Google services set for 'return' to China - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34698642 <comment><USER2> If Google is returning under the same terms it exited, it could be a sign of 'shift in principles' for the search giant. It could mean Google is OK with censorship, as long as it is allowed to make money. This is a departure from Google's 'Do no evil' mantra and it could be a sign that the company is becoming more like any other standard company; aimed at maximizing shareholder value and nothing else. Maybe it already was, but there is no pretense anymore.

<comment><USER3> Google, and most other businesses, are already "OK" with censorship, because governments force them to perform it:

\- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten)

\- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Department_for_Media_H...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Department_for_Media_Harmful_to_Young_Persons)

\- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_A...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act)

The fact that these censorship laws come from countries which are called "democratic" doesn't mean that we should suddenly change the definition of the word.

Here'a a Wikipedia article about Google's censorship:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google)

<comment><USER4> I think there needs to be a bit more flesh on the term "censorship" or we risk making everything appear the same and shrug it off as normal.

In my view it makes sense to distinguish at least these forms of censorship:

a) Censorship with the purpose of keeping the rulers of a country in power by suppressing criticism of their work or themselves.

b) Censorship that attempts to enforce some culture specific definition of decency, often oppressing sexual minorities, atheists or religious minorities.

c) Censorship that is meant to enforce copyrights and other private interests like reputation or credit standing.

d) Censorship to support legitimate work of the police, the courts and the security services that does not in effect amount to (a).

I think it's important to acknowledge that (a) dominates all other forms of censorship because it prevents the democratic process that will shape the laws governing all other forms of censorship.

That is why in my opinion Google should not bow to demands of censorship in the sense of (a) but should keep working in countries where it has to cooperate with all other forms of censorship, even though the direct effects of (b) and (d) are sometimes worse than (a).

<comment><USER5> If Google were to exit a market for (c) that'd mean there's be no Google or YouTube in the US. I don't like censorship by an autocratic government either but we are moving to treating corps that are lazy/careless with users' information as victims at home too.

> The disclosure of that data is a violation of the Communications Act, as > amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which requires network > operators to protect customer information. "Congress and the Commission have > made clear that cable operators such as Cox must 'take such actions as are > necessary to prevent unauthorized access to such information by a person > other than the subscriber or cable operator,'" Travis LeBlanc, the chief of > the FCC's Enforcement Bureau, wrote in an order filed November 5. > "Furthermore, telecommunications carriers such as Cox must take 'every > reasonable precaution' to protect their customers' data. In addition, the > law requires carriers to promptly disclose CPNI breaches via our reporting > portal within seven business days after reasonable determination of a breach > to facilitate the investigations of the FBI and the United States Secret > Service."

[http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/11/fcc-fines-cox-for- fa...](http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/11/fcc-fines-cox-for-falling-for- lizard-squad-scam-exposing-customer-data/)

Will cox get immunity from prosecution on things like this under cisa?

Google should push for protection of their users data from dragnet type surveillance in China but when we can't trust dedicated fiber optic cables connecting data centers here in the US, we really don't have anything to stand on. It is all very sad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I had the same views as many people here before. That Google returning to China is abandoning its principles. But seeing how my friends and family suffer with Baidu, I wonder, what exactly "Do no evil" by not cooperating with Chinese government is good for? It does not in any way boost human rights or freedom in China, and the only tangible result is that ordinary Chinese citizens are suffering even more because of lack of access to a better search engine. Exiting China does more "evil" than returning to it, at least from a utilitarian perspective.

<comment><USER7> The chinese governement will have to change their policies at some point anyway.

Having the great firewall is as a side-effect hurting a lot the tech companies, no-one is actualy outsourcing tech to China. If you compare with India, the difference is massive. I can only think of one chinese tech company who succeeded internationally (AppAnnie), all the others I can think of are just copies of tech companies for the local market. At some point, they will have to choose between having great technology companies and keeping the firewall in place. The more they wait, the harder the choice is going to be for them.

<comment><USER6> I am pessimistic about this. The NSA fiasco hurts the interests of many American tech businesses, especially those operating a cloud, but you don't see any signs of US government changing their mind on surveillance. At least in the United States, money can influence politics. Yet the tech companies fail to change anything. In China, the power is inverted: politics control money. If censorship is good for the party but bad for business, then business just have to work with that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I am glad Google is going to launch Play Store in China. As an Android developer, here is what is happening: "Chinese developers can sell in China and Rest of the world. Rest of the World find it near impossible to launch services for Chinese customers." I am sure having Google Play Store in China provides a Path to launch Apps in China for Developers outside china.

<comment><USER9> It's wrong to capitalize every noun in an English sentence. The only words that need capitalization are 'proper nouns' (eg, names of countries, companies, places etc), and the first letter at the start of a sentence.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> For others inside China, I discovered the other day to my surprise that [http://translate.google.cn/](http://translate.google.cn/) works fine. Very handy.

<comment><USER11> Well, you might be able to connect to it fine. The functionality certainly isn't "fine".

<comment><USER10> It works for me? I've translated a bunch of languages using it in the last few days. What's the issue you're having?

<comment><USER11> Chinese/English translation, in either direction, is pretty worthless.

<comment><USER12> Google Translate works quite well on technical content written in Chinese, I have noticed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Goole withdrew from China years ago because it didn't want to be evil.

Now Google plans to return to China, with the same evil or more evil government still there.

This clearly shows us that in the business world, there is no evil or non- evil, only money or non-money.

That aside, I'm glad that Google is coming.

<comment><USER14> I was under the impression it was really about China sponsoring hacking and espionage against Google and then turning around and giving the spoils of that to its competitors native to China. I imagine they now feel that they can successfully defend against attacks and compartmentalize Chinese operations. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they kept all "secret sauce" code out of China altogether.

<comment><USER15> Yeah, everyone keeps mentioning the whole "evil" aspect, but I was fairly sure google left due to the many, _many_ attacks on it by Chinese hackers (who they believed to be the Chinese government) attempting and successfully stealing their source code: [http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/03/china-google- idUSN...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/03/china-google- idUSN0325873820100303)

<comment><USER14> I've seen a couple talks by Google employees that support a massive change internally towards how they view security because of it. Besides the pressure to use Mac or Linux for workstations they also decided to just get rid of the concept of a "perimeter" for their corporate network entirely. No squishy inside if there's no inside.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> "Each Alphabet business could now make its own decision about where it operated"

AKA...some units are harder up for cash than others, and can decide to pick and choose principles a la carte.

At the very least, a return will raise some eyebrows? I assume if they do plan on returning it means they are either abandoning their ideals of "do no evil", or else the Chinese government has changed their ways? I find the later highly unlikely.

And the comment about "Google never left China". There was a lot of PR and noise when they left so this comment just baffles me and really makes me think ill when people pick and choose words and play with semantics.

<comment><USER17> So Google returning to China makes them evil? What about all the other companies operating in China?

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Even though it is not said in the article, I believe this is just google play & google play services returning to China, not Search or Youtube.

GPS is essential for wearables too work, and many fragmentation of Android market

</comment><comment><USER19> Google is doing fine without China. Doing business in China will create dependencies/risks that once established could be difficult for Google to turn back. I just don't know if it's worth it.

</comment><comment><USER20> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAtlzSvJudg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAtlzSvJudg)</comment>


Ask HN: Can I legally sell iPhone apps on a J-1 visa in the US? - <AUTHOR>

Hi all,
I am a long-time reader who never submitted, and now I have an issue that I don't know how to solve. I am from Europe (non-US citizen), and I am about to accept an offer for an internship in the US. For this internship I will get a J-1 visa, which is a non-immigration visa. The internship in itself has a large educational part, which explains the J-1.
So here it goes. I have developed several iPhone apps that I am about to release, and given that a J-1 visa does not authorize its holder to work in the US, will I be legally authorized to sell these apps while I am in the US, or will this be considered illegal work?
Thanks. <comment><USER2> If I were you I'd make in InfoPass appointment with USCIS and ask them. Personally, if you have European bank accounts and the money just goes there, and you're not developing new apps, I doubt there would be a problem, but I am definitely not a lawyer, and J-1 visas are rarely treated with the benefit of the doubt.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'll contact USCIS then. Thanks for your help!</comment></comment>


Black and Latino representation in Silicon Valley has declined, study shows - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/03/silicon-valley-diversity-black-latino-women-decline-study <comment><USER3> All: if you're going to comment on this thread, please make sure to post civilly and substantively, as the guidelines ask. If you have any questions or issues outside of the topic of discussion, please email us at email@example.com.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

</comment><comment><USER4> Studies, data, conversation, and thoughtfulness around these issues are welcome and needed but this news article is, frankly, junk.

I always like to look at data from the source, so I downloaded the original report, which The Guadian couldn't be bothered to link to.

Let's start with the title of the article:

> Black and Latino representation in Silicon Valley has declined, study shows

However the report is about Asian representation, and although it includes some data on other groups it states:

> Although we include the figures for black and Hispanic men and women, we do > not use them for comparative purposes because EPI figures for those cohorts > are highly sensitive to small changes.

This is right in the executive summary.

The next problem is that the article represents the study as being of "Silicon Valley" and the "tech industry", but the study is of just five companies: Google, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, LinkedIn, and Yahoo. These are all large corporations and there is no evidence given to suggest that this is a "Silicon Valley" problem and not a "Corporate America" problem. That's not to say that you can't draw conclusions from studying these companies, but you can't make sweeping statements about the tech industry based on them. Especially when so much of Silicon Valley is made up of startups. The valley is a dynamic place: two of those corporations no longer exist.

Obviously problems exist, but I see no reason here to single out the tech industry for special blame, especially when no attempt is made to compare tech with other industries and "tech" is taken to mean a handful of large corporations. Worse still, by misrepresenting the nature and origins of these problems, we set ourselves up to fail when we try to address them. Uber's appalling culture, for example is firmly rooted in that of finance, why don't we talk about that? What do the finance industry's diversity statistics look like?

<comment><USER5> >Studies, data, conversation, and thoughtfulness around these issues are welcome and needed

I posted a top level comment that links to a study and another link to an article which links to several studies and got downvoted to oblivion. I don't think this sort of thing is _actually_ welcome here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Unsurprising. I tell all of my minorities friends to remove their pictures from LinkedIn and use American sounding names. The increase in callbacks always shocks me. You can do this experiment in reverse yourself if you already have an American sounding name.

Unfortunately the real solution, anonymity, will probably never be adopted because there are groups who benefit from being identified. There's way too much many in tech to for the incumbents to leave it to merit.

<comment><USER7> It's not really as clear-cut as that, Australia for instance had some study results* led by a Hardvard Grad show the opposite, that blind recruitment generally favored the white male majority as it precluded affirmative action hires.

*[https://pmc.gov.au/resource-centre/domestic-policy/going-bli...](https://pmc.gov.au/resource-centre/domestic-policy/going-blind-see-more-clearly-unconscious-bias-australian-public-services-shortlisting-processes)

<comment><USER6> If a truly anonymous (which I'm skeptical that study was, but I'll give them the benefit of doubt) hiring method yields more white people, then that's 100% OK. The goal IMO should be to prevent bias with respect to gender, race, etc; not to implement a quota resulting in a certain percentage of people from backgrounds being hired.

<comment><USER8> "The goal IMO should be to prevent bias with respect to gender, race, etc"

One would think, no?

But there's a considerable number of people who don't feel that way - <USER2> think that 50/50 gender balance is a 'moral imperative' for example.

Surely, it's their right to think that, even promote it. But I'm weary of that kind of ideology being used to shut down other voices - which I think happens frequently.

I believe that the Guardian article (and the Graun as a whole, I read it every day and see the pattern) speaks to this: that specific minorities are underrepresented in certain roles 'must be due to racism' I think is unfair. Surely it plays a part, but there are so many other factors.

We need cool, rational heads on this subject.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Every underrepresented group represents an opportunity to start a company, hire some great people from that group, and succeed together. A single company, perhaps one you start this year, can make a huge impact.

YC funding applications are due today. [https://www.ycombinator.com/apply](https://www.ycombinator.com/apply)

<comment><USER10> It's not a very plausible assumption that your competitors are racially biased but your investors and customers aren't.

<comment><USER11> Not only that, it's much more _legal_ to be racially biased in who you choose as your customers. The laws in the US that require nondiscrimination in hiring, regardless of how effective they may or may not be, don't apply at all to choosing a NoSQL vendor or whatever.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> rm_-rf_slash Sometimes I wonder if the tech industry should adopt the orchestral model of auditions: prevent the interviewers from seeing the candidate, knowing their name, or hearing their voice. Judge them entirely on their code and text responses.

Sure something like this would probably result in complaints about "hiring for culture fit," but isn't someone who provides the correct answers and code a culture fit in the first place?

<comment><USER12> It seems like a good idea, but how do you make sure you don't hire someone with a complete lack of social skills?

<comment> rm_-rf_slash Maybe a blind interview should satisfy technical requirements, and then the candidate meets the team in person.

<comment><USER12> But then you're back into the old cultural fit/bias questions, right?

<comment> rm_-rf_slash Perhaps, but at least by that point one can't weasel out by saying that the candidate wasn't technically qualified.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Time for today's most incendiary post. (;

I think feelings on this are going to depend on whether you consider a silicon valley job as more "outcome" or "opportunity." I'd say making sure that black/latino people can obtain these jobs is just as important as making sure they have equal opportunity to attend a good college or good highschool. That puts me in a bit of a predicament though because I come to the conclusion that what's in the best interests of society requires these companies to go against what's in _their_ best interests and pass up more qualified whites/asians. Thoughts?

<comment><USER14> But... the article says Asians are the most likely to be hired and least likely to be promoted so then are they more qualified or not?

You know I think this is actually a good thing. I've been working as a dev for 12 years but after interviewing with tech companies more recently I'm done. I'm doing my own thing. The 'technical interviews' made sure of that, I presumably suck at them but I can't be sure because no constructive feedback. Start your own thing, it will be more rewarding, I've learned more in 9 years of side projects than I ever did at the job and recently it's really paying off. Oh yeah, there is no engineer shortage and there never has been, pay people decent and don't be raise the bar to the point it's in the clouds and you'll see there are earnest, keen hardworking people eager and ready. Oh and I don't know, may be invest in people a little instead too, people are life long learners, they have potential.

<comment><USER15> > _The 'technical interviews' made sure of that, I presumably suck at them but > I can't be sure because no constructive feedback ..._

such a good point. i've heard that companies have rules _expressly forbidding_ offering constructive feedback to candidates, because liability (or something). but it's a wasteful/destructive system. many companies seem to think working for them is the summation of earthly existence. but they still have churn.

it reminds me of the fact that the two WhatsApp founders had applied to Facebook but were rejected. [https://medium.com/the-story-of-grip/5-things- every-founder-...](https://medium.com/the-story-of-grip/5-things-every- founder-can-learn-from-the-story-of-whatsapp-b6496bc4f54d)

i wish you extreme success in your independent venture.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I started a sports betting company that turned into an analytics company. We had zero women or minority (other than asian) employees or even applicants. One new employee became vocal about it, so he was made our "diversity officer". He was made part of our recruiting division and was present in every interview. We got one (white) woman employee. She quit soon after joining. Now there is an opening for a "diversity officer" inside the company. No takers yet.

</comment><comment><USER17> Couldn't find a link to the study in the article, so I looked it up:

[http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/ascendleadership.site- ym.com/resour...](http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/ascendleadership.site- ym.com/resource/resmgr/Research/HiddenInPlainSight_Paper_042.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER18> "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

We're tired of obsessing about race.

We're tired of having accusations of racism, sexism, whatever-the-next-trendy- ism crammed down our throats at every opportunity.

The reality is, urban black (and to a similar extent latino) CULTURE does not value education. Until that changes, do not expect to see highly educated and skilled blacks and latinos bounding through the hiring process. Just ask the asians about minority discrimination - they outperform everyone and are openly penalized for it.

CONTENT OF CHARACTER. NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT SKIN COLOR.

Go ahead and delete this comment, it's not going to change reality.

<comment><USER19> You're asking for quite a lot. Black America doesn't value education because the culture was designed to devalue education. I know no one on this site wants to talk about it, but a culture was created for Black America during slavery.

Think about what was valuable in slaves. Physical Prowess (Stronger slaves means more work can be completed in the fields), and talent (slaves that can keep other slaves entertained mean they're not planning a revolt).

Keeping the slave master entertained by singing and dancing also brought perks for the slaves that are able to do so. Being able to produce more value in the field also brought perks.

Now think about the industries Black Americans dominate today... Athletics and Entertainment.

Being caught reading would get you killed, being caught writing would get you killed. Being white and teaching a black person to read or write could also get you killed.

African immigrants have no problem taking advantage of the education provided in america, so this isn't a genetic issue. [https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-10-13/it- isn-t-...](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-10-13/it-isn-t-just- asian-immigrants-who-excel-in-the-u-s-)

The problem is the culture. Simply saying fix the culture when it's the result of a process that took hundreds of years to create will not solve the issue.

<comment><USER18> I certainly don't believe it's asking for a lot. It's racist to assert that minorities don't have any self control.

Every race in the world has been enslaved at some point. We are just animals, transcend this.

Let's start here: is it too much of a stretch to say that I think it's ridiculous that the most commonly understood career path for black youth is drug dealer -> gangster rapper, or athlete? These kids deserve better role models, for one. This is an obvious truth and should not require citation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Any opinions, thoughts and ideas that are expressed on ycombinator that are not left-wing and don't tow the liberal line are being deleted.

It's not that there aren't people who disagree with these bullshit articles, it's that ycombinator mods are literally deleting and banning users who express opinions that aren't "correct".

<comment><USER3> What we've done in this thread so far is ban throwaway accounts created by already-banned users and collapsed threads that violate the guidelines.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This isn't new, limited to technology, or all that surprising if you've been paying attention to your peers.

[http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873](http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873)

>The results show significant discrimination against African-American names: White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews. We also find that race affects the benefits of a better resume. For White names, a higher quality resume elicits 30 percent more callbacks whereas for African Americans, it elicits a far smaller increase. Applicants living in better neighborhoods receive more callbacks but, interestingly, this effect does not differ by race. The amount of discrimination is uniform across occupations and industries.

[https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20161011-00/?p=...](https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20161011-00/?p=94486)

>One of my friends is a woman of color, and not that long ago, she arrived with three male colleagues in the lobby of a building for a scheduled meeting. The administrative assistant came out, walked right past my friend, shook the hands of the three men, and welcomed them. My friend extended her hand to introduce herself, and the assistant asked, "Oh, you're with them?"</comment>


Why Are Upworthy Headlines Suddenly Everywhere? - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/12/why-are-upworthy-headlines-suddenly-everywhere/282048/

<comment><USER2> Short answer: because they make money. Long answer: because people share empty headed stuff via facebook which is trying to show that twitter isnt the only game in town.</comment>


Study suggests drunk people are better at creative problem solving - <AUTHOR> https://hbr.org/2018/05/drunk-people-are-better-at-creative-problem-solving <comment><USER2> Why do people need excuses for doing things they enjoy?

I'm fed up with studies that say drinking makes you creative, coffee makes you smarter and chocolate makes you live longer or whatever.

</comment><comment><USER3> So the benefit of being slightly drunk is that it removes your focus, so that you might find creative solutions which until then where outside of your radar.

I guess that's true, but don't you get the same effect by having a long walk or a good night's sleep?

<comment><USER4> I'm confused, how would getting a night's sleep decrease focus?

<comment><USER5> During your waking day, when you think about a problem you start tackling it with a specific strategy and accumulate thoughts (assumptions) regarding those strategies. Even if you discard them over the course of your day, you are still biased/focused towards that train of thought.

A good night's sleep which takes your mind out of conscious thought then resets/defocuses your mind again and you are more receptible to new ways of tackling the problem.

(All of the above is just vague anecdotal evidence, and I have no idea if there is any scientific basis for any of it.)

<comment><USER6> _The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field_ by Jacques Hadamard, himself a mathematician is not scientific but a good source of anecdotes and systematic attempts at introspection.

I find that 'stepping away' from the details after immersion for a few days and allowing the pieces to re-align themselves does seem to pay benefits, even with the mundane and practical problems I need to solve. I agree with the grandparent post that alcohol is not the only de-focusing agent around.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I hope Google et.al. will attempt to replicate this finding on a larger scale internally. Imagine whole SV jumping on to that bandwagon!

<comment><USER8> The quest for the Ballmer Peak is a dangerous endeavor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This sounds right, but for me the lucid problem-solving window is too short to be useful. Then I get sleepy and irritated.

</comment><comment><USER10> I don't drink, smoke or do narcotics, so I have no first hand account to agree or disagree with the veracity of this study. However, what I have experienced is sleep deprivation (not insomnia but self induced sleep deprivation because there is just not enough time to do stuff) makes me creative. I find solutions that are innovative, out of the box, laterally thought etc to problems that keep bugging me (I don't mean just programming or software problems). The strange thing is, the solutions come out of nowhere, like a divine inspiration or something.

And just like being drunk, the sleep deprivation, at least to me, causes noticeable loss in physical strength, makes me irritable and generally less socially convivial, causes gas, heart burn and bad breath, even shows signs of the dreaded ED, but the benefit of solution epiphany makes me want to go through it often. I know its bad for the health, so, now that I am over 35, I use it quite sparingly, only to problems that I estimate are really worth it.

The epiphany thing doesn't need sleep deprivation and there are several 'aha moments' in the normal state. I am sure most people who routinely ponder on problems have had this experience. But the quality of solutions and the thrill it provides makes the Sleep Deprived Solution Epiphany (tm) quite a stimulating and almost spiritual experience. I feel refreshed and more confident in my abilities after an episode.

</comment><comment><USER11> Given just how many variables are at play and how imprecise the categories of problem-solving are, a study with a sample size of 20 is...unconvincing.

</comment><comment><USER12> Having just ventured over from the topic about the beneficial effects of psychedelics, I can't help but notice in the comments how the potential benefits of psychedelics are taken as indisputable fact while a similar article about alcohol is met with skepticism and denial.

</comment><comment><USER13> My confirmation bias is telling me that this is definately true.

</comment><comment><USER7> Mad Men is a whole TV series devoted to this hypothesis.

<comment><USER14> The best advertising copywriters are old drunks, that is just a fact.

<comment><USER15> Best way to rephrase the post title...

Brutally honest people are better at creative problem solving.

<comment><USER16> Thank you for this. This resonates with me.

I don't drink, but I'm _too truthful to be good_. I'm also good at creative problem solving.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Just after science made clear there is no safe amount for drinking alcohol, we get this study, feeding us a new feel-good / excuse story for drinking.

Maybe I'm being cynical, but who paid for this research?

<comment><USER18> Your cynicism is warranted:

"Federal Agency Courted Alcohol Industry to Fund Study on Benefits of Moderate Drinking"

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/health/nih-alcohol- study-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/health/nih-alcohol-study-liquor- industry.html)

<comment><USER19> Cynicism is always warranted IMO.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> [https://www.xkcd.com/323/](https://www.xkcd.com/323/)

</comment><comment><USER21> Ballmer's curve strikes again.</comment>


Internet Archive denies hosting 'terrorist' content - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47908220 <comment><USER2> Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19627885](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19627885).

</comment><comment><USER3> This is depressing. Are we just going to erase chunks of history because we don't like it?

Hopefully the Internet Archive can at the very least simply mark some of the content as "non-servable" or something but continue to archive it for historical or research purposes. I'm not sure how that fits in with censorship, libel, copyright, or right-to-be-forgotten laws, but hopefully the restriction is just on showing the data, not storing it.

When we have time for cooler heads to prevail, hopefully this content can be resurrected once the information is no longer as timely or relevant.

<comment><USER4> _Are we just going to erase chunks of history because we don 't like it?_

Yes. News sites now edit articles without posting a notice or a retraction. Search engines now de-index parts of the web, citing various reasons. Activist organizations are now writing founders out of their web published history.

 _When we have time for cooler heads to prevail, hopefully this content can be resurrected once the information is no longer as timely or relevant._

Nope. The power to rewrite history amounts to absolute power over the consensus perception of reality. Almost no one who realizes they have such power relinquishes it voluntarily. (No modern tech company I know of resembles Cincinnatus.) The optimal plan would have involved slowly changing things over time, such that it would be barely noticed. The implementation was botched by impatient humans, however.

Stewardship over all the world's information?

Stewardship over all of the people's social links and relationships?

"Don't be evil."

(To be balanced here, many of the fringe conspiracy groups would do the same thing, if they could, and erase or rewrite parts of history. The difference is that some big corporations and governments are a lot closer to having enough power to achieve such a thing.)

<comment><USER5> I'm aware how much of a cliche 1984 comparisons are, but this resembles Winston's job in the Ministry of Truth far too well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Europe telling a San Francisco based company what to do. I'd say, give them the middle finger, but the article has this little gem inside it:

> If the Archive does not comply with the notices, it risks its site getting > added to lists which ISPs are required to block.

Well, that's Orwellian. Great job, Europe.

American sites should start giving Europe the finger en-masse. Just return a black page with "Sorry, European officials have their heads up their asses. Tell them to fix it" like they did for SOPA and PIPA. Let them firewall themselves off to oblivion.

<comment><USER6> Meanwhile, I'd like to point out a little phenomenon.

Facebook: We're banning "fake news".

HN: Oh, this was so needed. They're not the government, so this is fantastic!

Facebook: We're banning "hate speech".

HN: Bravo, so brave of them. About time! A brighter future. Wonder if AI can automate this.

Facebook: This is a great idea. Governments, please make this mandatory.

HN: Wait, what!? Don't trust Zuck!

And now, here we are. Please stop the uncharitable "why do you think the 1st amendment applies to facebook" responses. We never did. Free speech is more than just some concept that only applies to governments.

When the general public ceases to respect and defend freedom of speech for each other, they will soon find the government coming for it.

<comment><USER7> Should large sites try their _best effort_ at removing this content? Absolutely. Should there be a law saying that if you fail to do so (within a ridiculously short time-frame), you will be forced to give us money or completely blocked? Absolutely not.

There's a huge difference between those two. One is open to nuance and to the reality of how hard content moderation is; the other is a blind hammer that does more harm than good.

<comment><USER6> > Should large sites try their best effort at removing this content

"This content" being... what? Hateful posts? Falsehoods? The sites are incapable of discerning what is hateful or false.

Don't blend in "the site banned User A threatening to murder Politician B" with "the site banned User A for saying hateful things". One of them is objective, the other is subjective.

<comment><USER7> > The sites are incapable of discerning what is hateful or false.

Oh definitely, it's a grey area, hence me saying that making it law obliterates any chance for nuance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I know there's no "real" difference between archive.org and other sites, but I think of it more as a museum or library than a publication.

Feels very strange to demand a museum or a library to destroy items in their collection.

<comment><USER9> This is how far we've come, sadly.

<comment><USER10> The fact that modern people are outraged when information like this is hidden from general view is in fact a testament to how far we have come as a society.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Already so much of the syrian civil war has been lost. Amaq, the ISIS news agency posted a huge amount of propaganda and information. All factions were involved in a very heavy media war as well as a physical one. Seeing these videos, articles, posts, tweets, and pictures disappear is really sad. There are efforts to keep it documented but I'm of the general belief that this information should all be saved and stored.

</comment><comment><USER12> This is embarassing on so many levels. For the record, those weren't "false" reports, they were false reports. No need for scare quotes here, just read the blog[0] (also, good job BBC for not linking to the blog). Among the links asked to be taken down are scholar articles on Spectrum Sharing or US reports.

Furthermore, laws that require action "within the hour" from small organizations that don't have the manpower to answer those shouldn't exist. The fact that the Internet Archive risks getting blocked is ridiculous. Those laws have a huge potential for abuse.

And finally, despite this having hit the news yesterday already, they are still "receiving lots of takedown notices from the French IRU." So it looks like the IRU doesn't give a crap. This is a sad world we live in.

[0]: [https://blog.archive.org/2019/04/10/official-eu-agencies- fal...](https://blog.archive.org/2019/04/10/official-eu-agencies-falsely- report-more-than-550-archive-org-urls-as-terrorist-content/)

<comment><USER13> > For the record, those weren't "false" reports, they were false reports.

The BBC has always had this very aggressive quoting style, and they're not wrong. They're reporting that the Archive believes the reports to be false. The word is quoted because the archive is the one making the assertion, not the BBC. The phrase "terrorist propaganda" is also quoted because it's the claim made by the other side, also being presented without judgment of truth from the BBC.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Is A Data Massacre Coming? There has been an issue before.[2]

1) "Europol said the requests actually came from the French IRU which routed its requests through Europol.

The French IRU has not yet responded to a BBC request for comment on why it issued so many reports to the site"

[2] i found this: [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-44112431](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-44112431) [year2018] apperently there was some sort of problem, in 2018 \- did IS go stego on the archive? Nope at least not regarding the triggering materials.

There may be a really big problem here.

</comment><comment><USER15> In 2004, the US prosecuted a Saudi graduate student webmaster for helping set- up & administer websites which included supposed jihadi/terrorist content. The student was acquitted in a 1st Amendment-driven setback for the DoJ & Patriot Act:

[https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-jun-11-na- boise...](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-jun-11-na- boise11-story.html)

It's been a while, so take all this as approximate-recollections- almost-15-years-later, but:

The US DoJ prosecutors used content from the Internet Archive as evidence against the student, to demonstrate what site content they thought was terrorist advocacy. This required an IA employee to appear as a prosecution witness, to authenticate the material presented as what the Archive had crawled earlier, and a reasonably-accurate record of what had been on the web. This led to a defense cross-examination that went something very roughly like:

\-----

Defense Lawyer: "Is this material still viewable at the Internet Archive's website?"

IA employee: "Yes."

DL: "So the same content for which the defendant is being threatened with federal prison is available, today, from www.archive.org."

IA: "Yes."

DL: "Is the government prosecuting the Internet Archive?"

IA: "Not to my knowledge."

\-----

The moral for me – a former IA employee, though not one involved in that case – is that not only should careless, spurious requests to remove "terrorist content" be mocked and resisted as abusive, but also _perfectly accurate requests_ to remove _actual terrorist content_ should be resisted as abusive.

Libraries and archives must honestly hold and make-available the full record of things that people, even bad people, are publishing. It's essential for understanding the world of today, yesterday, and decades ago. It's essential for the prosecution of crimes, the understanding of propaganda of all types, and for honest discussion of the law & society.

</comment><comment><USER16> This news is making me appreciate all those decentralized blockchain based internet ideas floating around a little bit more. You can't remove anything from them, which is both good and very bad. I'm torn, but only because of bad actors in governments causing unnecessary and stupid problems.

</comment><comment><USER17> This is why I wish that us, europeans had the United States Bill of Rights. Every character of it.

<comment><USER13> That's a pretty unusual belief. I'm under the impression that nearly no-one in Europe views the 2nd Amendment as rational. Out of curiosity, do you actively support the entire Bill of Rights, or are you just asserting that it would be better on balance, warts included?

<comment><USER17> I love the 2nd. And yes, I am an outlier.

Besides, some European countries are starting to see civilian gun ownership as inherently normal, like Czech Republic and Estonia. Though European Union has started to impose some arbritary restrictions on civilian gun ownership, such as what features a gun can have and magazine capacity restrictions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> These kinds of automated takedown requests are a real hassle for any public archive. For Pinboard stuff, I regularly get scary notices from my ISP claiming I am hosting phishing content because someone bookmarked an Amazon page and an automated bot later found their archived copy.

The problem is unavoidable for a public archive when the people filing claims against you use automated tools while the appeal process is either time- consuming or nonexistent.

</comment><comment><USER19> [https://blog.archive.org/2019/04/10/official-eu-agencies- fal...](https://blog.archive.org/2019/04/10/official-eu-agencies-falsely- report-more-than-550-archive-org-urls-as-terrorist-content/)

The blog post on archive.org about it is worth a read. French IRU should be punished for this crap.

</comment><comment><USER20> Feelsgood that we're moving towards a single modifiable repo of history! What could go wrong?

</comment><comment><USER21> The purpose of the Internet archive is to maintain history, and they are a really great resource. To do this though, they don't really need to make _current_ content live - they could just as well have a 6-month embargo between archiving content and making it live. This would make it hard for anyone to abuse it as a way round censorship, at least for for timely content, which most terrorist propaganda is.

I'm not trying to excuse the French IRU's excessive and rather broken censorship requests, but the archive's current behaviour is ripe for abuse.

<comment><USER22> So there's a time limit on censorship and free speech?

<comment><USER21> I never said any such thing. They'll still get takedown notices after 6 months, and they'll have to fight them as appropriate. It's just they won't be inviting abuse by people wanting to use them as a free CDN in the way they do right now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Blog from Archive was two days ago (was even discussed on HN, before, see below)[0, 1]. I guess the BBC is running out of stuff to distract people with?

[0] - [https://blog.archive.org/2019/04/10/official-eu-agencies- fal...](https://blog.archive.org/2019/04/10/official-eu-agencies-falsely- report-more-than-550-archive-org-urls-as-terrorist-content/)

[1] - [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19627885](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19627885)

</comment><comment><USER24> It seems sensibile that digital items could become rare, and from my brief research archival copies are permitted under fair use. Storage is cheap and small, a raspi and a dufflebag of replacements is cheap... you see where I am going.

<comment><USER14> YUP exactly! More or less, ive already gone there. Anyone in range that signs on can read from the library.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> What a click-baity, biased headline.</comment>


Ask HN: Growth and marketers – How well do you know your data analytics stack? - <AUTHOR> This question is for muggles (non-coders) only. I wonder if nowadays marketers and growth people are more connected to the way their data analytics stack is built or is it still like in the old days when muggles would only get a BI interface. <comment><AUTHOR> And i'll give my answer first: YES.

DWH: V || Schema structure: V || List of inputs: V</comment>


Ask HN: How do you sell yourself as a new non-web freelancer to clients? - <AUTHOR>

This question was cloned from pbj at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4156764
What kind of advice does everyone have if your not a web freelancer?
Let's say your trying to market your skills as a big data expert or an algorithm expert or quant expert.  How would you sell your services? <comment><USER2> Same way only easier; since your skill is more specific making it easier for people to figure out what to hire you for and for you to find out who your clients are.

I guess your portfolio could relate some use cases. And lacking those there are a zillion open data projects that could probably use your help which you could use to build your name. Also a good way to network a bit as probably people with big data know other people with big data who are hiring.</comment>


Hacker New UI issue with comment voting - <AUTHOR>

I accidentally voted up on a comment I meant to vote down, then voting disappeared and I don't have a way to correct the problem. Could the voting links just fade a bit allowing you to change votes? Or a user thread that shows all votes a user has made with the ability to change your mind. That could also be useful if someone convinces you of a new point of view. <comment><USER2> You bring up two separate issues, and I think they need to be addressed separately. I agree that votes should be reversible to correct mistakes. Votes are, I think intended to be more of a quality filter than an expression of agreement. Changing your vote because you now agree with a comment is a Bad Thing.

<comment><USER3> Voting because you agree or disagree is a Bad Thing for a quality filter. Unfortunately, though, all these sites start off with a quality filter and end up with a demoralizing popularity contest. Voting should cost you something.

<comment><USER4> I agree!

<comment><USER3> Well, just don't vote me up for it...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> People actually use the votes?</comment>


Person in Latex Mask Impersonated French Minister - <AUTHOR> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/world/gang-posed-as-jean-yves-le-drian-to-swindle-80m-from-tycoons-wl3gpvxr5 <comment><USER2> The Brass Eye universe is rapidly bleeding into our own</comment>


How Zappos' User Agreement Failed In Court and Left Zappos Legally Naked - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2012/10/10/how-zappos-user-agreement-failed-in-court-and-left-zappos-legally-naked/

<comment><USER2> This is an absolute must-read, and an example of why I think startups should consider having a Chief Legal Officer instead of viewing legal matters as a some sort of ancillary inconvenience.

I know I'm a bit of a grumpy old man on legal topics, but I think an awful lot of HN readers view legal issues through the lens of a half-baked libertarian ideology [1] and raise their risk profile as a result. If a project does hit paydirt and see massive user growth in a short period, then statistically there are bound to be conflicts of interest between some of those users. Many such conflicts can and should be smoothed away by good community management, but a few will escalate into disputes whose outcome can have significant economic implications for the firm. OMO the legal system is not some sort of stick to beat people with or deliberate crafted to keep upstarts at a disadvantage, as in Marxist social theory, but the aggregated history of past disputes within a (relatively) simple procedural framework. The role I envision for a CLO is not to sit around all day worrying about lawsuits or drafting ever more aggressive contracts, but to maximize the economic benefit of a firm's customer relationships over the long term. So if you want to provide people with (for example) a new way to consume media, then part of your long-term strategy should include a vision of how you would like the copyright system to function and a plan for how to move the needle on the way it does function.

1\. I say 'half-baked libertarian' because a lot of people resent government administration or even recognition of things like patents or other intellectual property while having very absolutist views on the transfer of other economic interests within markets, for which they would like ironclad contractual protection - even though contractual protections depend upon the enforcability of court judgments, which are in turn founded upon a social consensus for governance. Often when people complain about the unfairness of a legal ruling, it seems to me that they've simply failed to consider the existence of interests other than their own.

<comment><USER3> I wouldn't have read this had you not commented, so thank you.

I also think you're fundamentally right about the way HN looks at legal risks. In particular, I think the average HN reader drastically discounts the cost of legal risks that apply only once a particular enterprise has traction. I think those are some of the most pernicious risks, because they can lead to people investing years of their lives in businesses for counterfeit upsides.

But having said that: do you really need on-staff legal to learn that a contract with no explicit acceptance and with unilateral change provisions is legally suspect? Over the last couple years, I've been trying to keep a little tally of all the redlines we've gotten on our contract reviews (all of our MSAs get legal review), and I feel like much smaller details have come closer to derailing projects than these two details.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> _"We reserve the right to change…these terms and conditions at any time." Zappos isn't the only website using language like this; it's ubiquitous on the Internet. Unfortunately, despite its widespread usage, this language is toxic to a contract.

The court takes this amendment power to its logical conclusion. If Zappos can change the terms at any time, then it can change the arbitration clause at any time. Thus, citing to a long list of cases, the court says that such unilateral power to change the arbitration clause makes the clause "illusory"–and thus unenforceable._

Oh so very useful to know...</comment>


Samsung airs $10 million anti-iPhone ad during Super Bowl [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.bgr.com/2012/02/06/samsung-airs-10-million-anti-iphone-ad-during-super-bowl-video/ <comment><USER2> This ad definitely left me wondering "why do I want a pen/stylus"? There are a few cases with the tablets where I'd like to use a pen tool for input. I largely avoid taking notes on a tablet for this reason (this is behavior I could voluntarily change if I was more flexible on how I take notes), but why would I need pen input on a phone? I've never personally ran into an issue on a phone where I said "this would be easier with a pen". What are the use-cases for this and why would it appeal to people?

For me, the ad worked on the level that I'm now curious about why this pen is worth highlighting in a 3.5MM spot.

Regarding the insults to Apple users, this is something that is really divisive. I remember when there was a "leaked" BlackBerry commercial a few years ago that showed a black berry being shot through an iPhone. The spot turned out to be fake, or it got canned and never aired, or something like that. I remember there being a lot of people in the online tech community being upset over this. They wanted to see Apple bleed.

But that was never a good marketing strategy for RIM. I'm trying to think of the strategy behind this ad. Certainly, anyone devoted enough to Apple to stand in line for their products thinks enough of Apple to a) not switch and b) not to switch to a company who makes fun of them. Additionally, these people likely buy into's Apples stance on styli being antiquated.

So the other strategy may be to position itself away from the Apple "fanboys". Lots of people dislike Apple, and maybe making fun of those who do hit enough of a confirmation bias button to make them seriously think of buying this phone.

So overall, it doesn't seem like a great ad to get huge market share, but it does seem to be positioning itself firmly on a segment, and hoping it can draw in other segment share.

Personally, I don't get it.

</comment><comment><USER3> Regardless of Apple's advertising history, I feel annoyed by Samsung's approach here. As an iPhone owner, I don't feel complelled to switch phones when I'm insulted. And yes, I recognize that Apple has taken this approach in the past. I've never felt terribly good about it either.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm not sure if anyone noticed, but Samsung actually superimposed the iPhone FaceTime interface on the Samsung phone. Below are two images of it (sorry for the poor quality).

<http://imgur.com/a/IB1mE>

<comment><USER5> Or is that their actual video chat app? (Which, if so, would obviously be a copy of FaceTime.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Am I the only one who feels surprised that they spend 10 million on this?

<comment><USER7> Well, they spent it on the airtime, not the spot I guess.

Nonetheless, the ad agency simply failed to highlight the possible use cases of having a pen on a tablet/phone. Showing people writing names on the screen with a pen fails to communicate the phones unique USP. Also, many people will remember the times when they had to use the pen as a crutch on Windows Mobile phones of the old days. So I guess many people will simply go, "what do I need a pen for?" I believe Samsung should switch their ad agency asap.

<comment><USER8> "Also, many people will remember the times when they had to use the pen as a crutch on Windows Mobile phones of the old days."

And Palm OS. But the smartphone market back then was probably 1% of what it is now. 99% of the people they're aiming that commercial at have no such memories.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Has anyone here got a Samsung Galaxy Note? How is it?

</comment><comment><USER10> "If you see a stylus, they blew it."

<comment><USER11> Touch for interface, stylus for drawing and notes. Don't see anything wrong with that. I certainly don't use touch to do notes on my iPhone...

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Before someone preach the high and mighty status of Apple once again, I just would like to remind everyone that Apple's pivotal moment in its history when it aired Macintosh ad in 1984 with strong anti-IBM flair.

<comment><USER13> I don't really think that was the pivotal point in Apple's history. Regardless, Apple, until a couple of years ago, was making those obnoxious I'm a PC I'm a Mac commercials. Making anti-[the_big_guy_in_tech] commercials seems to be what companies do do when they're the little guy. Not that I personally find them all that effective. If you want to sell me electronics, show me why the thing you're trying to sell is awesome, not why the things you're competing against aren't awesome.

<comment><USER14> You don't think the introduction of the Mac was a pivotal point in Apple's history?

<comment><USER15> It's probably at least fair to argue that everything that happened before the ipod was about equally important in the history of Apple.

But it sort of depends on how close a perspective is chosen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Difference between Apple and Samsung commercials- Apple shows its products,features and what you can do with it but Samsung shows people and every other shit expect for their products. This ad does not make any sense!

<comment><USER17> Exactly, thats why I hate that commercial with the dancing mp3 player ppl, oh wait...

<comment><USER18> Apple completely dominates MP3 player sales. No one else matters. Apple's iPod ads just need to keep people thinking "iPod" when they think "MP3 player", so their focus should be something that catches the eye and pushes the brand.

The market in smart phones and tablets is quite different, and thus the proper kind of advertising is quite different.</comment></comment></comment>