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

The future of loneliness

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 82 posts

Re: The future of loneliness

#71

Post by donatj »

I've always had trouble making friends, I'm weird and kind of intense, while at the same time painfully friendly.

Back in the internets earlier days it felt like I could find friendly people everywhere. It became a safe haven for me, a place I could meet people who shared my interests. I found one of my better friends to this day through an online radio station.

Hell, even early Xbox live was friendly, I had lots of really good conversations with people while playing Gotham Racing.

It really feels like now though I can't even get a conversation started online anymore. Everyone with mics on black is in private parties, IRC rooms seem increasingly unfriendly. The attitude has changed.

I feel increasingly isolated, I feel much like I did before the internet.

Re: The future of loneliness

#72

Post by 72deluxe »

rayiner wrote: post #5
tokenadult wrote: post #4

I feel fundamentally different from this author about what the Internet is doing to my interpersonal relationships, but she makes some good points. I like Facebook very well because, duh, my friends are there. I have lived overseas back in the era when I couldn't possibly afford regular international telephone calls, and relying on aerograms (remember those?)[1] to communicate by postal mail meant a rather slow respo…

I am torn. On one hand, social media has absolutely brought me closer to my family. My family is scattered between Bangladesh, Australia, Canada, and Germany, while my wife's is in Oregon and Washington. Nobody is close to where we live in D.C. But they can all watch my daughter grow up on Facebook. On the other hand, it's hard to have deep relationships over social media. Tweeting and like-ing are pretty superficial…

Very true about the AIM messages - I had many great conversions on MSN back in the day.

A good memory.

Re: The future of loneliness

#73

Post by gadders »

zo1 wrote: post #66
anigbrowl wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, you're required to share information about past felony convictions on job applications and so forth, plus there are companies that specialize in tabulating that sort of information. So trying to start over by concealing your past is treated as inherently suspicious.

Criminals in America sound like they're treated as a de-facto permanent underclass. Less rights (no voting, custody, criminal suspicion, etc), less privacy (sex offender registry) and less opportunity with respect to job applications (job discrimination based on criminal record is legal?). And then they're released back into the general population, expected to be upstanding, rehabilitated citizens that want to (and c…

You think sex offenders shouldn't be on a register?

Re: The future of loneliness

#74

Post by pyre »

zo1 wrote: post #66
anigbrowl wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, you're required to share information about past felony convictions on job applications and so forth, plus there are companies that specialize in tabulating that sort of information. So trying to start over by concealing your past is treated as inherently suspicious.

Criminals in America sound like they're treated as a de-facto permanent underclass. Less rights (no voting, custody, criminal suspicion, etc), less privacy (sex offender registry) and less opportunity with respect to job applications (job discrimination based on criminal record is legal?). And then they're released back into the general population, expected to be upstanding, rehabilitated citizens that want to (and c…

How can this possibly fail? /s

Re: The future of loneliness

#75

Post by ZenoArrow »

"This period coincided with what felt like a profound shift in internet mores. In the past few years, two things have happened: a dramatic rise in online hostility, and a growing awareness that the lovely sense of privacy engendered by communicating via a computer is a catastrophic illusion."

For the most part I enjoyed the article and found it thought-provoking, but I didn't agree with this. A dramatic rise in online hostility? Speaking personally, I haven't seen that.

In my experience, online hostility now is much like it has always been. I've never found it to be in short supply. My Internet use from the start has been closely linked to online discussion forums, and whilst some communities are friendlier than others, I've never known a time that disagreement online was a minor concern.

My favourite website is probably Reddit, which admittedly does house some of the most negative aspects of the human experience, but also some of the most positive aspects. For the most part, you get what you're looking for.

Re: The future of loneliness

#76

Post by vdnkh »

rayiner wrote: post #5
tokenadult wrote: post #4

I feel fundamentally different from this author about what the Internet is doing to my interpersonal relationships, but she makes some good points. I like Facebook very well because, duh, my friends are there. I have lived overseas back in the era when I couldn't possibly afford regular international telephone calls, and relying on aerograms (remember those?)[1] to communicate by postal mail meant a rather slow respo…

I am torn. On one hand, social media has absolutely brought me closer to my family. My family is scattered between Bangladesh, Australia, Canada, and Germany, while my wife's is in Oregon and Washington. Nobody is close to where we live in D.C. But they can all watch my daughter grow up on Facebook. On the other hand, it's hard to have deep relationships over social media. Tweeting and like-ing are pretty superficial…

I never used AIM but I always use Steam chat for talking with friends every day. Since we're always on Steam it's easy to talk to someone. Sometimes long conversations, usually just small bits of banter

Re: The future of loneliness

#77

Post by unprepare »

gadders wrote: post #73
zo1 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Criminals in America sound like they're treated as a de-facto permanent underclass. Less rights (no voting, custody, criminal suspicion, etc), less privacy (sex offender registry) and less opportunity with respect to job applications (job discrimination based on criminal record is legal?). And then they're released back into the general population, expected to be upstanding, rehabilitated citizens that want to (and c…

You think sex offenders shouldn't be on a register?

In some states, urinating in public qualifies as a sexual offense.

I think that such a crime does not merit being placed on a list that is presumed to be comprised of rapists and child predators.

Re: The future of loneliness

#78

Post by obstinate »

anigbrowl wrote: post #55
obstinate wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may be fundamental attribution error. Has that been conclusively demonstrated in this particular case? If so, what proportion of the propensity to commit crime is based on circumstances? Presumably not 100%, considering psychopaths exist and are quite difficult to rehabilitate. As far as I'm aware, there's not any conclusive data to show that rehabilitative approaches are much better for recidivism. I'm in favor o…

Well, time to update your priors. There's a lot of good evidence about the impact of different strategies on recidivism rates. Here's a fairly recent comprehensive overview: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/023358.pdf Ah, downvotes for supplying actual research, gotta love it.

Thanks for the link. I could not find the part where it said that rehabilitative approaches significantly reduce the risk of reoffense, but I'll assume it's in there somewhere. Nonetheless, I don't see anything in the document suggesting that, even with rehabilitative approaches, the risk is low and it is safe for private citizens to engage with ex-cons as they do with non-ex-cons.

Re: The future of loneliness

#79

Post by anigbrowl »

gadders wrote: post #73
zo1 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Criminals in America sound like they're treated as a de-facto permanent underclass. Less rights (no voting, custody, criminal suspicion, etc), less privacy (sex offender registry) and less opportunity with respect to job applications (job discrimination based on criminal record is legal?). And then they're released back into the general population, expected to be upstanding, rehabilitated citizens that want to (and c…

You think sex offenders shouldn't be on a register?

Depends. Rapists and child molesters, I certainly support long-term monitoring and strict parole requirements, in combination with treatment. Some teen sexting his teen girlfriend a picture of his dick? No. Quite a lot of 'sex crimes' prosecuted in the US are based on moral panic rather than any injury.

Re: The future of loneliness

#80

Post by anigbrowl »

obstinate wrote: post #78
anigbrowl wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, time to update your priors. There's a lot of good evidence about the impact of different strategies on recidivism rates. Here's a fairly recent comprehensive overview: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/023358.pdf Ah, downvotes for supplying actual research, gotta love it.

Thanks for the link. I could not find the part where it said that rehabilitative approaches significantly reduce the risk of reoffense, but I'll assume it's in there somewhere. Nonetheless, I don't see anything in the document suggesting that, even with rehabilitative approaches, the risk is low and it is safe for private citizens to engage with ex-cons as they do with non-ex-cons.

Eponysterical.
Post reply on HN