581–590 of 687 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll settle at more than your 'major metros' and fewer than my 'most college towns' — although now that I think those two numbers over, it's probably not that large a delta to begin with ;)
To be totally fair I never said "handful of cities", but instead "major metros". My point is that the presence of a college is not a good predictor for the presence of a gay bar. It's very much a large metro thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
wow. do you think people of color should somehow separate their skin & culture as to maintain 'professionalism' in the office? you can not 'separate' race just as you can't separate ones gender or sexual orientation. it is simply a fact and truth of that persons existence. the mere existence of us queer people is not flaunting anything. the expression of our true selfs does not 'flaunt' and thinking it's some kind of…
Please, without being racist, tell me, what is a "person of color"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not defending Facebook and I just had some thoughts reading the quotes and am curious what you think of them. 1. I remember that while growing up fashion magazines, actors/actresses and I want to say peer pressure (but am fearful its incorrect) were a big source of body image issues. 2. Maybe it's a side effect of our society or "normal" to have security issues while growing up. We've been having good childhoods…
The less I want is to defend Facebook but I think lately people don't want to acknowledge their own responsibilities. It's like every time there is a problem, the cause is someone/something else. I don't think Instagram is impossed to anyone. Young people can feel the pressure to use it because their friends use it but they aren't forced to do so. From the article it seems that young girls know about the toxicity in…
For instance, I'm not sure becoming a social outcast is great for anxiety and depression issues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> nothing needs regulation This is a hyperbolic statement. Even if you are just talking about internet regulation. Let's imagine for a moment that someone invented a hypnosis algorithm and hosted it on a website. Anyone going to this website went into spasms and died in front of their screen. Would we seek protection for our children and for the general public from such a website from internet browser companies, ISPs…
Pornography does not cause you to go into spasms and die though. You being unable to control yourself does not justify undue restrictions on other people. The internet should not be ceded to nanny staters and morality police.
I didn't say it did.
> You being unable to control yourself does not justify undue restrictions on other people.
I'm not talking about myself, I'm talking about minors. Protecting children from products that require an adult brain to ascertain harm is a positive function of government.
> The internet should not be ceded to nanny staters and morality police.
This is not about morality. Please don't read intentions where there are none.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please, without being racist, tell me, what is a "person of color"?
a non white person.
I'm not familiar with this particular set of findings, but generally speaking internal research at Facebook are generally either large scale in-app surveys (which suffer from response bias) or small scale (often ~10 participants from a single city) in-person interviews. It's useful for informing product roadmaps, but I don't think we can really draw bigger conclusions from it. Put it a different way, if this research…
You're claiming a company that has over 20% of the WORLD POPULATION is informing themselves based on 10 participants from a single city? Are you making fun of their internal research team? Yes, if a rigorous study found that social media helped girls, and there were replications of said study, then people would buy that. This is how research works!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>[porn companies] need regulation No, nothing needs regulation. Stop making the internet fucking worse. Can we go back to 2000 now (not that it was good then either since the internet was fundamentally broken already)? This is like the bat shit insane morons who think having a popup about cookies on every page is solving the """privacy""" issue. Literally every single political issue on HN is bogus. Take the ad block…
> nothing needs regulation This is a hyperbolic statement. Even if you are just talking about internet regulation. Let's imagine for a moment that someone invented a hypnosis algorithm and hosted it on a website. Anyone going to this website went into spasms and died in front of their screen. Would we seek protection for our children and for the general public from such a website from internet browser companies, ISPs…
> This is a hyperbolic statement. Even if you are just talking about internet regulation.
It was intended hyperbole, but it's also mostly right. Rules are for fools.
> This is an extreme example but it illustrates a point.
An extreme imaginary example is needed because the internet is harmless.
> You can say the same thing about websites that prey on children, or the elderly.
There's no such thing. That is an American myth. They are a bunch of muppets who tell stories to each other about how a new type of monster ate their cookies. I'm not even exaggerating. It's an American passtime to think up new "injustices" to be solved.
I watch porn too, staring at 13, and never had a problem because I've always been healthy in general. Sex feels good even alone. It's not likely to cause physical health problems any more than any other physical activity. All those people on NoFap are losers coping by blaming their problems on some specific thing. Society is full of losers, it's not hard to find thousands of them to go on a dedicated forum to circlejerk each other.
> I'm not going to touch any of the other subjects you raised because I'm not arguing for any of the things you listed.
It was targeted toward HN in general anyway. I'm really sick of this place full of corporate drones trying to appeal to "the people".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pornography does not cause you to go into spasms and die though. You being unable to control yourself does not justify undue restrictions on other people. The internet should not be ceded to nanny staters and morality police.
> Pornography does not cause you to go into spasms and die though. I didn't say it did. > You being unable to control yourself does not justify undue restrictions on other people. I'm not talking about myself, I'm talking about minors. Protecting children from products that require an adult brain to ascertain harm is a positive function of government. > The internet should not be ceded to nanny staters and morality p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, this shit is addictive and implying that the solution is _just_ for people to delete their account is effectively blaming the victim. Some people never start smoking and never have a nicotine addiction problem. Some people smoke a few times or even occasionally but don't pick up a habit. Some people get addicted but manage to quit easily, some manage to quit after many attempts. Some can't quit ever, b…
> for people to delete their account is effectively blaming the victim. I think it's fair to describe social media as addicting, but it's not the same thing as a chemical addiction where one can experience physical dependency and withdrawals. "Just quit" really is a valid solution, the reality is that most people just prefer to complain about social media rather than accept that they are responsible for how they spen…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't facebook & co design their service to be addictive, or, erm, "maximize engagement"? The internet is fine, as I see it, it's ad-revenue based social media that's the problem. It's absurd to absolve a company as wealthy as facebook who optimizes for "engagement" from their externalities on children .
> Doesn't facebook & co design their service to be addictive, or, erm, "maximize engagement"? Is there something on the internet that isn't designed as such? Maybe weather apps... Everything else, from wikipedia to github to stackoverflow to the site you're on now is yet another automated massively multiplayer kudo ranking system. The only meaningful difference appears to be demographic; Facebook is one of the places…
Gamification is benign compared to an interactive news feed developed to drive ad sales. I find pointing at especially wikipedia, but also github as being designed to maximize engagement comparable to social networks as silly. Neither has much to gain from having addicted users, the same can't be said for facebook, IG, or Reddit.