Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

> also cause many thousands of people to constantly express their hatred for you online, would you push it?

Absolutely, 100%. If you modified this to be people face to face or people I already know and love, definitely not.



sort by: page size:

> Would it change anything about this statement?

Yes it would change immensely. How would HN feel if I falsely claimed I was getting death threats from members so I could get attention.


> people would probably be receptive

I wish I shared your optimism. It would be immediately weaponised (on social media, of course) as an attack on free speech, or whatever is needed to get the right people riled up.

Social media is awful but a) the vast majority love it (if you told my mother she was losing Facebook she’d be livid) and b) it serves the interests of the powers that be.


> no one wants a platform where they can be harassed

I’m not sure whether it’s that, or that simply no one wants a platform everyone isn’t already on.

Personally I would absolutely not mind being “harassed” by text, if I was also able to exercise wide spectrum of free speech myself.


> what exactly do I do with this

Whatever you do, maybe do it anonymously?

It really sounds like it could badly trigger many people who will viciously attack others, actively attempt to destroy their lives, etc.

Be careful? :)


> I do not see the direct benefit of this for the end user...

I posted it to my Facebook earlier. So far the response has been unbridled glee. I think you're tremendously underestimating the sheer joy people have at being handed a method of striking back at the people making their lives a misery, and need to recalibrate your model of how people will react to this.


[delayed]

> emphasises that not restricting certain generated content would hurt users.

Being nice to person B threatening person A is not being nice to person A.


> The best solution here is to completely disconnect from social media

I've thought about that, but your reputation is being destroyed. You'll offer no defense? You'll let everyone who you value get that impression of you? You'll allow it to become permanent, public record for anyone who ever looks you up with a search engine?


> surely you'd agree that someone trolling kids online ... should be ashamed of themselves and driven out of polite society, yes?

I think pretty much everyone involved here, aside from the children, ought to be ashamed of themselves. I don't buy into the idea that people ought to be driven out of society though.


> The obvious thing to do is to remove anonymity from the Internet.

That would force this woman to put her real name and photo up there. I could imagine she might not be comfortable with that.


> assuming that my use of a website would have no consequences like doxxing that could get back to the rest of my life

This is a brave assumption.


> he does not behave responsibly as a person of his intellect and position should

He actually tried to doxx[1] me right here on HN because I spoke out against Brave.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23442203


>If you honestly believed this to be true, you would be arguing for a ban on all social media

Your terms are acceptable.


> If, for example, someone's mass tweeting at me via their followers (e.g. a blogger who dislikes me and posts my twitter handle), I'm going to be in a much better position if I turn off Twitter notifications for awhile than I would be if I let the notifications continue to show up on my phone.

Yes, when someone makes a death threat it's good if you stay away from the windows and hire bodyguards to check the car for bombs.

> there are two things at work here. Are you suggesting people shouldn't be allowed to spam someone else?

Denial of service attacks should carry some consequence.

> Or are you suggesting that people shouldn't be allowed to say harassing things to other people?

Depends on the severity and frequency of the harassment.


>Personally I would absolutely not mind being “harassed” by text, if I was also able to exercise wide spectrum of free speech myself.

This is precisely the idea behind 4chan.


"By the way, religious and political views do not only express themselves in the fields you mention. What disrespectful soul there decided to take my "Favorite Quotes", with access previously restricted to "Only Friends", and plaster them -- without so much as a warning -- all over my public profile?"

This.


> Do you hold one user accountable for drawing attention to a user who is now receiving messages from third parties

Inciting violence against a person makes you responsible for the violence that follows; let's not pretend this is something different - it's not.


> Is it your position then that since the developers had neutral intent, therefore the algorithms do not need to be adjusted?

No, my position is that since the developers had neutral intent, it is defamation to claim that these algorithms purposefully amplify toxic content.


> I’ve been thinking of tweeting my home address, so this is a relevant concern.

Giving out their home address didn't work out well for Tony Stark in "Iron Man 3" or for this guy in New Jersey [1], but they both had done things to get some people really annoyed with them.

So at the very least make sure that you don't have anyone out there who is really annoyed with you and has only been prevented from forcefully expressing that annoyance because they do not know where you live.

[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-man-who-went-on-a-racist...

next

Legal | privacy