Live data from Hacker News

Rotten Dot Com

theparisreview.org

71–80 of 133 posts

Re: Rotten Dot Com

#71
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the hell is am arm breaking contest!

Something parallel, there is a Black Mirror episode 7.1 (Common People) where he pulls out his own teeth, tongue in a mousetrap, torture/harm his body, etc. to earn money on the Internet. Edit/Add: I asked Claude to find that episode as I explained part of the storyline and is now asking me to seek help. Early Internet would now, definitely, be totally banned. Edit2: Is this new, or am I stumbling on something new? I…

> I explained part of the storyline and is now asking me to seek help. Early Internet would now, definitely, be totally banned.

If you did seek help, either online or even by making a phone call to a suicide prevention number that action will be logged and then sold to countless third parties ending up in several dossiers about you specifically which will follow you for the rest of your life and could impact your life and future employment in any number of ways for as long as you live and even impact the lives of your children as you'd now have a family history of needing mental health services. Claude has probably already modified the psych profile they've been building on you and who knows where that'll end up.

The real threat of the internet isn't the random messed up videos we watch in our younger edgelord years, or the sci-fi warning us about them, but the endless surveillance and abuse of information by everyone looking to leverage it for their own advantage.

The internet was a lot safer when you could look at gross stuff in peace and nobody noticed.

Re: Rotten Dot Com

#72
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's kind of a miracle that most of us people who got exposed to all that stuff are still sane.

No, I think that it actually shows that the idea that information can cause "trauma" or another kind of "harm" unless some third party forcefully restricts your access to this information, is completely insane. Of course, this "third party" knows better, right.

I think that gore is an easy scapegoat because this allows us to shy away from the difficult discussions. "We should ban porn" occupies the bandwidth of social discourse, and therefore we cannot discuss topics like "ok but really, what do we do about the demographic collapse". I honestly think that the kids growing up now are going to be much more traumatized by the fact that they'll find themselves in a world of insane wealth inequality while needing to support an army of retirees, rather than seeing a pic of a dead body.

BTW seeing death, disease, and misery was completely normal through entire human history. We live in abnormally safe times. Maybe there is some mechanism akin to allergies, where immune system cannot believe that everything is chill so it overreacts to tiniest threats.

Re: Rotten Dot Com

#73
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's kind of a miracle that most of us people who got exposed to all that stuff are still sane.

No, I think that it actually shows that the idea that information can cause "trauma" or another kind of "harm" unless some third party forcefully restricts your access to this information, is completely insane. Of course, this "third party" knows better, right.

I know someone who developed schizophrenia in contact with rotten.com

Re: Rotten Dot Com

#74
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Evidence?

Evidence of the fact that I ordered doordash? Evidence of the fact that people are a product of their genetics and their environment? Are you asking for evidence that humans tend to emulate what they see other humans do? Are you asking the more direct classic question of if there's evidence that violent media correlates with violent acts?

The latter. And not just "correlates".

Re: Rotten Dot Com

#75
post #68
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Large-scale exposure caused no discernible degree of trauma. How do we know this? All I've seen so far is anecdata. As my own anecdata, an ex of mine felt she had been traumatized by watching horror movies at a very young age. Many years later she still had flashbacks.

And in the olden times, people got nightmares from reading books, or by hearing a horror story around a campfire. Banning everything that is scary or can cause nightmares or trauma would be a very difficult effort, and deciding a boundary of what is too traumatic and what is not would be very arbitrary.

Can we agree that there's a difference between banning things and making things difficult to access?

I'm an extremely liberal-libertarian free speech and free information advocate. I grew up in a world where as a 12 year old, on IRC, in 1992, I had people sending me fetish porn and child porn, and I developed the belief at that age that that was fine, if you were 12, you had the right to see anything you could, including other 12 year olds naked. But this was not something most 12 year olds were exposed to, and by the time I was 14 I was pretty clear on why they shouldn't be.

We live in a world where there is no such thing as a "ban". Oh, I know, I hated bans and railed against bans, and I don't think the government has any right to ban anything. But a ban is just an obstacle to people who want to violate the norm. A ban is only a way for societies to set up barriers between people and bad shit which is bad for society, and sometimes it's okay for there to be barriers. In 1992, the reason most kids were basically incredibly innocent and had never seen any porn at all at 12 years old, was that the barriers to it were reasonably high. If you were some kind of command line warrior child who could figure out IRC over dialup, then yeah, people would literally mail you brown paper boxes with porn tapes on VHS.

There are, actually, boundaries on what is too traumatic to show someone. Personally, I'd like to obliterate the behavior that fuels those things, rather than need to address the downstream issues of people seeing them. But there are things that are poisonous to society because they poison individuals, and there's a role for society and government to play in prohibiting those things, or at least preventing their spread as much as possible.

There is evil in the world, and it is sometimes necessary to stop it. Free information is not an unalloyed good.

Re: Rotten Dot Com

#76

I’m pretty sure the same chap ran ratemypoo.com and ratemyvomit.com. Maybe also hotornot.com. Ahh … bastions of refined taste …

Wasn’t that Mark Zuckerberg? /s

Seriously, I think hotornot was inspiration for Facebook.

Re: Rotten Dot Com

#77
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Large-scale exposure caused no discernible degree of trauma. How do we know this? All I've seen so far is anecdata. As my own anecdata, an ex of mine felt she had been traumatized by watching horror movies at a very young age. Many years later she still had flashbacks.

Statistical anomalies exist, sure. But if there was any meaningful negative impact at scale, you'd think it would've shown up over the decades in trending therapy topics, to people bringing up traumatic memories of the old Internet, to....to something at scale.

Here's an anomaly:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/22/business/facebook-content-mod...

Re: Rotten Dot Com

#78

I wish I'd had more weird friends like these growing up. A girl I had an enormous crush on introduced me to rotten when I was 14, then disappeared from my life, and all my friends since that I shared anything along these lines with thought "wtf is this weird gross shit". Led to me developing for the rest of my life a circle of friends who never really shared my curiosity about "weird" or "nerdy" subjects. I now devel…

I feel differently. Like the author of this article, I attended an expensive, quasi-prestigious prep school in the American South _and_ went to Columbia. Kids in both milieus were competing with each other to be the weird ones.

It’s also worth noting that tbe author has spent a chunk of her career in advertising, using what she knows (first hand!) about how young brains are seduced by the verboten to sell trend forecasting to companies who want to mine that ore.

As a parent I consider it a specific challenge to help my daughter discern between behavior that looks or seems cool and behavior that is actually worth emulating.

Re: Rotten Dot Com

#79
Some day I should write about a very similar experience at ~7yo with my slightly older cool cousins showing me things as shocking (or more) out of their (MD) father's huge library (hush-hush). Things like high resolution pictures of extreme cases of venereal diseases, malformed babies, you name it. It messed me up for a bit that the first pictures of adult genitalia were so disturbing.

So when years later my internet-savy friends got into gore I couldn't get that much into it.

Re: Rotten Dot Com

#80
post #43
post #6

I didn't realize why until much later into adulthood, but I was one of those teenagers fascinated with rotten.com, and all the other weird sites out there during this time. Looking back it was innocent exploration, but if I did what I did then today, I might get put on some watchlist. And today I can barely watch an arm breaking contest without cringing. Anyone else remember orsm, b0g? They rarely get mentioned among…

LiveLeak, Ogrish.com, Disinfo.com... man, and those are just the ones I can remember.

snuffx.com, sideburns.co.uk (a little more tame IIRC but it's been a while)...
Post reply on HN