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

The dead Internet is not a theory anymore

adriankrebs.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–318 of 318 posts

Re: The dead Internet is not a theory anymore

#311

Post by 11mariom »

butlike wrote: post #282

What does it matter who wrote it as long as you like the content? If the content is posted on a network that allows robotic agents to post, and you don't like it, just sign on to a different network. I imagine it will be way closer to Ghost in the Shell/Cyberpunk in the end than we realize.

I'm not reading comments to like them. I want to know other points of view, learn something, get bigger context, etc. AI opinion is worthless. If I'd like AI opinion I will simply ask chat/gemini/whatever other LLM myself.

Re: The dead Internet is not a theory anymore

#312

Post by littlestymaar »

lII1lIlI11ll wrote: post #302
littlestymaar wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can imagine a government creating a moderate number of fake profiles for use by police and intelligence services, and honestly I'm fine with it, but creating a ghost population for propaganda purpose is entirely different and if you live in a country where you cannot trust your government not to do something that bad, you're already screwd. In any case, it is still better than the status quo where even foreign auth…

Do you propose to only let people from a whitelist of countries use internet? Because many countries would have no qualms giving their troll farms bunch of fake electronic ids.

It wouldn't be the internet as a whole, and instead be done at the individual service level (potentially with big plateforms being regulated in what they accept)

And indeed, it is to be expected that some countries be banned from most of the internet, or at least get a read-only version of it, because their digital credentials aren't deemed trustworthy enough. Not unlike how the travel visa system works nowadays.

Re: The dead Internet is not a theory anymore

#313

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

Anamon wrote: post #299
DiskoHexyl wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually it does work for those invite-only trackers, especially in niche fields. Unlike most public trackers which are either dead or on a life-support, member-only and invite-only sites are still kicking. And you are personally responsible for your invitee

Absolutely. If anything, private torrent trackers and NZB indexers are proof that it works overwhelmingly well. The few I'm part of all have a real community (like in the net of old), civil conversation, and verified, quality materials being shared. Almost everybody behaves and doesn't abuse the invite system, because nobody wants to lose their access to such a wonderful oasis among the slop web. It's a great motivat…

You haven't really paid attention, I guess.

Entire trees of invitees, going back months and years, are pruned. Mercilessly, indiscriminately, and self-servingly for the few people privileged enough that they are above suspicion. And if you're unlucky to be on the wrong side of it, there's nothing like an appeals process.

>and doesn't abuse the invite system

That's wild.

>When things go bad, it's usually not because of malice,

I never said it was malice. It's because the system itself is pathologically flawed and there's no way to make it work.

Re: The dead Internet is not a theory anymore

#314

Post by pseudalopex »

pixl97 wrote: post #288
pseudalopex wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read the story before. Don't post generated comments or AI-edited comments. HN is for conversation between humans.[1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Ya, that dang be danged, religious adherence to that rule is quite stupid, especially when you're talking to someone that has been here years

You disagreed with a guideline did not make it religious. And account age was not relevant.

Re: The dead Internet is not a theory anymore

#315

Post by throwaway94275 »

MeetingsBrowser wrote: post #240
throwaway94275 wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm assuming there's tracking on the invites. So a recursive kick on X and all who X invited would still do the trick. If an IP address appears more than 5 times in an invite tree, ban the /24 or ASN if not from a friendly country for 10 minutes or other reasonable timeframe.

Getting unique IPs in any country you want is trivial for anyone but people building toy bots. How far up the tree do you kick? Going too far up makes it so malicious people can "sabotage" by botting to get huge swatch of legitimate users banned. Going to shallow means I just need to create N+1 distance between myself and my bot accounts

That's fine. If it is understood that you might be permanently banned because someone you invite starts doing bad stuff, maybe you'll be careful about who you invite.

Re: The dead Internet is not a theory anymore

#317

Post by amiantos »

myvoiceismypass wrote: post #243
amiantos wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I spend all day every day on the Internet and I don't share your perspective. I might dislike centralized social media and yearn for a bygone era, but just in the past two days I had a very positive interaction with multiple real humans in the Commodore 64 subreddit that helped solve a problem I was having that isn't documented anywhere else on the internet yet. So then I went on my personal blog and blogged about it…

To be really blunt - why do you think your blog takes will 'get out there on google' and also 'help others'?

They already do. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47343123

Re: The dead Internet is not a theory anymore

#318

Post by amiantos »

dylan604 wrote: post #241
amiantos wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you putting words/desires in my mouth that I did not voice? No one said anything about moving the needle. I said that my blog will go into Google results and help people, you said that sounded optimistic, so then I provided you proof that my blog already shows in google results and receives traffic. I've received messages from real people who have been helped by my writing on my blog, so it's not just bots. I…

Okay Freud, you're right. It's all about the attention. That's why you're the one publicly promoting their blog for what is it, right, attention.

I didn't even post a link to my blog, I posted a link to my public traffic stats, and only in response to something you said. Way to prove my point, buddy.
Post reply on HN