhat detrimental, it's at least a visible problem - everyone is aware of it because everyone sees the same thing. With filter bubbles, you create personalized echo chambers, that nobody is aware of unless they're in there.

I honestly don't think they're that different, from a psychological point of view.

Re: The case against social media is stronger than you think

#296

Post by amatecha »

zeta0134 wrote: post #240
amatecha wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I interpret this as "I expect my opinions to be heard by people who don't want to hear them". Show me the ill effects of having an opt-in, consent-based social space where it's not infiltrated by unwelcome participants?

Well, imagine for a moment that the unwelcome participants are the ones against murder. Everyone currently in the group thinks murdering people who disagree with you is a fine way to solve problems. Outsiders might share insights and opinions to discourage this way of thinking, so they're not allowed to join.

Yeah? That's the nature of social circles. To take the example further, I definitely won't be able to work my way into a social circle of violent criminals who murder rival gang members and think murder is okay. I will not be on board with their general way of life and general perspective on the value of human life, or my overall aversion to committing crimes. They will definitely not "let me in" (unless they intend to exploit me as an unwitting participant in something, lol)

The jist of what I'm saying is, I don't feel like I have a right to join every conversation everywhere just because I have a computer and an internet connection. Groups of people have established norms for what's acceptable and what's not. For once, those social boundaries, the delineation between one group of people and another, can actually be represented in server-to-server communication permissions.

That doesn't mean that "murdering ppl who disagree with you is okay" people will never interact with the "murdering ppl who disagree with you is bad" people. They just probably won't be on the very same server, but the servers will probably communicate between each other unless the conflict level gets particularly high, at which time one server may defederate from or block the other. I regularly see opinions and views I don't agree with or share. Life isn't so black and white, I don't (and my server doesn't) block people just because they say something a bit spicy or weird. Some people/servers might, but the idea is that, for myself, I can interact with those different chunks of humanity in a way that works for me. All part of the word I keep saying, "agency".

Beyond all that, I've not seen anyone provide any reasons that an opt-in consent-based medium has any ill effects.

Re: The case against social media is stronger than you think

#297

Post by procaryote »

Lerc wrote: post #272
procaryote wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Responding to the point "it's [only] litigated on substack", things like government bans are relevant counter-examples The bans might be unfounded or well founded, you might agree with them or not, but clearly the idea that social media might be bad has spread beyond substack

At no point did I have your inserted [only] in my mind when I wrote that. I certainly do think the idea that social media might be bad has spread far and wide. What I would like to see is experts in the field reaching a consensus on to what extent that idea is true, and what should be done about it. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00902-2#ref-CR6 It should be noted a lot of ideas have spread in recent year…

My apologies for misreading you then. I didn't expect you to object specifically to it being debated on substack in addition to by scientists, regulators etc.

How is that a signal the case against social media is weak?

Re: The case against social media is stronger than you think

#298

Post by 0xDEAFBEAD »

scarface_74 wrote: post #294
0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You previously claimed: "The racists have always been in power." Now you've retreated to: "A country of 340 million people includes some individuals who have wacko political opinions." Those aren't the same thing! >So you’re okay with harassing all Hispanics because they “fit the description.”? Including American citizens? It's not the policy I would pursue if I were president. But I also wouldn't consider it harassm…

> If there's a community that has been breaking the law on a massive scale, there should be more shame associated with that lawbreaking than there is shame associated with enforcing the law. How are you going to have a functional So exactly what should Puerto Ricans who are in the continental United States do to prevent being detained by ICE? What should my six foot 2 Black stepson living in a lily white suburb of At…

>So exactly what should Puerto Ricans who are in the continental United States do to prevent being detained by ICE?

Show their ID? https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/releases/2025/04/24/countdown...

>What should my six foot 2 Black stepson living in a lily white suburb of Atlanta GA (my wife and I moved to another state for reasons) do differently? Should he go to the inner city and change hearts and minds?

What should I as a white guy do differently? Go to the prosecutor's office and change hearts and minds?

(Also, if your stepson is so worried about white people, why does he live in a "lily white" area?)

>you keep changing the subject

I've been responding to claims you made in other comments: 'The country has always been hostile to “other”.' and 'The racists have always been in power.'

>the Republican governor outlawed citizen’s arrest after it was used to harass and kill an unarmed black man walking down the street

I suppose this is more evidence that "The racists have always been in power"? Republicans are the KKK party. That's why they outlawed citizen's arrest after the death of a black man...

I'll let you have the last word in this thread.

Re: The case against social media is stronger than you think

#299

Post by foxglacier »

Chris2048 wrote: post #292
foxglacier wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.act.org.nz/defending-equal-rights-democracy For example, "Ended race-based waitlists" (for healthcare).

Which race was favoured? Did labour justify the racial-basis as addressing pre-existing inequality?

Maori and possible Pacific Island. I'm not sure how it was justified but I imagine probably because of worse health outcomes for those groups.

Trying to correct an inequality with another inequality is still discrimination. People who want that should be honest and identify themselves as racists, not the ones who want to stop racism.

Re: The case against social media is stronger than you think

#300

Post by delis-thumbs-7e »

lanfeust6 wrote: post #277
delis-thumbs-7e wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we? In a sense yes that the content is usee-generated and stranger are discussing the content, but is any newsfeed with a comment-section or a hobbyist forum social media? Can I monetise my contributions here, advertise products, sell my karma-points or create networks of like-minded individuals here? Is there any point for me to try to turn my personality into a brand or try to ragebait you to interact with me b…

> In a sense yes By definition, yes. > is any newsfeed with a comment-section or a hobbyist forum social media? Some are just larger and more centralized than others. > Can I monetise my contributions here, advertise products, sell my karma-points or create networks of like-minded individuals here? "Show HN" basically is that. And yes you can create connections here. I don't think I need to go on.

No, there is no point in advancing. By refusing to see the difference you are essentially wishing away a very real problem.
Post reply on HN