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

The internet didn’t kill counterculture – you just won’t find it on Instagram

documentjournal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 471 posts

Re: The internet didn’t kill counterculture – you just won’t find it on Instagram

#461

Post by thelettere »

cblconfederate wrote: post #136

I think platforms like onlyfans will end up bringing back counterculture, especially if more platforms emerge outside the uber-censorious US and esp, if they can embrace new forms of payments. porn is showing the way once again

I'm sorry, but I had to reply to this. People paying or receiving money for every single thing they say to each other and/or even access to do so is countercultural?

It's the exact opposite - arguably the pinnacle of the absurd logic of capitalism and its processes of commodification.

Re: The internet didn’t kill counterculture – you just won’t find it on Instagram

#462

Post by anaerobicover »

lm28469 wrote: post #368
lc9er wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument against texting, for me at least, is that it’s more intrusive (constant interruptions for unimportant things) and interactions end up being less and less meaningful.

I turned off all notifications 5 years ago. No noise, no vibration, no pop-up, no nothing. I doubt I'll ever switch any of these on again

Out of curiosity, do you even eschew notifications to yourself? Calendar reminders, todos, that kind of thing? I allow some notifications, and I find these quite valuable personally.

Re: The internet didn’t kill counterculture – you just won’t find it on Instagram

#463

Post by cblconfederate »

thelettere wrote: post #461
cblconfederate wrote: post #136

I think platforms like onlyfans will end up bringing back counterculture, especially if more platforms emerge outside the uber-censorious US and esp, if they can embrace new forms of payments. porn is showing the way once again

I'm sorry, but I had to reply to this. People paying or receiving money for every single thing they say to each other and/or even access to do so is countercultural? It's the exact opposite - arguably the pinnacle of the absurd logic of capitalism and its processes of commodification.

No it's people not needing to pander to the mood and whims of the crowd or the majority for every single thing they say , but being paid directly by their niche audience. I believe onlyfans is already too restrictive for them but it shows how it's done; we ll probably need something more anonymous

Re: The internet didn’t kill counterculture – you just won’t find it on Instagram

#464

Post by JasonFruit »

vsskanth wrote: post #459
o-__-o wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I, I, I. What about the human on the other end of that call. They must always cater to your whims and requests?

Its ironic because it's actually the human at the other end forcing you to drop what you're doing and pay attention at their whim. Calling only when it's time sensitive and simply dropping a note otherwise is more respectful of the other person's time.

I have the same preference you do, but I recognize that efficiency is not the sole purpose of a conversation. Asynchronous text conversation lacks a direct interactivity that many people value, and it is often useful even when the topic isn't time-sensitive. For example, this conversation wasn't pressing, but imagine how much more smoothly it would have run if we were talking while waiting for a meeting to start. You get that interactivity from a call; you don't get it in text messages.

Re: The internet didn’t kill counterculture – you just won’t find it on Instagram

#465

Post by Zak »

petre wrote: post #445
Zak wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Messaging apps that were popular in the early 2000s had fairly sophisticated concepts about how available a user was at any given time. That seems to be absent or significantly degraded in most of what's popular now. I want to be able to indicate my availability or lack thereof to any of my regular contacts before they send a message, indicate how urgent a message is when sending it, and control what level of urgency…

Probably because they're mobile and disconnected most if the time, so they don't have to advertise your availability status periodically. In the 2000s they mostly advertised that the user was away from the terminal. Nowadays one has the terminal in their pocket. Some of the old IM systems have a mobile status now. The busy status was ignored successfully then as it is now.

The busy status, at least in some clients affected what sort of notification the recipient got. My phone does have a global do-not-disturb function, but it doesn't notify the sender, and the only real bypass for it is a voice call.

I want to be able to pre-notify all senders that I won't be replying quickly so there's no confusion. In an ideal world, I could set this in one place on my phone or desktop and the 8 different chat apps I use would all get respect it. Of course SMS can't support it, but nobody who has anything important to say to me would send me an SMS.

Re: The internet didn’t kill counterculture – you just won’t find it on Instagram

#466

Post by malux85 »

JasonFruit wrote: post #464
vsskanth wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its ironic because it's actually the human at the other end forcing you to drop what you're doing and pay attention at their whim. Calling only when it's time sensitive and simply dropping a note otherwise is more respectful of the other person's time.

I have the same preference you do, but I recognize that efficiency is not the sole purpose of a conversation. Asynchronous text conversation lacks a direct interactivity that many people value, and it is often useful even when the topic isn't time-sensitive. For example, this conversation wasn't pressing, but imagine how much more smoothly it would have run if we were talking while waiting for a meeting to start. You…

Your argument is that the conversation would have gone more smoothly had it been direct, but there's no way I would have been able to enumerate my position clearly without having a minute or two to think about it above, type it out, make it clear again, and then explain all my points of view.

So it's likely a direct conversation would have NOT been as smooth, because I wouldn't have been able to state my thoughts clearly all at once, trying to satisfy the immediate responses that direct, realtime voice calls require.

I have also found that by not taking immediate calls then I dont get those annoying, reactionary type phone calls of people asking me things they:

- Could have thought of themselves had they stayed inside their own head for a moment

- Could easily type into google and get a faster answer

- Stopped getting calls from those people that fill their calendars and days with pointless busy-work, convinced that they are productive because of the noise they generate.

- My friends can type basically as fast as they talk, so there's not really a speed issue, the only person that still voice calls me is my grandmother, because she's too blind to see the mini keyboard

Re: The internet didn’t kill counterculture – you just won’t find it on Instagram

#467

Post by bsder »

TheFlyingFish wrote: post #460
BlargMcLarg wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really depends on the context. I like having a history of things that are important, and I got more than enough information to keep in my head already. Actively processing voice on someone else's tempo over a crappy mic often leads to mistakes, and the lack of history forces me to ask again when I inevitably forget. Also, the fast-paced nature of voice tends to make people neglect nuance which may be important. Yo…

> Actively processing voice on someone else's tempo over a crappy mic often leads to mistakes On the flipside, text-only conversation often simply doesn't include that nuance at all. I can't count the number of times I've completely misunderstood someone's tone over text when it would have been blindingly obvious over voice. Key and Peele even did a skit about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naleynXS7yo Voice and…

> I suspect it's in reaction to this that younger people tend to avoid voice communication even when it would probably be a better choice.

The other problem is that "voice" is social interaction--text isn't.

So many people are stunned when I can call up someone professionally and ask for a favor and they're happy to oblige. To which my response is generally: "When was the last time you spent friendly time talking to your people?"

People are normally starved for interaction with people who give them friendliness and even a modicum of respect (Generation Text in particular is really bad about snark--newsflash: once you become 25 years old, only your buds think snark is funny--a lot of professionals just find it annoying. Funnily enough, if you're really good at returning snark, Generation Text finds it equally annoying.). Covid has made that hellaciously worse--people desperately want to bend my ear for an hour or more when I have a 5 minute request. And I'm normally happy to let them.

I don't regard this as a "waste of time" as so many in Generation Text do.

Re: The internet didn’t kill counterculture – you just won’t find it on Instagram

#468

Post by JasonFruit »

malux85 wrote: post #466
JasonFruit wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have the same preference you do, but I recognize that efficiency is not the sole purpose of a conversation. Asynchronous text conversation lacks a direct interactivity that many people value, and it is often useful even when the topic isn't time-sensitive. For example, this conversation wasn't pressing, but imagine how much more smoothly it would have run if we were talking while waiting for a meeting to start. You…

Your argument is that the conversation would have gone more smoothly had it been direct, but there's no way I would have been able to enumerate my position clearly without having a minute or two to think about it above, type it out, make it clear again, and then explain all my points of view. So it's likely a direct conversation would have NOT been as smooth, because I wouldn't have been able to state my thoughts cle…

By that same reasoning, you should probably avoid talking to people in person, too. Maybe you should carry around a copy of Krick's statement, shush people who try to talk to you, and give them a copy.

If you think that sounds rude and bad, maybe reconsider your approach to conversation when it's not face-to-face — because that's how it comes off to a fair slice of the population.

Re: The internet didn’t kill counterculture – you just won’t find it on Instagram

#469

Post by Alenycus »

bitwize wrote: post #429
NotChina wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same words were said in the 70s and 80s of non-christian/conservatives. They were absolutely adamant about their "norms" as the standard.

The difference is that our norms promote an expansive view of human rights, both in terms of what counts as a "right" and who counts as "human". The conservative Christian norms... did not.

Freedom of speech, religion, conscious and the right to bear arms are all vigorously opposed by the modern left. I cna also think of a group of people who the right fight for who the left don't even consider people.

Re: The internet didn’t kill counterculture – you just won’t find it on Instagram

#470

Post by [deleted] »

JasonFruit wrote: post #468
malux85 wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument is that the conversation would have gone more smoothly had it been direct, but there's no way I would have been able to enumerate my position clearly without having a minute or two to think about it above, type it out, make it clear again, and then explain all my points of view. So it's likely a direct conversation would have NOT been as smooth, because I wouldn't have been able to state my thoughts cle…

By that same reasoning, you should probably avoid talking to people in person, too. Maybe you should carry around a copy of Krick's statement, shush people who try to talk to you, and give them a copy. If you think that sounds rude and bad, maybe reconsider your approach to conversation when it's not face-to-face — because that's how it comes off to a fair slice of the population.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN