When you post a link that requires a subscription, it would be nice to provide a 'guest link.' For myself, I try to limit the number of subscriptions I have, even if they're free. It's not only about privacy, it's about limiting the amount of email, texts, etc. that I get.
That's a pretty big stretch. When a customer calls for customer service, it's usually some kind of edge case that normal procedures can't handle. That's not an AI specialty.
As mentioned above, they bought Primephonic, which already had all those features. For myself, I used Primephonic until Apple bought it, then switched to Idagio, in order to minimize my connection with the Apple machine.
Well there's a clear 1st Amendment violation. Wonder if he'll get sued, and if so, wonder if the plaintiff will win, and if so, whether Carr will abide by any judgment.
Right here, to name one. Needless to say I feel very bleak and despondent as I watch the America I thought I knew transform into something dark. I do not anticipate the next decade+ of life in America to be free and prosperous.
HN was such an interesting place in 2024, they’ve all disappeared, sadly.
I’ve been genuinely, deeply, curious where those posters went. It was the site at that point.
The most I’ve seen in months and months is a limp-wristed handwave at “but humans have gooned and been racist forever”, in response to someone saying they wouldn’t choose to work for X.ai because it accelerates those things.
My most substantive idea is it was an unsustainable coalition, and that’s why we’re not seeing it much. You need to be for an ugly conjunction of things instead of against “woke” and Columbia students, thus you won’t get coalition-wide social approval (upvotes) anymore.
So they’re almost certainly here, but, downvoted to the point of invisibility unless you scour every comment.
Another case study to ponder is our host’s CEO, Gary Tan. Full-on loud-throated American juche stuff at beginning of tariffs. Now he has his own political website he built with Claude. And it’s LLM-generated articles that are riffs on Free Press articles he liked and they’re really tediously boring niche stuff even if you’re full in on team red, even before the AI writing cringe effect on the reader. Ex. “Mackenzie bezos philanthropy is fake and destructive because one college that got money hired the college presidents son and also enrollment dropped the next year”
>HN was such an interesting place in 2024, they’ve all disappeared, sadly.
Likely because once you've seen your opponent mask off there is no longer a point trying to maintain a facade of politeness. You are in full adversarial waters. Either those people weren't actually for it and were talking a game until they got into power, or there's no longer a point in talking about it until we can get the current numb nuts out of the picture. One shouldn't tip their hand in an enemy controlled medium on their current plans for activism. That's how you go from unrestrained, to controlled opposition. Savvy? Here on HN, you damn well know you're in the SV types territory, and you know to whom'st they've aligned by their actions. Only conversations left to be had is needling those remaining until either they out themselves as part of the opposition, or as part of the sympathetic group. Turns out there's a lot of HN'ers more than happy with how things are going.
Game theory/low trust environs are a bitch like that.
Well, we have a bunch of really problematic accounts on HN and I suspect that rather than to go into 'endless curious conversation' with those characters people just give up at some point. It's interesting in a way because one of PGs most famous post is the one about 'no broken windows'.
I'm all for having conversations with those having other viewpoints, but it doesn't seem to be possible when they don't argue in good faith (or even grounded in reality).
I take zero pleasure in saying this, but "the other side" is fucking insane. There's no arguing from first principles, let alone acknowledging that there are issues of concern with one's propositions.
In the case of "free speech", there's a failure to acknowledge the fundamental proposition of it when used in the US -- in that it's about the government not being able to prosecute you for speech that it doesn't like. This is literally the basis of the OP.
I'm a fan of Christopher Hitchens and he embodied that "free speech absolutism" argument convincingly (as otherwise its a pathway to censorship and oppression), but I think it's also important to recognize Karl Popper's Intolerance of Intolerance.
This stuff is no longer idle speculation -- it is an active facet of authoritarianism that is playing out around us right now.
Indeed, and it is interesting how all those countries that have seen this up close have reasonable upper limits and courts that will try to find a balance without falling over one way or the other. Obviously you won't be able to please everybody all the time but we're - as you so eloquently put it - no longer in a speculative domain but in one where you can see the consequences play out in realtime.
It's like toddlers with guns, they may not know exactly how the guns work but they're bloody dangerous all the same.
Popper has it right, far more so than most other philosophers because he's coming at it almost from a security perspective: the system will have holes and you need to be willing to be pragmatic about that, rather than dogmatic.
My solution for HN is simple by the way, I give up, but one account at the time and I simply block them. That doesn't help the site but it does help my blood pressure. The one I use is called 'Comments owl for HN'.
> It's like toddlers with guns, they may not know exactly how the guns work but they're bloody dangerous all the same.
"At least 895 children aged 5 and under have managed to find a gun and unintentionally shoot themselves or someone else from 2015 to 2022"[0] (over 100 per year on average)
On coarser sites (Elon’s, now) I’d say “1st amendment sez muh tweets MUST be published!!!”, never quite figured out a less coarse way to say it, but you just showed me.
Every time I see news about Brendan Carr's latest threat leveraging FCC licenses to enforce approved administration speech I search for the corresponding HN post and half the time it's a graveyard.
Wasn't that long ago an article about Mark Zuckerberg claiming someone in the Biden admin made some vague request about state-sponsored disinformation brought every so-called 1A defender out of the woodwork, but apparently the actual regulator of news orgs publicly threatening their business is shrug worthy by comparison.
I've been on HN since 2010 (different account) and honestly used to take the libertarian/right-leaning types at their word about being free speech advocates and not simply partisans using it as a rhetorical weapon.
It really does feel like the tech right has disappeared over the last year, at least as a more grass roots thing outside of the actual billionaires themselves.
The early crypto and tax victories were presumably the impetus for many, and that's already been realized. There's not much incentive to stick around and be a bad faith advocate for incompetence and graft when you've already got yours.
In my impression the billionaire worship is just another form of fundamental respect and enforcement of hierarchy that has been part of conservative politics forever. We are back to transparently the "right" leaning being wanting to keep the absolute monarchy.
You can be intelligent and believe the narratives.
You can be intelligent and see you were fooled, seeing the sponsors of the narratives don't share any of your ideals to begin with.
Many are confused, feeling betrayed, open for new perspectives. Some will double down as we know from group dynamics in sects.
Don't feel sad, it is a good sign of healthy progress. Project 2025 and the likes are a very destructive force, not something to gamble your democracy on.
There is the difficult and energy consuming way of thinking with the ratio, and there is a cheap way of thinking, based on ingrained beliefs, vibes, tribes etc.
As humans we are quite fallible, but as long as mass media and "social" media don't hamper the process of eventual re calibration towards reality, we can come back from our mistakes. That imho also answers why autocrats immediately start a war on academia, they instinctively know where the danger lurks for them.
Broadcast TV (and cable TV too) has been whithering on the vine for a long time. What a network couldn't broadcast on TV could simply be put on YouTube or other social network. TV could become state-owned media at this point and I don't think anyone would really care as long as the Internet is the way it is.
I largely agree, but I think we have another 5-8 years before TV’s candle light is really extinguished. I hope they fight this nonsense to the bitter end.
Airwaves are not protected by the 1st amendment, due to the limited amount of bandwidth that physically exists. As such, the FCC has extraordinary powers, including enforcing watersheds, forcing children’s content hours (“E/I”), censoring the F-bomb, and enforcing a 7-second delay on live content to prevent another Timberlake Super Bowl.
The first amendment also does not apply to highway billboards; which is why you never see a vagina on the roadway. Not all government control of speech is oppressive or inconsistent.
The FCC has a number of extraordinary powers over the broadcast spectrum, but they do not include viewpoint discrimination, which has always been seen as uniquely odious and different than indecency restrictions. As held in Shurtleff v. Boston, even the much more limited medium of a government-owned flagpole in front of a government building cannot be subject to viewpoint discrimination. If the public is allowed to speak freely in a particular medium, the government may not rescind that permission based on whether their message is true or fair or in the public interest.
I think "odious" really undersells it. A free press is an important part of a functioning democracy. What's the use in being able to vote against people doing wrong, if no-one's allowed to tell you about the wrong?
It's important not to concede the premise that First Amendment protections are subordinate to the public interest at all. Carr argues in his statement, after all, that the FCC has to take action because the public is losing faith and confidence in the media altogether. But even if the FCC can produce a detailed, convincing explanation of how American democracy will suffer if they're not allowed to block certain viewpoints from the airwaves, they still can't do it.
I find it amusing that your last comment is preaching to someone about what politics is and isn't.
Your politics are clear. You have no problem with the modern Republican party embracing authoritarianism and fascism. In fact, you see it as an opportunity to erode trust in or otherwise destroy the institution responsible for regulating signals in the US. The very thing that makes it so that planes can safely fly or that things in space must respect terrestrial networks without disruption.
That is your politics, just an embarrassing set of politics. Not even a green account. Shame on you.
So... to be clear... you dont want to get rid of the FCC? You can have that position but you are kinda missing the point here.
I was responding to someone who is claiming that the org is some infringement on free speech. This is an ignorant position, in that the FCC has had the power to regulate airwaves for quite some time. So if it is some free speech infringment now, then it was infringement a long time ago, especially with things like the fairness doctrine.
But you can have either position. Either you think it is all some huge infringement of free speech or you don't and you cant really complain about the stuff happening now. Your choice.
> The very thing that makes it so that planes can safely fly
So... Imagine for the sake of argument that you were capable of steel manning my position.
When someone brought speech related stuff regarding the FCC and I responded to it, did you actually believe I was talking about laws related to airplane communications?
Or.... was it possible that I was only referring to other speech related stuff that the FCC does? Just steelman it for a second if you are capable of doing so.
Sounds better if you say "Free speech may have consequences." As in the classic example, you're not free to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater (unless there really is one I suppose). And "free speech" only addresses the government's responsibility not to restrict speech. Any citizen or business has no legal requirement to allow free speech. Right-wingers are using the term to claim that their views are discriminated against, but no publisher is legally required to publish anything that anybody submits. There's always some sort of discrimination that needs to be involved.
I don’t understand how this is a good solution for housing affordability. It seems a lot like saying some parties should not be able to invest in stocks because it might adversely affect someone elses retirement income. The down side to these kinds of approaches is less market efficiency.
reply