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

Breaking the 4Chan CAPTCHA

nullpt.rs

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 378 posts

Re: Breaking the 4Chan CAPTCHA

#361

Post by Etherlord87 »

aguaviva wrote: post #335
ranger_danger wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is how oppression starts. First it's "let's only get rid of the most offensive content", then "let's suppress opinions we don't like".

This is how oppression starts More often though it starts with wave after wave of logical fallacy. As applies to your critique above, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

A slippery slope argument is not necessarily a slippery slope fallacy. Which you should understand after reading the article you linked.

Re: Breaking the 4Chan CAPTCHA

#362

Post by krageon »

aguaviva wrote: post #312
efilife wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the bad countries? Russia and china?

There are no bad countries, only bad streams of traffic. Some of which have been observed to be associated with certain countries.

If you spend any time at all at a cloud hosting provider, you'll quickly learn there are only a few bad countries. It's not really Russia IME, it is mostly India and China. If you block those two, you're going to eliminate 99% of your abuse.

Re: Breaking the 4Chan CAPTCHA

#363

Post by tovej »

ranger_danger wrote: post #329
tovej wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you please tell me one example where oppression has started with criticizing nazis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction

This is an armed resistance group, not an academic clique, and the violence was a reaction to attacks (e.g. beatings, assassination attempt).

It's also not an example of oppression, even though it is violent.

Re: Breaking the 4Chan CAPTCHA

#364

Post by tovej »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #337
tovej wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're saying national socialism is not harmful? /pol/, /b/, and tons of other boards constantly spawn threads glorifying nazi germany and vilifying other ethnicities and women, using rhetoric calling for people belonging to these groups to be killed. Violent far-right groups use these threads as a pool for recruitment. These far-right groups cause real societal harm through violent crime and shifting the view on vio…

> You're saying national socialism is not harmful? Everything with the word "socialism" in it is harmful. > vilifying other ethnicities and women, using rhetoric calling for people belonging to these groups to be killed Unfiltered hate like that is a property of humanity itself. It is not at all exclusive to the so called internet hate machine. If you look closely, you'll find that plenty of "virtuous" people are cap…

If you're not answering the argument, that's fine. But let's acknowledge that you did not answer the argument and are now just spouting the rhetoric of the far-right movement I'm describing.

Re: Breaking the 4Chan CAPTCHA

#365

Post by [deleted] »

Etherlord87 wrote: post #361
aguaviva wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is how oppression starts More often though it starts with wave after wave of logical fallacy. As applies to your critique above, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

A slippery slope argument is not necessarily a slippery slope fallacy. Which you should understand after reading the article you linked.

[deleted]

Re: Breaking the 4Chan CAPTCHA

#366

Post by aguaviva »

Etherlord87 wrote: post #361
aguaviva wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is how oppression starts More often though it starts with wave after wave of logical fallacy. As applies to your critique above, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

A slippery slope argument is not necessarily a slippery slope fallacy. Which you should understand after reading the article you linked.

In this case it plainly is though, if we just think about what they're saying.

Re: Breaking the 4Chan CAPTCHA

#367

Post by RHSman2 »

xp84 wrote: post #265
IWeldMelons wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone is making a brazen statement of being "a bad guy because 80K is not enough, and could not find anything decent for those extra $30K" what kind of treatment would they expect?

I’d argue that someone cracking CAPTCHAs has a lot less dirty hands than someone who works in an actually scummy industry like US health insurance. Those companies literally kill people by denying them care to pinch pennies. This guy might cause a little more spam on the already useless mess that is YouTube comments. Who cares. I’d take the money, too.

Tobacco pays real well

Re: Breaking the 4Chan CAPTCHA

#368

Post by Etherlord87 »

aguaviva wrote: post #366
Etherlord87 wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A slippery slope argument is not necessarily a slippery slope fallacy. Which you should understand after reading the article you linked.

In this case it plainly is though, if we just think about what they're saying.

Plainly to you, but not to me. What isn't obvious to everyone, isn't really obvious. You didn't care to explain what kind of stopping mechanisms are there, that make it not a slippery slope.

Rowan Atkinson gives some nice examples here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUezfuy8Qpc

I'd say rather than there being *a risk* of descending too low on that slippery slope, we already have plenty of evidence this already happened. I'm from Poland and recently a party in ruling coalition proposed criminalizing hate speech on the Internet. Fortunately, precisely the slippery slope rhetoric, supported by evidence from countries like UK, seems to be enough of a backlash to stop politicians from following such ideas.

Re: Breaking the 4Chan CAPTCHA

#370

Post by aguaviva »

Etherlord87 wrote: post #368
aguaviva wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case it plainly is though, if we just think about what they're saying.

Plainly to you, but not to me. What isn't obvious to everyone, isn't really obvious. You didn't care to explain what kind of stopping mechanisms are there, that make it not a slippery slope. Rowan Atkinson gives some nice examples here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUezfuy8Qpc I'd say rather than there being *a risk* of descending too low on that slippery slope, we already have plenty of evidence this already happ…

For starters -- the commenter wasn't actually suggesting that this kind of content needs to be suppressed.

In order to have a slippery slope, you need something to extrapolate from. But the commenter wasn't providing that.

Post reply on HN