Made possible in turn by giving safe haven for user content on the big social networks. Turned out to be a double edged sword.
When Rupert tried to lie about voting machines, he was fined couple of hundred mils. All the social networks mouthpiece accounts spouting nonsense suffer no repercussions whatsoever.
This is the old dichotomy: either you dont censor and are just a medium (like electricity) or you do censor some things and then you are responsible of what is published. Social media seems to want to censor while not being responsible.
Section 230 of the communications decency act explicitly gave these companies this power, on purpose. Unmoderated online spaces are mostly useful to scammers and spammers.
If somebody kept using the same phone line to trigger bombs, do you think that the phone company doesn't have an obligation to shut that line down? Let's say the police came to the phone company and said "we know that if you shut this phone line down, so and so wont be able to trigger the bomb they have planted in XYZ space." Do you think the phone company should do nothing?
What about a courier that knows it is delivering bombs? We should look past that too?
I think that when GP stated "All the social networks mouthpiece accounts spouting nonsense suffer no repercussions whatsoever." they were referring to the people lying and not the social networks them themselves.
these examples look ridiculous but you have to remember that people are used to chinese characters and can't easily recognize if a url written in latin characters is right or wrong. this is made even worse by the fact that even official websites are not always hosted on an official domain, and even when they are they use ridiculous hostnames, because again whoever is setting up the site just sees a sequence of letters that they are not closely familiar with.
There is that and there is the fact that 50-60 years ago China was coming out of a Cultural Revolution that had shut down the education system, and places like Shenzhen were fishing villages with dirt roads well within living memory.
It is not exactly surprising that in such a breakneck development pace that some people did not get up to speed at the same pace.
———
I will also say I think that China’s embrace of super apps and the quasi-app-internet is not helping with online literacy.
yes, i have TAOCP on the shelf and yes guilty of "one day i'll ready it".
but every now and then i open them up and just flip thru that magnificent typography.
Knuth has not just written up all these things, he has developed an entire typesetting system (complete with fonts) to bring technical publishing screaming and kicking into the 20th century (when other software thought kerning and hypenation were creatures from space). it's the only program deserving a version number approximating PI.
CF Workers (that runs WebAssembly) are all over place. They may not run the main logic (not the actual Ngix, or DNSEC code) but they are used for several maintaince tasks.
not a heavy :! user, what i used there worked, but afaik neovim recommends :te . that's one of the bigger differences. neovim was very proud to have a fully integrated terminal
so why dont i see that with ai related stuff? hn has been basically a gpt news site the last 4 months. quite sick of it actually. i dont remember even 5 climate change big threads recently, it's like the issue doesnt exist here at all. climate change is not only political - there's tons of research and science involved. but it's better to know someone put gpt on self driving cars that can cook asian fusion hallucinated recipes. hn has its blind spots just like any other site.
I get the sense that a lot of people hate AI stuff, but a lot of people are also interested, so it gets downweighted but a lot of stories still appear. This is based on seeing a few dang comments about it, plus getting lots of upvotes on some anti AI post comments I've made. I agree it's too much. Otoh, it's a new and evolving field (llms et al) that has regular new information, that's relevant to the community. I think there's more new information in the AI posts than in the "here's evidence climate change is bad" posts. Posts about tech that addresses climate change would be interesting and do get discussed periodically.
It's priorities, more users on this site work in software that uses AI and are concerned about their livelihood. How many people come to this site to learn about tooling or new ways they can make money? I would guess it's a pretty large amount.
It's short-sighted but if you have to survive and pay the bills this is what you have to do. Not everyone is a tenured professor with the ability to have this as their primary priority.
I’m not a tenured professor with the ability to have this as my primary priority. I’m a person who has kids and wants to know if they’re going to have a world to live in. Even a world with AI and no jobs is a hell of a lot better than a world where we can’t grow crops because the climate hit a tipping point and we all shut our eyes.
>I’m not a tenured professor with the ability to have this as my primary priority.
Can you see now why it's bad to assume things and engage in bad faith ad hominem?
>I’m a person who has kids and wants to know if they’re going to have a world to live in
They will. It will be different and might be worse. They won't have the same food, weather might harm them.
If you haven't written me off for my last comment, I rent a cottage on a small farm. On the land stands a sole american chestnut in a region where there was once billions. We have planted seedlings started from this tree. For what? The world didn't go away for this survivor, but the stress of the blight afflicts it and it will almost certainly take its young when they mature. Science has made it possible to bring the closest version of this tree back through genetic modification, but should it be done? I am of the mindset that yes, we should do that. Many will disagree. Should we keep trying to hybridize it with foreign species, or should we let it fade into the fossil record? There's no consensus so national policy hasn't changed.
I bring this up because I do notice, I see the changes in the world around me but I as an individual only have the power to struggle on my own to adapt to them. Do you understand that it's not a lack of my caring, but a fatigue of hearing the same 'worse this year' reporting that there's not much point in discussing?
Browser side solutions have been provided by other users (not by hn) to hide certain coversations. I think it's an excellent solution to hide climate change stuff if you so wish, unless you're using an app all the time.
More than plenty of other stories going around to drown climate change conversations in, so to speak. No need to delete them imo. Besides, we're smart enough to ignore the in our opinion boring and political stuff.
dang has specifically addressed the flood of AI / ChatGPT content on HN:
There are plenty of such repetitive/indignant symptoms and one of our jobs is to dampen them so they don't crowd out the things that actually are interesting to read. If we didn't do this, HN would consist of almost nothing but sensationalism, indignation, and the few hottest topics of the moment (ChatGPT these days). It's our job not to let that happen.
When Rupert tried to lie about voting machines, he was fined couple of hundred mils. All the social networks mouthpiece accounts spouting nonsense suffer no repercussions whatsoever.