Live data from Hacker News

Untitled topic

news.ycombinator.com

311–318 of 318 posts

Re: undefined

#311
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way to destroy Facebook and the likes of it, is not by encrypting all of its data or even parts of it or sending it to /dev/null. The best attack would be in fact to display war footage from Syria, the Collateral Damage video and such gore to random people at random times, instead of ads perhaps. And to the other side who wouldnt mind the violence and gore, show them pornhub clips.

So, terrorize people?

The terrorizing is already happening, but it has not got the desired effect of quitting facebook.

Re: undefined

#312
post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just marketing, I don't see what globalisation particularly has to do with it. Capitalism perhaps, but only to the (debatable) extent that it's responsible for marketing.

You don't see what being connected as a whole (world) has to do with creating social calendar dates? Really? These things are figments of marketing imagination. They spread through people, not TV or ads. Albeit they start that way. You can throw $$$ at making the 1st of September world Tie day, but it's up to the people to make it stick. Which is becoming increasingly easy as we become a whole connected people. Sales…

> You don't see what being connected as a whole (world) has to do with creating social calendar dates? Really?

Well firstly I meant economic globalisation, I was thinking in terms of trade; it seems it has broader/other usages too that I didn't realise. Secondly I'd point to days like Mothering Sunday/Mothers' Day which has a slew of different dates throughout the connected world (even the countries where it's a wholly secular marketing creation can't agree):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother%27s_Day#Dates_around_th...

> These things are figments of marketing imagination.

Did you mean not? Otherwise we're in agreement.

> You can throw $$$ at making the 1st of September world Tie day, but it's up to the people to make it stick.

They don't need to stick, very few do, you hear for the first time about world tie day in late August, maybe get persuaded to buy a wacky new tie, and then forget all about it - or at least when it is - again.

Re: undefined

#313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> their public DNS resolvers were getting 30x their usual traffic But why does my browser need to do a DNS lookup every time I request a page from HN? It's not like the IP address changes every 5 minutes.

Short answer is because they've set their DNS TTL to 5 minutes: https://mxtoolbox.com/SuperTool.aspx?action=a%3anews.ycombin... As for why, you'd have to ask them. It could be to allow for relatively quick DNS failover in the case of an outage. Or if using a proxy like Cloudflare, that provider could prefer short DNS TTLs to have flexibility in their routing.

[deleted]

Re: undefined

#314
post #136
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely the moment facebook comes back up would be higher traffic as people rush to comment on it (see this thread's rapid rise). Best guess: there's a DNS dependency in HN's critical path somewhere and the DNS server they used was being hammered with the facebook dns lookup retries.

Nah, unauthenticated HN was working very fast. It was simply the amount of traffic HN got while FB was down. Here's a crazy idea: maybe a lot of HN people also spend time on FB during the day. When FB was down, they had more time to spend on HN!

Lots of facebook employees with nothing to do. We have this impression of HN being a huge internet property because of the importance of the news here in our lives, but in the great scheme of things, probably it has pretty modest traffic. 60.000 more people hammering it probably is a good load.

Re: undefined

#315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue that the problem is much deeper than social media. It's the internet and we're acting surprised that giving a microphone to every human was not going to lead to angry mobs and echo-chambers of the scale the world has never seen. Then, we decided to clamp down on it, lose civil liberties and the ability to dissent. Comedians are apologizing for making people laugh - think about it. So we're overall worse off…

Are you familiar with the 1st Amendment, and the immediate backlash (aka: the Sedition act) passed almost immediately afterwards? The printing press had the exact same issues as today's media, albeit at a slower pace but it was still there. A balance must be found. A few decades ago, the balance people liked was that newspapers were free to say anything, but if something was untruthful, then people could sue newspape…

> who do you sue?

I've recently realized that a lot of the crap on Facebook comes from this ambiguity.

They've basically created a system where it is very hard for anyone to take responsibility. Case in point: New articles posted on FB tend to have very low quality comments, almost as a rule. For pages that post these articles, it is extremely difficult for them to "moderate" those comments, in order to enforce high quality discussions. In fact, their is a lot of pressure on those pages to not enforce quality commenting. It is hard to say, even, that the organizations who post new articles are even responsible for creating a positive community around their Facebook posts.

Contrast this with the "old way" that newspaper brought in reader voices: Through letters to the editor. No matter whether or not you agreed with the opinions, these letters were (and are), of a completely different caliber than the typical FB comment. The newspapers willingly published them, and, in a sense, took responsibility for them. Namecalling, slander, misinformation, etc are mostly (though not always) filtered out of letters published by newspapers.

Compare this, too, to a forum like Hacker News. Here, we have a steady moderator who enforces the rules, and that the community also helps enforce. The rules are clear enough. Low quality discourse is discouraged, and sometimes even removed. There is someone whose job it is to maintain the quality of discussions. On the comments on a Facebook page, that almost never happens, neither from FB or from the company hosting the page.

As has happened through the history of online forums, without decent moderation, things tend to devolve very quickly. This is exactly what's happened at Facebook. They've created "pages" that could be there responsibility, or could be the responsibility of the people running the page, but nobody really takes responsibility. Everything, instead, is focused on engagement. Publishers want to drive traffic to their websites. FB wants to keep people on the site, and "engaged" with their advertisements. Moderation, in essence, has been almost completely ignored.

Re: undefined

#316
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a pretty ignorant statement. Facebook and its services, especially Whatsapp, are the most widespread form of communication in many countries. Particularly in poor/developing countries, hardly anything else is used because mobile Internet is available cheaply, unlike voice services and SMS. Whatsapp is indispensable there. See https://www.statista.com/statistics/291540/mobile-internet-u... for example.

If Facebook wasn’t there monetizing their data to keep them in poverty maybe an open source tool would be instead.

That’s an amazingly ignorant statement. A lot of the value of WhatsApp at acquisition time was that it supported a ton of feature phones and J2ME, something largely ignored in the West. You can have open source all you want but someone still has to run infra.

Re: undefined

#317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did it oppress you? Can you point to the place on the doll where it hurt you?

> Can you point to the place on the doll where it hurt you? Using a reference to how survivors of abuse are often required to re-enact their abuse to make a snarky comment is neither funny nor clever and it doesn’t add anything substantive to this conversation.

I apologise for that. You’re right, it didn’t add anything substantive and was disrespectful.

Re: undefined

#318

During the time Facebook (and related properties) have been unavailable, I can't help but feel a little better about the world. There is so much hate, arguments, misinformation, angry, and harmful messaging on FB platforms. It's nice to know all of that crap is just....gone. At least for a little while.

It wasn't ever gone. It just wasn't hosted on FB.

The thing to remember about tech -- both when it's lionized as a revolution for the better or vilified as the source of evils making things worse -- is that most of the time what tech does is magnify existing human dynamics.

FB could do more to attenuate problems and better boost virtues, but it's not the source of the problems. Its absence won't solve them or prevent something equally bad (or worse) from filling any gap it might leave behind.

Post reply on HN