Announcing cross-browser visual testing with Percy - <AUTHOR> https://blog.percy.io/announcing-cross-browser-visual-testing-3cadb4e7f125 <comment><USER2> Very cool! I assume this primarily supports testing one browser's rendering against itself, but do you see value in comparing snapshots across browsers? E.g. to surface a rendering inconsistency between Firefox and Chrome.</comment>


Journalism Job Cuts Haven't Been This Bad Since the Recession - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-01/journalism-layoffs-are-at-the-highest-level-since-last-recession <comment><USER2> The fourth estate is critical infrastructure to a functioning democracy. I know that in the US, we've kind of accepted a certain level of decay in the system, but I can't see how this does anything but accelerate the transition of the US into a more openly anti-democratic oligarchy.

We desperately need alternative models to ad-funded journalism. The two main alternatives seem to be state funding and patronage, both of which have difficulty shoring up a wide perception of legitimacy and independence. I'd love to see more organizations pursuing a model like The Correspondent, where readers are given more involvement in the production of news in exchange for higher subscription charges (or perhaps we could begin to think of them as member dues).

What models have others come across that seem promising?

<comment><USER3> A lot of people like myself just don't care anymore. I don't know a single publication that I really trust anymore. All of them have heavy bias or just outright lie.

As important as the idea of journalism is, the institution itself is rotten. I'd like to think faith can be restored, but if anything changes, it'll probably be for the worse.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Are these actual reporting and investigate journalism jobs?

Or are these the type of "journalism" jobs that produce all of the endless "16 cat pics you won't believe" and anger/outrage clickbait rubbish?

The former is very important, whereas the latter won't be missed by anyone and shouldn't even be considered journalism.</comment>


Telling the whole truth in a post-truth environment - <AUTHOR> http://oecdinsights.org/2017/02/01/telling-the-whole-truth-in-a-post-truth-environment/ <comment><USER2> I think the ultimate success of the reaction to Trump is dependent on the Left positing a new, viable economic alternative. Neoliberal Capitalism has failed to create the circumstances necessary for large swathes of the population to survive, and any attempt to return to it is just going to create the same crisis of democratic institutions we have now. Marginally cheaper consumer goods, easy access to opiates, and temp work as an app-directed member of a servant class can't replace being able to afford a place to live, healthcare, or to take care of your children.

Right now, I don't see anything like a new vision of the future coming out of the Left, just (in my view)a justified horror at the direction the country is heading. I've been trying to think about what something better might look like, and I hope people more versed in these subjects than I are doing so as well.

<comment><USER3> If you go look, you will have a hard time picking a 50 year period in history, where everything was going well, a nice clean "vision" was neatly laid out and everyone got on board and did their bit. Just ask your parents and grandparents. It never happened.

And they didn't have to deal with zillion different over-optimized, hyper efficient propaganda machines pumping fear into the ether 24*7, and they will still tell you times were chaotic. But they survived and things got better.

<comment><USER4> You are excluding the middle. It wasn't perfect back then by any stretch, but it was possible to make a good living and all economic growth and innovation was not hyper concentrated in less than five unaffordable coastal cities.

If you live in one of these places and have not spent time in the interior you don't get it.

For an example look into the first, say, ten companies to offer viable home computers. They were in places like Albaquerqie (MITS), Dallas (Tandy), Philadelphia (Commodore), Atlanta (Compucolor), Boca Raton (IBM's PC group), etc. as well as Apple and a few others in the Bay Area. Today they would just about all be in SF/SV with maybe one token in Seattle.

Everything is like that. Regular jobs leave the interior for other countries or are replaced by automation, while high end jobs all go to to LA, NYC, SF, Seattle, and Boston.

I am in LA and grew up in Cincinnati and am as guilty as the next person. It's hard to swim against a torrent. When I go back there I see people stockpiling guns and talking about the new record for heroin deaths. Young people talk about escaping.

This is also bad to a degree for people in rich coastal cities since all this is driving real estate hyperinflation there. No jobs or unaffordable housing: pick one.

For average people things have become tangibly worse. It started in the 70s, accelerated after 2001, and became a visceral downward spiral after 2008. Trump and Sanders talked about this. Nobody else cares or even sees the problem.

<comment><USER5> Colorado is pretty nice.

You are oversimplifying and by doing so basically disguising an argument that seems to be that more wealth should be transferred from coastal cities to the interior.

How about the interior elects some reasonable governments, engages in trying to educate their populace, put some regulations in so they can build some decent communities and try to attract talent -- how about the interior starts trying to compete rather than blaming their woes on the federal government while seeking to increase their outsized (and poorly managed) federal handouts (which gets funneled disproportionately toward their tiny economic elite because of their states rights motivated insistence on the freedom to form corrupt local governments.)

<comment><USER6> >How about the interior elects some reasonable governments, engages in trying to educate their populace, put some regulations in so they can build some decent communities and try to attract talent -- how about the interior starts trying to compete rather than blaming their woes on the federal government while seeking to increase their outsized (and poorly managed) federal handouts (which gets funneled disproportionately toward their tiny economic elite because of their states rights motivated insistence on the freedom to form corrupt local governments.)

Well, this also requires that the Feds enforce antitrust law.[1]

[1] -- [http://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/novdec-2015/bloom- and-...](http://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/novdec-2015/bloom-and-bust/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > we have been happy to rely on economic models that work with comfortingly > quantitative facts on GDP, income per capita [...] If we go beyond averages > and GDP per capita and look at the distributional impact of our economic > decisions for instance, the picture is devastating. Up to 40 percent of > people [...] have not seen their situation improve in the last decades [...] > lower income groups accumulate disadvantages

> The NAEC agenda is ambitious, calling for a new growth narrative that > recognises the complexity of human behaviour and institutions, and calls on > sociology, psychology, biology, history, and other disciplines to [...] > build better models to inform economic decisions

So the issue is growing inequality, and the solution is to muddy the waters with unproven models (potentially mixing dozens of disciplines)? The OECD collected data on growing inequality all along [1], but apparently they chose to recommend policies based on GDP averages instead.

There's nothing "post-truth" and "emotional, not rational" about people who "have not seen their situation improve in the last decades" and "accumulate disadvantages". What's disconcerting is throwing out the whole concept of rationality instead of admitting they should have recommended policies based on different data (which they had).

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient#Gini_coeffici...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient#Gini_coefficients_of_income_distributions)

<comment><USER8> _> Our "truths" did not capture very relevant dimensions that inform people's decisions (including recent political decisions), and particularly those that are intangible or non- measurable concepts. This is why such important issues as justice, trust or social cohesion were just ignored in the models. Indeed, neoliberal economics taught us that people are rational, and that they will always take the best decisions according to the information they have to maximize utility._

"Particularly those that are intangible or non- measurable concepts" doesn't sound like a retreat from rationality to me. It sounds like a belated acceptance (or more likely, an internal power shift in a debate that's been going on a while) that their rational models had substantial blind spots.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Sadly "post-truth" rhetoric misses the point entirely and manages to endorse ignorance of reality.

When was society ever persuaded by "facts" alone? It's more than intellectual cowardice and naivety - it's lazy thinking.

You still need to convince people that certain facts presented are of such significance as to supersede preconceived notions, prejudices or personal opinions.

Throwing a temper-tantrum and feigning shock when people don't agree with you is like speaking louder at someone who doesn't speak your language. Try instead to learn how to communicate effectively and persuasively.

<comment><USER10> I don't think the term post truth refers to frustration that society is not persuaded by your version of truth. I think its refers to the fact that individuals can intentionally make untrue statements and that these mistruths catch on and spread. The fact that untrue statements spread through communities regardless of the ease of refuting them, that easily confirmed refutations are often disregarded if they come from out groups, and that there seems to be little to no consequence to spreading mistruths all seem to me to be factors interesting enough at least for a term to be coined for them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> When did adding "post-" in front of different nouns become a thing? "Post- money", "Post-rational", "Post-liberty". It never ends.

It just comes across as an attempt at sounding clever by claiming the world has changed and you're the only one that's realized it.

<comment><USER12> We currently live in the post-post, of course.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Sorry, but using such terms as "Populism, the backlash against globalization" is exactly what I call "deliberate misrepresentation of the facts and realities".

</comment><comment><USER14> The real issue is that no one actually cares about others. We're all pretending like we're trying to find the best system to give everyone equal opportunity and a better quality of life, but in practice this is not happening.

Government serves itself, and voters serves themselves.

This is true of Trump and it would have been true of Hilary.

There, I just laid down the whole truth, now what? Can we really escape our human condition?

<comment><USER15> Yes. You can die.

<comment><USER14> I'm not really seeing a rebuttal. Are you disagreeing with my axiom that we are all inherently self-centred and selfish?

If not, I'm actually asking for suggestions as to what societal model could account for it, and still succeed at providing equal opportunity and enhanced quality of life for all. I guess I'm open to anything except the "Savior/Champion will rise" type of models.

<comment><USER15> I'm not rebutting anything. I mostly agree with you that we have inherent tendencies to be self-centered and selfish.

I was just giving you the straightforward answer to your question. You asked if we can escape the human condition. I think it's pretty easy and we'll all accomplish it; we'll die. That's the escape.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Happy to see this sentiment echoed in places with influence. Nancy Pelosi gave a surprisingly similar answer (quoting the same Adam Smith reference material!) in her town hall.[0] The gap between rich and poor is widening massively, the middle is dissolving and they're (finally) acknowledging that such a process inevitably leads to the destabilization of the entire system.

Whether it's too little, too late remains to be seen.

0\. [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MR65ZhO6LGA&ebc=ANyPxKoh0L2swq...](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MR65ZhO6LGA&ebc=ANyPxKoh0L2swqxM8qc5wNhhZqiMY3GbhM2-FKfYNS5uyABHlm7qFTE6agt7Q4Vuun_7led7KBKsym9Zl6Tgt- uCm2CPmoGSew)

<comment><USER17> Wouldn't globalism be the main cause of the middle class dissolving?

<comment><USER18> Depends on whether you think policy could be effective in preventing other countries from developing and offering cheap exports.

International trade also has a big competitor in mechanization and automation. For example, big machinery ate up small farms and mining jobs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It's ironic that in a world that teaches and believes in relativism and no objective knowledge, truth, and morality people are all of a sudden worried about objective truth.

<comment><USER20> I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to, but it is not inconsistent to suggest that previously held "objective" truths being revealed as social constructs is not a de-objectivication (forgive me for that) of these concepts but an acceptance of their reality.

In general, this helps people who want to argue on ideological grounds rather than hurting them. It's bad for people who want to treat somewhat arbitrary concepts as objective to stifle debate.

A good example: gender roles vary so much culturally and possess so many outliers in the data that attempting to argue for an objective ground truth almost invariably ignores or dismisses numerous counter examples.

<comment><USER21> The thing is, in a lot of ways those gender roles actually are universal. Not among individuals, of course, but among societies, there are no exceptions to these:

"M&F seen as having different natures" "F->M direct child care" "M->F more competitive" "M->F greater spatial range" etc

Steven Pinker talks about this (and much else) in this speech. Skip to 26:56 for this particular point. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n691pLhQBkw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n691pLhQBkw)

An objective truth doesn't have to apply to every individual without exception, to be an objective truth. It just has to be a consistent trend. So M/F differences like the above really are objective truths, the same as "men are taller than women" or "cougars are more dangerous than goats".

(edit: this is not to say anything _prescriptive_ about what ought to be done; it's simply a descriptive statement. Of course Pinker covers all this ground; I recommend the whole talk)

<comment><USER20> > An objective truth doesn't have to apply to every individual without > exception, to be an objective truth.

I agree with this. We can objectively say, for example, that in the US many women end up as primary care providers for children. We can even note that because of breastfeeding & postnatal recovery we expect to see women become primary care providers.

But what I'm hinting at is that a lot of people are using "objective facts" as a code for extremely prescriptive speech right now on the grounds that the observation of majority means that that majority is correct, hence my mention of gender roles.

A lot of criticism of the notion of "post-modern" thought is that it questions norms previously thought to be purely objective. The degree to which one does this is of course an individual thing and we need to constantly affirm the boundary beyond which it no longer makes sense to erode the pretense of objective truth (e.g., the Sokal paper).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> oh, OECD, tu quoque! After having been the lapdog to some economicist / reductionist vision of the world and having contributed to serious damage - are you waking up? It's too late. And you are still part of the problem, not of the solutions.

</comment><comment><USER23> Over the past few decades, we have seen the slogan "a rising tide lifts all boats" thoroughly debunked.

Indeed, it is possible for macroeconomic measurements to improve without large segments of the population seeing the fruits of those improvements.

That's why it's incredibly important for political leaders to connect with people from all walks of life. Bill Clinton understood this very well. Hillary, unfortunately, did not. She was content with relying on polls and numbers, which of course could not capture many truths that, by their nature, cannot be quantified.

<comment><USER24> Not even sure if that is true, as most measurements seem to be relative, like "x% are poorer than y%". Even if income has stagnated, it seems possible that buying power has increased. I guess many measures try to correct for that, but maybe it is not enough.

I was impressed when I visited a medieval castle, where the luxuries of the lord included an automatically served table (that is, it would be manually lifted up from the kitchen). That required a whole castle with who knows how many employees.

These days, everybody can just Microwave their food, for a few bucks. Even though (almost) everybody is poorer than the medieval landlord in relative terms, in absolute terms everybody is richer.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Where do you store your photos? - <AUTHOR>

I tried Dropbox, Amazon S3, local hard drive, still not happy with any of them. <comment><USER2> Facebook. If you really don't want others to see your photos you could make a separate Facebook account just for uploading photos. If super high res is something you care about I think Google+ offers slightly better than Facebook. Anything I want super backed up I just upload to Google Drive.

<comment><USER3> You can mark photos only visible to yourself.

<comment><AUTHOR> The apps might access to them though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Right now my photos are stored in Trovebox into my personal S3 bucket. I have a script that mirrors down to my local NAS (photo file + meta data from API).

My videos are stored in BitCasa's Infinite Drive and a copy is also on my local NAS.

Disclaimer: Work @ Trovebox

</comment><comment><USER5> I use dropbox which I am happy with but I'd love more free space. I like that the app has a passcode on it. I also use G+ backup which honestly freaks me out a little bit. I know they upload private but I check quite often to make sure that they are infact private

</comment><comment><USER6> Amazon glacier for backups

</comment><comment><USER7> HDD + time machine + 2x yearly DVD (one stored offsite at sisters). photos are all we have from years of life - friends don't let friends @#$#@ around with back ups.

<comment><USER8> While I agree with your general approach, I have to slightly disagree with your statement that photos are all we have from our life. For my own part, I'm preferring savouring the moment over taking a picture.

I have experienced lovely moments, being in nature with friends, experiencing a stunning sunset, when the moment was ruined by some who were more occupied taking selfies with "we're so awsome!" faces. I prefer moment and memory over photo.

Then I inherited a couple of albums of photos from my mother when she died (long ago). A lot of pictures of flowers and landscapes none of which is in itself beautiful enough to be of any purpose for me. And a lot of pictures from her friends, most of which I actually do not know or have contact to.

Most of my paper based photos were accidentally ruined by mold in a wet cellar. I was very annoyed when I discovered it, but then I realized that the pictures sat there for years without being looked at anyway. I was forced to let go. And in the end it was okay.

That said, after all, I recommend to everyone what you said: Make f*#@in' backups fer chryslers sake!

<comment><USER4> My perspective on photos changed after having kids.

I'm doing everything I can to make sure that they will be able to see what their life was like growing up.

I literally feel like an archivist at times. I go through a lot of trouble to document and preserve their life so they have something to look back on.

1) Photos and videos ... I have a local and cloud copy of them all [1].

2) Notes I send via email to addresses currently hosted on GMail but at an email address at my domain (looking for a better solution in terms of ownership on this)

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7062209](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7062209)

<comment><USER8> Yes, total agreement that the situation is different with kids. Still I'd recommend to enjoy the moment and then take a picture afterwards. And then go through the pictures with your kids when they are older and able to understand and tell the story. The picture in itself of course has an intrinsic value, but it is the story of the shared moment that counts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I don't take a lot of pictures so I just end up storing them on my hdd and back them up with a small flash drive

</comment><comment><USER10> Flickr and Amazon Glacier. Currently looking for a third cloud option (although not trying hard).

<comment><USER4> We've been considering an S3+Glacier combination for Trovebox. We're not consumer facing (pricing starts at $29/month[1]) but we're also open source[2].

Currently in the middle of a contract negotiation and if it goes through we'll build out support for seamlessly storing high res photos in Glacier and low res photos in S3.

At the moment we support S3 and Dropbox for storage as well as our own offering (default).

[1] [https://trovebox.com/plans](https://trovebox.com/plans)

[2] [https://github.com/photo](https://github.com/photo)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Computer, external HDD and Amazon Glacier for emergency backup.

</comment><comment><USER12> Flickr. The Terabyte space is enough for me (though I do have the Pro version) allows me to get the originals again (I think that's for non-pro users too)...and the API is fairly flexible, though I think that's a consequence of it being somewhat neglected...in any case, it's been straightforward to suck down dozens of GB of photos whenever I feel like it.

Flickr serves as a pretty good place to share things...lots of random viewers come across my photos...its primary benefit is that it is a great interface for cataloguing and further sorting my photos...especially with geotagging.

I've just found out how to link it to Adobe Lightroom, so now even the inconvenience of exporting from Lightroom, then drag-and-drop upload to Flickr has been eliminated.</comment>


Marriott charging $700k for Covid-19 cancellations - <AUTHOR> https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jasonmlemkin_dear-arne-sorenson-ceo-of-marriot-ive-activity-6643534688206024704--Kbx/ <comment><USER2> Conference insurance is roughly 15 percent of the cost - quite a steep fee to begin with. Wonder how much more it will go up?

</comment><comment><USER3> How is this even legal if the coverence is not allowed to happen?</comment>


Try The McGurk Effect - Is Seeing Believing? - <AUTHOR> http://hunch.com/item/hn_3697271/

<comment><USER2> In the video we see a man saying 'baaa, baaa, baaa', but when he makes an 'f' shape with his mouth when he says 'baaa', we actually hear 'faaa'. It is an illusion.

</comment><comment><USER3> This was on reddit the other day direct with a link to youtube, this feels like blogspam to me cashing in on hunch adds no value and shows a tiny player.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0> Direct Link

</comment><comment><USER4> Anyone know other examples of senses messing with each other?</comment>


Facebook Said to Create Censorship Tool to Get Back into China - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/technology/facebook-censorship-tool-china.html <comment><USER4> > _Facebook does not intend to suppress the posts itself. Instead, it would > offer the software to enable a third party — in this case, most likely a > partner Chinese company — to monitor popular stories and topics that bubble > up as users share them across the social network, the people said. > Facebook's partner would then have full control to decide whether those > posts should show up in users' feeds._

This looks like a shadowban at scale. So you share something - <USER2> putting yourself at risk to do so - but with the hope that others will see it. The "local partner" decides that it doesn't show up in anyone's feeds but still knows you posted it, so now you're a target.

Damn, that's evil.

<comment><USER5> > Damn, that's evil.

Yes it is evil, but it is Chinese government that is responsible for that, not Facebook.

Realistically only some of the most popular messages would be affected.

It would not suppress political discussions at small scale (among several friends).

It would not suppress popular messages that are not political.

I support Mark on that: it's better to have limited Facebook in China than not to have Facebook in China at all.

<comment><USER6> _Yes it is evil, but it is Chinese government that is responsible for that, not Facebook._

Said every collaborator, active or passive, in every large-scale injustice or abuse since the beginning of time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> A censored [favorite service] with state surveillance is better than no [favorite service] is the new normal. Really?

It's kind of depressing to see where the world is going,, where the world bends to the will of state actors eventually. Given a long enough timeframe any draconian law can be made the new normal and I think that is what is happening.

It's also sad to see the internet become a tool to control entire populations and have them see and experience the world in a way that is convenient for state actors. And every effort to circumvent state control gets regulated before going mainstream. Eg- Look at Bitcoin, the calls for KYC norms, asking customer data. Another example is Tor, numerous attempts to unmask users.

<comment><USER8> >It's kind of depressing to see where the world is going,, where the world bends to the will of state actors eventually. Given a long enough timeframe any draconian law can be made the new normal and I think that is what is happening.

>It's also sad to see the internet become a tool to control entire populations and have them see and experience the world in a way that is convenient for state actors. And every effort to circumvent state control gets regulated before going mainstream. Eg- Look at Bitcoin, the calls for KYC norms, asking customer data. Another example is Tor, numerous attempts to unmask users.

I agree, and I have a question. What do you tell people when you don't use Facebook? I don't feel like supporting this, but is there a good way to sum this up for people that are non-informed (shit does that sound pretentious? Trying to think of a better way to put it. I think most people would not approve of Facebook and this associated trend you discuss, if they knew more about it)?

<comment><USER9> > What do you tell people when you don't use Facebook?

There are so many options.

* It's not 2006 anymore.

* That whole privacy thing, never can tell what they're doing with your data.

* I was creeped out when I saw a friend's face endorsing a product on a third party website thanks to FB. I couldn't be sure what my face was selling, so I dropped out.

* It's just gated internet, like AOL all over again. (Hat tip, Cringely.)

* People get addicted to FB, it's good to cut loose and experience the offline world every now and again, force real interactions.

* I think X social network is better.

* I'm a hipster / It's too popular.

* All my best friends use X instead.

* My whole family is on it.

* My whole family is not on it.

* Kept having fights with relatives.

* Spent too much time on it.

* Someone stole/hacked/forged my account once, it was a big hassle, so I've just stayed away.

* I stand with Native Americans / LGBT users / victims of abuse in protest of FB's true name policy.

* Facebook banned me after I [insert amusing story here].

* I don't want to upset Cameron Winklevoss.

<comment><USER10> I was on a first date and my date asked if I had a facebook. I said no (I didn't) and we she asked why. I said, "because I could give a shit less" (or something equally as cool).

She said it was "creepy" that I didn't have one and that I must be hiding something.

SMH. I was hiding something, my privacy.

Now I use facebook and I'm a dopamine junkie looping hamster.

<comment><USER11> The question remains, did you miss out on getting to know an interesting person, or did you dodge a bullet here?

<comment><USER10> Funny enough, after seeing the kind of nonsense she posted, I lost interest!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> "It's better for Facebook to be a part of enabling conversation, even if it's not yet the full conversation," Mr. Zuckerberg said, according to employees.

Larry Page (or, Eric Schmidt?) made a similar comment, before Google closed China office after Chinese officials were found to be monitoring dissidents through their internal tools, that censored Google is better than no Google.

<comment><USER12> > Larry Page (or, Eric Schmidt?) made a similar comment, before Google closed > China office

For the record, I agreed with Google that a censored Google was better than no Google, and one of my biggest frustrations at the time was that sanctimonious Americans seemed to think they knew better than me, someone who would actually lose access to Google if they pulled out of China.

Google would tell me if search results were censored, and wouldn't shut down my internet for a few hours if I accidentally typed the wrong thing, which was much much better than anything else I had access to.

Then Google did pull out of China and it did suck and meanwhile Americans celebrated it because it didn't affect them at all. Ugh.

> after Chinese officials were found to be monitoring dissidents through their > internal tools

Google pulled out of China because Gmail got hacked and Google assumed the hackers were affiliated with the Chinese government. I think the evidence pointed in that direction but wasn't conclusive, but either way, I haven't heard anything about monitoring dissidents through internal tools.

Anyway, I feel the same way about Facebook. It'd be nice to be able to access Facebook and talk to my friends while in China, and having censored communication is better than nothing.

<comment><USER13> > and wouldn't shut down my internet for a few hours if I accidentally typed > the wrong thing

that is actually happening?

<comment><USER12> Well, that was way back in I think around 2005? So I don't remember it _too_ clearly. But I remember a few times where I suddenly lost internet and the people around me said "oh, you probably tried to go to a site you're not allowed to, it'll come back in an hourish."

I haven't had that experience more recently, but I think that's partially because HTTPS is everywhere these days and partially because I use VPNs a lot more because I do need that Google/Facebook access.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Previously

> Facebook admits it must do more to stop the spread of misinformation on its > platform

That is exactly what censorship is.

<comment><USER15> This is sophistry. If I have a business, I can say "shirts and shoes required". We have laws about protected classes that are vulnerable to discrimination as exceptions, but on _my private property_ I can - <USER3> proscribed legal limits - dictate acceptable behavior, and ask people not adhering to those rules to leave.

You can dress it up, but Facebook is a private website. They do fancy stuff with information they collect about you and use it to sell you ads. They have terms of service that define acceptable behavior, and they have no SLA / guarantee about what you share reaching others or what others share reaching you. That is the deal.

If you don't like the deal, Facebook is not a right, and you can choose to not use Facebook or not, depending on your morals.

Now, what the article described, "Facebook does not intend to suppress the posts itself. Instead, it would offer the software to enable a third party — in this case, most likely a partner Chinese company — to monitor popular stories and topics that bubble up as users share them across the social network, the people said. Facebook's partner would then have full control to decide whether those posts should show up in users' feeds." <\- This is completely censorship. Governments censor.

Facebook saying it doesn't want a bunch of Macedonian fake news click bait stories crapping up it's platform is a business decision by a private company.

<comment> wu-ikkyu Is it sophistry?

What is the definition of censorship?

>Censorship is the suppression of free speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, _politically incorrect or inconvenient_ as determined by governments, _media outlets_ , authorities or other groups or institutions.

How does this not fit under said definition? Whether or not the act is done by a "public" or a "private" entity is irrelevant to the definition.

<comment><USER16> Does that mean if I'm the editor of a newspaper I'm required to publish every letter to the editor I receive? Even if it's inarticulate neo-Nazi barf?

Censorship is something the government does. The First Amendment doesn't apply to private entities. Private entities are not obliged to provide a platform for whatever opinion you feel like spewing.

This topic has devolved into ridiculous flamewars.

<comment><USER17> So, if the government _asks nicely_ and Facebook "decides" to delete all your posts, you claim that's not censorship?

<comment><USER16> No... if the government is getting involved at all I definitely think it's censorship.

The Chinese case is obviously censorship. I don't think anyone disputes that.

<comment><USER14> > if the government is getting involved

How do you draw the line? What would you do if a politician ask you nicely?

<comment><USER16> "Fuck you, bring me a court order."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This is the opinion of an a US citizen who has family in China. In fact, I just spent a month there visiting. My relatives are missing out on plenty because various US companies will not compromise with the censors.

Rather than have crippled foreign options that are better than what they have now, they get no foreign options at all. The lack of participation from foreign companies encourages the development of domestic companies that are far better at cooperating with censors than foreign companies ever could be. It also decreases the strain on the censors, making censorship even more effective. After all, there is no need to pay people to review foreign language content on YouTube when it is blocked entirely.

Downvote me if you want, but the reality is that refusing to cooperate with censors on things for Chinese IP addresses actually increases censorship. Cooperation does not mean that those cooperating support the censors. However, failure to cooperate does far more to support the censors than cooperation ever could.

I could say more, but I probably have said too much already. Concern for my family in China means that I can never truly speak freely on this topic in public.

<comment><USER19> I see your point but not how it increases censorship. If this platforms would show up then only because they are heavily censored. So what would change on that front?

<comment><USER18> The censorship is a blacklist, not a whitelist. You try reviewing all content added to YouTube in realtime and then decide what effect cooperation has on censorship via black listing. Even media companies armed with the DMCA cannot fully censor YouTube via blacklists in the form of DMCA takedown notices. Furthermore, YouTube is just one example.

However, it makes for a fantastic analogy. The MPAA would be thrilled if YouTube and every other video sharing site on the internet would just shut down. That is effectively what the Chinese censors experienced when foreign companies refused to cooperate. That is not just true for videos either, but that is where the MPAA analogy breaks down.

By the way, I had edited my post for clarity before I saw your reply. Your question might have already been answered by my clarifications.

<comment><USER19> Not sure if you ever used facebook. But to actually see new content you have to use it basically non stop. Otherwise you will only see the "interesting" content from hours ago.

Before someone explains me what the recent switch is. That shit is basically broken since years and should be called "different order"

<comment><USER18> I have not used facebook. However, my remarks are far more relevant to Google than Facebook. Facebook just happens to be in the same situation WRT Chinese censorship though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I came here to point out the hypocrisy of condemning Facebook's censorship tool while at the same time demanding something be done about "hate speech" and "fake news".

Apparently, it's only censorship when _the others_ do it. When we do it, it's to promote love, freedom, democracy, and "safety".

<comment><USER21> What hypocrisy? I reject both, many do.

I legitimately hate most western values (I am French of German & Portuguese descent to give some context) for those reasons, hypocrisy central.

When I hear the French PM talk about our values, I want to go and ask him about ravaging countries who have not asked for anything, about lying to the general population, about helping entities getting away with ravaging our planet, about helping regimes that are an open disgrace to these so called value.

And also, where are our values when we support regimes such as the UK or US who are stomping on them on a daily basis. The only freedom western society tolerates is the freedom to agree with their views.

There is an illusion of freedom and democracy, we are only allowed to operate and debate on a small spectrum, any deviation is squashed violently and incorporated in the next generation teachings to make sure we format proper citizen who support "our values" and don't go on a thinking spree.

<comment><USER22> I'm not sure the values you talk of can be described as "western values". The actions you talk of are those of western governments not of western people.

While some of what you say I absolutely agree with, particularly "freedom western society tolerates is the freedom to agree with their views.", the actions of my current government (Australian) and the actions of the government in my home nation (the UK) are absolutely abhorrent and I certainly don't endorse their behaviour.

But to be honest, are there values in any part of the world that are any better? There's certainly worse. Given a free choice of where I would choose to live, I'd pick western nations every single time, as while the behaviour of our governments is utterly disgusting, they do at the very least give its citizens freedom to behave mostly how we see fit and, to a degree, the freedom to affect change in government.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> here's the thing: Facebook has always censored posts. Try posting a picture of a nipple -- will be removed instantly.

It's just that this is a form of censorship that most Americans find acceptable.

For example in Austria, where I live, most people have other standards, and Facebooks policies seem arbitrary. Recently, a story made the news where Facebook repeatedly refused to remove a harassing video of a girl being beaten by peers; we Austrians don't understand how Americans consider violent videos "free speech" while being super strict about policing anything related to sex.

Some things like Nazi symbolism that are considered free speech in the US are forbidden in most of Europe --- for a good reason! It took us a long time to get rid of the old ideologies, we don't want them coming back!

<comment><USER24> > Some things like Nazi symbolism that are considered free speech in the US > are forbidden in most of Europe --- for a good reason! It took us a long > time to get rid of the old ideologies, we don't want them coming back!

Sorry, that's not a good reason.

<comment><USER25> Stopping another Holocaust or Nazi regime is not a good reason?

<comment><USER26> Banning a symbol does nothing to prevent human evil.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Yeah, censorship is really bad, but one positive aspect of FB available in China is that someone can now challenge the sole monopoly of WeChat, which Alibaba has been trying very hard but hasn't got much real outcome.

Talking about Google, as one living here, I really want Google to stay in China, for me I know Google from its early days when there was no censorship and the whole internet is freely (in terms of freedom) available, but looking at the kids these days, within 10 years, they live in a kinda dark age that it seems Google __never existed __. For me and people at my age, we can use whatever tools /costs to be able to access the whole internet, but for most of the young kids, their internet is much smaller than the real one, and I really feel sorry when they have to rely on the EVIL baidu to search for things, and baidu is infamous for all kinds of scams it relies on for its huge cash flow, which it pursues without any ethical bottom line.

The existence of Bing makes things a little better, but far from what Google can (or used to) bring if it's available in China, that probably will also relief the monopoly issue of WeChat, which is much worse than the similar issue with FB in US and other counties due to the absence of Google and related medias.

</comment><comment><USER28> "If you work for Facebook, quit. It is morally indefensible for you to use your skills to make that company more powerful. By working there, you are making the world an objectively worse place. I'm sure you can find a job working for a company that you don't have to apologize for all the time.

You can do it. I believe in you."

\-- jwz

<comment><USER29> Alternatively don't quit and work hard to enact change within the organization because it isn't going to happen all by itself.

I can understanding wanting to quit and wanting others to quit when a company is doing something morally questionable but this simply means the people who object are leaving while the ones fine with it gain a larger mind share within the company. It's my opinion that an inside dissenter has more power than a quit-in-protest when it ultimately comes down to changing things.

<comment><USER30> Majority of employees often don't have much say in policy. Quitting is the right thing to do. If no one quits everyone, both leadership and employees, thinks "It must be me as no one else has a problem with it". It applies to customers as well.

<comment><USER29> > Majority of employees often don't have much say in policy.

Going to have to disagree with you there. I think you'd be surprised how far you can take your ideas and concerns if you're willing to be assertive enough. I've worked in start-ups and companies with over 100,000 employees and if I've found something I felt needed to be changed I was able to find someone in the right place to talk about it with.

This isn't a retail employee trying to talk to corporate scenario (which, let's face it, good luck enacting change company wide when you're in retail). This is a technology company. Almost everyone I know at the major tech companies have at least chatted with the CEOs and other executives from time to time.

> Quitting is the right thing to do. If no one quits everyone, both leadership > and employees, thinks "It must be me as no one else has a problem with it". > It applies to customers as well.

I've been in a scenario where 7 out of 10 people on a team quit within weeks due to ethical concerns. I can assure you management had zero thoughts about anything being wrong, etc. They all thought it was simply a coincidence.

Now this is anecdotal but I was part of a large group who also quit in a similar fashion (approx 70 of 130 quit within 3 months IIRC). As far as everyone who was left could find out, their management felt almost exactly the same way.

Maybe Facebook and others would "get it" if people quit I'm just not convinced.

<comment><USER30> Management that takes critism positively without tit for tat attitude is not everywhere. By your own account you said "if you could find the right person to talk to, things could be changed from within". Well, is it employees' job to find the right feedback channel? Its the management's job to set up the right channels and make their employees aware of existance of such channels were they can give their feedback without fear of retaliation in any form. This feedback shouldn't be discarded or go into a black hole inbox. It should be openly addressed and appropriate action taken.

For bad examples for such process Snowden for one told he did go through such internal channels. Also Manning. Whistleblowers seems to be retaliated against with so much prejudice.

Also quitting a company that displays many such questionable ethical choices would feel good for my morale. Most people don't have such financial independence (runway) to quit and so they keep their jobs and keeps their opinions to themselves.

<comment><USER29> > Management that takes critism positively without tit for tat attitude is not > everywhere. By your own account you said "if you could find the right person > to talk to, things could be changed from within". Well, is it employees' job > to find the right feedback channel? Its the management's job to set up the > right channels and make their employees aware of existance of such channels > were they can give their feedback without fear of retaliation in any form.

Sure. But a company that won't take feedback seriously I don't see why they would do anything when a large amount of people quit either.

At least in my experience if they're not receptive nothing but massive failure will actually change anything.

> For bad examples for such process Snowden for one told he did go through > such internal channels.

To be fair we still don't know the extent of his attempts. He claims he sent emails to district heads but many in the DoD space know those typically are figure heads with little ability to change anything and there are better channels to go through. Granted I have no idea if it would have made any difference but I'm hesitant to use his example as one where a feedback channel failed.

> Also quitting a company that displays many such questionable ethical choices > would feel good for my morale. Most people don't have such financial > independence (runway) to quit and so they keep their jobs and keeps their > opinions to themselves.

Fair enough! :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Really puts the idea of "fake news" in a new perspective.

<comment><USER32> All this talk of "fake news" recently has been scaring the crap out of me. I consume all types of "news" from the whole spectrum; left, right, center, lunatic fringe, everything. I've come to the conclusion that anything called "news" is roughly 80% bullshit, 15% ads, 5% truth. Sometimes you swap the bullshit to ads ratio.

<comment><USER33> I agree 100%. I mostly lean left on most issues but I am growing more and more unconformable with the tactics and the attitudes of lots of liberals.

<comment><USER34> This election really bugged me. A lot of people are complaining about right- wing news right now, but the left was spouting off some terrible stuff and presenting complex issues as clearly one-sided.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> > The social network has quietly developed software to suppress posts from > appearing in people's news feeds in specific geographic areas

Sounds like it's just censoring in China then. As long as they don't start censoring US content, I'm happy.

Facebook is probably doing censorship anyways without this China tool. I talk to a friend in Germany and he was telling me how the German government is mad at Facebook. There's some law that makes Facebook censorship Holocaust denial and hate speech posts. Which I guess if they have an office in Germany or even the maybe EU I guess they have to follow it but there's news story of there justice minster saying they have to do it. [http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Germany-warns-Facebook- Clamp-d...](http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Germany-warns-Facebook-Clamp-down- on-Holocaust-denial-or-else-413595)

But from my understanding, all censoring is geo-located as is. So they could block those posts in Germany only, but in the US they'd still show up. I don't really support a government censoring speech even if I agree or didn't agree with the speech but I guess it doesn't really effect me so I don't really care. Germany or China isn't my government. Plus I grew up with American ideologies. America is one of the few nations left with free speech it seems.

<comment><USER36> German here. Facebook gave a private company (Bertelsmann/Arvato) that works directly for the government free reign to delete/censor as they see fit.

The laws regarding hate speech are so blurry that it practically gives them permission to remove anything they want and that's exactly what they do. They don't only delete content that is strictly against the law, but also content that is government critical, because it "incites public unrest".

They also remove content that promotes other political parties.

<comment><USER35> Interesting. So possibly even the same tool the article mentions, but different rules/config/people setup with access then for China.

Also interesting they have a private company working directly for the government. I figured in those cases someone from the German gov would have to mail or fax a letter to Facebook for every individual request, sorta like how DMCA works. Super spooky sounding they'd just outsource it to another company. Does sound it like's ripe for abuse then since you mention censoring content promoting other political parties. Seems like once the tool is setup, Facebook is then no longer directly involved beyond that point.

On another note, I am super surprised how many political parties Germany has compared to here in America. Seems like more choices, the better.

<comment><USER37> That company does not work directly for the government but is contracted by Facebook directly.

As far as I'm aware that team actively monitors content and doesn't need to have an explicit request to remove something.

I also have never seen an example that is just critical of the governing parties which was supposedly removed (every single example I saw was of the type "hang chancellor Merkel"). My Facebook feed is full of people promoting opposition parties from the complete political spectrum.

<comment><USER36> No. It's Facebook that pays them (because they have to), but they work by government guidelines.

If you take a look at the company behind it, you will find that they have their legs knee-deep in the government's ass.

[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertelsmann_Stiftung](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertelsmann_Stiftung)

One example is the German Anonymous channel. It was obviously fake, anti immigration and promoted the AFD (right wing party), but none of that is against the law. It had a ton of followers (I think in the six digits) and was removed just like that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> "Media does not spread free opinion; It generates opinion" \--Oswald, 1918 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_West](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_West)

<comment><USER39> The decline of the West? Published in 1918 and followed by the best 100 years in human history?

I like the quote but the irony is just too big for me.

<comment> jon-wood Yup, World War II was a ball. Everyone loved that, thought it was a highlight of human history (I'll concede the following fifty years have been pretty good if you live in the right part of the world with the right descendants).

<comment><USER39> They have been good for every part of the world. And wars are a fact for the entirety of human civilization.

I'll take doubling the life expectancy of people China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, other Asian counties, as well as most of Africa as a "concession". Thank you very much!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> The cyberpunk future we were warned about is really coming to fruition.

</comment><comment><USER41> I'm traveling in Vietnam and the local friends that I've made all agree that the most liberalizing / westernizing force is Vietnamese-American Facebook friends. It seems like just the passive influence of friends living in a different culture can have an impact. I wonder if the same thing would happen over time in China?

As it stands it's kinda tough to maintain past friendships that I've made traveling in China. As soon as I stopped using WeChat, all those friendships died.

</comment><comment><USER42> It'd be interesting to read if Chine has any good reasons for censorship. This is mostly likely a taboo question to ask in hacker communities but I wouldn't rule out that there are good reasons for censoring.

In fact, I have an anecdotal story about where censorship might make sense. In Jordan, we had Islamists subtly inciting jihad using online news outlets on benign things like Halloween parties. Calling them "satanist rituals" and in at least one case that incited violence against a group of people at a Halloween party.

In the West free speech is better understood, however, it's not the case in many parts of the world. The concept might not even exist.

<comment><USER43> I have commented on this issue several times here on HN.

I have 3 main points on why censorship can be justified in the context of China: preventing spread of rumours, unique culture background which values stability more than anything else, and different stage of development as other countries hence different priorities.

Here you can see my comments:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12934732](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12934732)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11405320](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11405320)

I wouldn't go into the realm of conspiracies where you have the Western propaganda deliberately destabilizing China for their strategic interests, since they are not backed up with facts.

<comment><USER42> That's interesting but a bit too general, anything more concrete to read -- a book for example -- to understand what's "unique" and what "different priorities".

<comment><USER43> Here is an interesting piece of research on this topic:

[http://gking.harvard.edu/files/gking/files/censored.pdf?m=14...](http://gking.harvard.edu/files/gking/files/censored.pdf?m=1447795312)

Also, you can use Google Scholar to find those that you are interested:

[https://scholar.google.com.sg/scholar?hl=en&q=china+censorsh...](https://scholar.google.com.sg/scholar?hl=en&q=china+censorship&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I feel like anyone reading this, on this news site, should be telling every friend and family member they have to abandon facebook, if they aren't already. We, the "guy/gal I know who's really good at tech stuff" need to be the example here, and show in very simple terms why facebook should not be trusted with our information.

<comment><USER45> And what do you say them when they ask: "where do we go then"? The real problem is, that there's no good enough alternative.

<comment><USER44> I've enjoyed having no alternative for several years. Not being constantly tied to status updates from others is very freeing, I'd suggest trying that for a while.

<comment><USER45> _You_ might, but we are talking about broad circle of ordinary people here, most of whom spend considerable time on Facebook and will not leave it unless you give them a _very_ good reason (privacy concerns, ethical reasons won't fly here, trust me) to do that or offer an attractive alternative. Good luck trying to convince some teenage girl to live at least _a day_ without social media.

<comment><USER44> "It got trump elected" worked on my 17 year old daughter :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> I wish for a dream world where every company faced with trying to drum up business in countries known for human rights violation instead focus on putting their own countries so far ahead economically that those latter countries have no choice but to 'play nice'. I'm aware a lot of people aren't fans of cultural exportation but this is just a half-formed thought.

</comment><comment><USER47> This will almost certainly be used everywhere, not just China.

Us crypto cyber libertarian geeks have been warning about the problem of closed silos and Internet centralization for over a decade.

I kind of hate being right, given that the reality is turning out to actually be a lot worse than what I feared. I mostly was concerned in the past with loss of ability to innovate and surveillance, but the collision of deep learning, big data, and closed communication platforms is making those concerns seem petty.

The potential for massive scale propaganda and discourse shaping bordering on outright mind control is unbelievable. Imagine an invisible automated agent participating in every human conversation and quietly steering it toward desired topics and outcomes and away from undesirable ones. It's intimate influence at scale.

</comment><comment><USER48> Shit some people do to make money. That's all I have to say.

</comment><comment><USER49> They can hit two birds with one stone since they keep talking about wanting to filter the things people share in the US too.

</comment><comment><USER50> I know it's not a popular opinion here but there's an argument to be made that a censored Facebook would do more good than no Facebook at all. It's not like Facebook being blocked in China is going to spark a popular revolt or reduce government censorship/spying. It could help, for one, expose more Chinese to Western culture and vice versa.

For me however, the strongest argument is that nearly everyone in China would prefer a censored Facebook to no Facebook at all and I'm humble enough to accept that they know, better than me, what's best for them.

<comment><USER51> I think the concern is that if Facebook builds sophisticated censorship tools for China, the temptation for other nations to adopt them will become overwhelming. The Chinese level of censorship could become a defacto standard without a robust conversation about what that means for society.

Even those enthusiastically calling for censorship of 'fake news' may be given pause for thought when considering how those tools might be used by political opponents.

<comment><USER52> This. I'm sure our Russian government would absolutely love to have the similar level of control. Currently, Facebook's too big for them (although they test the water with LinkedIn), but this is a clear signal.

And more countries (e.g. Kazakhstan) will likely follow the suit.

<comment><USER45> Facebook is not very big in Russia and I wouldn't be surprised if it is banned as LinkedIn soon. Most of ordinary Russians use VKontakte.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> For a moment I thought that Facebook might be a good guy when they launched facebookcorewwwi.onion, to let users from China and other unfriendly governments access Facebook and bypass local censorship.

<comment><USER19> Note sure if that changes but for a while you could not evem create accounts on the onion, at least without enabling fingerprinting.

<comment><USER53> What do you mean by fingerprinting?

<comment><USER19> Using identification techniques. Its a big topic if it interests you try to google it :)

<comment><USER19> Sorry drunk at that point. So nothing would be of value

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> I simply find it ironic as hell that people demand Facebook "ban fake news" on one hand and then bash it for developing "censorship tools" on the other. Come on, what's the difference between the two at all? So what kind of authority is Facebook to decide whether a piece of news is "fake" or not? This is very, very dangerous and stupid if you are truly trying to hold on to your proclaimed "freedom of speech" or whatnot. As Greenwald very well put it, the Democratic Party are just scrambling to find every kind of scapegoat they can find, without ever admitting they themselves are the problem. Come on, people didn't vote for Trump because they were misguided by "fake" news, or to put it another way, news that don't work in the Democrats' favor. People did so because the alternative is simply too horrible/hopeless for them to contemplate. Simple as that.

So either you admit that what China has been doing is essentially not anything different from what you're demanding all over the place now (actually, the majority of the "censorship" in China is against smearing campaigns which entail totally false accusations against the Communist Party, which could be potentially very socially unsettling in their eyes), or you admit that what you've been demanding is some absolutely stupid and dangerous nonsense. Otherwise it's just another example of western hypocrisy, bias and double standards against China at its finest.

</comment><comment><USER55> I think for fb to enter china it would first need to allow china to spy on its citizens. This censorship tool is just something they can publicly say they changed to allow them in.

</comment><comment><USER56> "Making the world a better place"(tm) The hypocrisy of Silicon Valley is off the charts.

</comment><comment><USER57> I see a lot of people complaining about what Facebook does. Censorship, fake news, manipulating your mood by changing what you see.

Apparently nobody cares because they are still using Facebook.

But why even use a tool that can misguide you, can manipulate you, you cannot trust? I can't understand this.

Dropping Facebook years ago didn't make me a loner or a stranger. Dropping LinkedIn didn't make me jobless. Dropping Google didn't make me miserable.

</comment><comment><USER58> Facebook would not be the first american company cooperating with chinese government. I remember Skype has a special version for China with censorship module built in. You can even find a list of censored words on the Internet.

Chinese government made it so that they win anyway: either Facebook cooperates or it is blocked and people use some local censored social network.

</comment><comment><USER59> Are there any competition that is similar to Facebook in China?

Like Weibo to Twitter, etc.

<comment><USER60> China's social network is WeChat. I suspect it's too late for Facebook to enter. With censored contents, what's Facebook's attraction to ordinary Chinese people? Without censorship, it would be a huge attraction.

<comment><USER39> You severely underestimate the "western" appeal in communist countries, I think.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amx- JHhtsHw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amx-JHhtsHw)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> Without the censored Google, search experience in China, monopolized by Baidu, has been stalling, even deterioratig for years. Lack of competition does so much more harm than censorship. I as an internet user in China applaud Facebook's rational effort to bring more competition and social connectivity with the world to China.

</comment><comment><USER62> From a Guardian article a couple of weeks ago:

'He also rejected the idea that people's news feeds are becoming increasingly personalized to the point that opposing views are no longer visible – a phenomenon known as the filter bubble.'

"We've studied it a lot. I really care about this," he said, adding that in order to have a good impact on the world he wants people to have a "diversity of information".

Source:

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/10/facebook-...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/10/facebook- fake-news-us-election-mark-zuckerberg-donald-trump)

</comment><comment><USER63> > "It's better for Facebook to be a part of enabling conversation, even if > it's not yet the full conversation,"

It's also nice to be surrounded by people, even if you're hitting them on the head one by one as they drop into a mass grave.

</comment><comment><USER64> Now that fervor over "fake news" is reaching a boiling point, and people are now paying attention to the fact that information (particularly that from social media) shapes their entire material, even political, lives...

...makes totally sense for them to go full bore & embrace philosophies of more central control over who gets access to what information. After all, isn't that what everyone is clamoring for?

</comment><comment><USER65> The world is eating software.

</comment><comment><USER66> It's an improvement for the people in China.

</comment><comment><USER67> This is necessary as a salami method of bringing changes to China's policies in a generation or two when the old guards die out, a usual exercise in social engineering, given West is still relevant by then. Having said that, I am glad I am gone off Facebook and have means to block their tracking over unrelated Internet sites.

</comment><comment><USER68> _" The social network has quietly developed software to suppress posts from appearing in people's news feeds in specific geographic areas"_

Censorship, suppression tools, fake news, Fb is moving into dystopian Sterling, Stephenson and Gibson territory.

 _"It's better for Facebook to be a part of enabling conversation, even if it's not yet the full conversation,"_

Is the mission statement changing here? In 2010 I remember ploughing through _" The Facebook Effect"_ on a plane to Singapore, reading about ^glowing reports^ of dissidents using Fb to organise themselves. The winds have changed. I'm more inclined to agree with Eben Moglens description of Fb as _" PHP do-dads where you get spying for free"_.

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

[1] [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/17/eben_moglen_freedom_...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/17/eben_moglen_freedom_box/)

</comment><comment><USER69> At some point not far from today the western governments should legislate freedom of speech in social media. We are now at 40% of people getting their news from them. Is that not a big enough number to stop pretending they are "just private companies"?

</comment><comment><USER70> Are there any open source alternatives to Facebook similar to what GNU Social is to Twitter?

<comment><USER71> Yeah, if you're referring to a mediocre replacement which no one uses, I guess there's diaspora: [https://www.joindiaspora.com/](https://www.joindiaspora.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> "Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend."

</comment><comment><USER10> I've always been curious if China's censorship of content included examining files for steganography.

I could imagine a tumblog of cat pics packed with all things you aren't supposed to know.

</comment><comment><USER73> 1\. They order you to censor contents; 2\. They order you to give them the account of censored contents; 3\. They find real person of the accounts and put them into prison.

<comment><USER43> 1\. They do not order you to censor contents.

2\. They kill the real person on the streets.

</comment></comment><comment><USER74> Isn't everyone going to want access to this same tool?

</comment><comment><USER75> Facebooks new business model CAAS Censorship as a service, at home and abroad. William Randolf Hurst would be proud. Time for me to cancel my account.

</comment><comment><USER76> What's a shame. So all facebook users will sponsor worlds biggest censorship. Next step, facebook will sell censorship rights to anyone.

</comment><comment><USER77> Knowing that the reality of censorship is the same as existing networks (e.g. WeChat), what appeal does a Chinese Facebook have for Chinese?

</comment><comment><USER78> The question is, do people in China really need Facebook now? I used to live in China and I still have lots of connections there, none of my friends are using Facebook-like social network services. People are using Wechat (a mobile-based semi-private social network), weibo (a Twitter clone with more features), and Zhihu (a Quora clone), and a zillion live streaming share sites. All the Facebook clone sites in China are dying.

That being said, I agree that this is still an evil move for Facebook.

</comment><comment><USER79> Funnily enough, I'm in China right now and it appears NYT is blocked here because I can't load the article.

</comment><comment><USER80> what are the chances this story will be considered as "fake news" and end up getting buried by facebook?

</comment><comment><USER81> Why don't the Chinese use VPNs or Tor on a larger scale to circumvent all of this?

Is it a matter of convenience?

<comment><USER82> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall)

</comment></comment><comment><USER83> So much for fixing fake news. Or maybe Zuck is getting into Minsky semantics territory.

</comment><comment><USER84> If you're in china, create a forest of information.

</comment><comment><USER85> Disclaimer: I was born and grew up in China in the first half of my life and been calling USA home the second half. And I am fortunate enough to be the first generation who grow up during the PC era and Internet era.

With the high likelihood of getting massively down voted given the predominant sentiments here, I am still going to to play the devil's advocate. So here it is: I am applauding Facebook's plan to enter China to connect 721+ million people(netizen count is not 1 billion as some of you claimed, see [1]. Population is 1.4 billion and a little over half of that have access to Internet.) and their pragmatic approach to get to that goal.

So you may ask why I am applauding FB bending over backwards to the censorship (which btw I don't agree to). Considering these:

1\. Majority of the rules people here disputes in Chinese media censorship laws are political related[2]. But Facebook is NOT a political platform per se. So to me, by entering the Chinese market, it makes sense to put aside some ideology disagreements as a trade off to serve and connect the 721 million people who otherwise wouldn't have for a slew of FB services. And it's probably making a lot of economic sense for FB as well.

2\. The tech-savvy few who will always be able to access the uncensored Internet anyway, so by agreeing to the local laws of censoring on one social platform does not significantly impact the freedom of speech. In fact, VPNs are popular and becoming the norm for younger generation who access information, which was dubbed as "climbing over the wall"[3]

3\. Any company or mission claiming "organize the world's information" or "connecting the world" but fail to service half of the world is a joke. And yes, Chinese Internet users are accounted for that half[1] of the Internet world. By retreating or not entering(or getting involuntarily banned for that matter), they are doing a dis-service to the Chinese Internet users due to lack of absence[4].

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_Internet_users)

[2] [http://www.hrichina.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/State- Secre...](http://www.hrichina.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/State-Secrets- Report/HRIC_StateSecrets_02.pdf)

[3] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_circumvent...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_circumvention)

[4] [https://books.google.com/books?id=V1u1f8sv3k8C&pg=PA313#v=on...](https://books.google.com/books?id=V1u1f8sv3k8C&pg=PA313#v=onepage&q&f=false)

</comment><comment><USER86> Laugh aloud, so long ideological America, welcome to the era of pragmatism!

</comment><comment><USER87> So there have been other posts discussing ethics.

About how developers should stand up and rail against their managers/CEOs when the company has asked them to build something unethical.

Where are all the developers now? That's right, underneath their desks coding away. The great ZUCK has spoken and as true CUCKs they bowed down and did his bidding.

No one on the development team is going to speak out. They need their lifestyle maintained.

The hipocrasy is not unexpected. To the world, developers will scream ethics. In private, they will cave, back to their safe spaces no doubt!

</comment><comment><USER88> Mr. Zuckerberg was even more optimistic about the possibility of using the same tool to suppress fake news in the US. "China is a beta-test with a billion users," he said.

<comment><USER89> Funny. Almost reads like an Onion article :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER90> Facebook sold out. So sad. Time to rm my account.

<comment><USER91> "Sold out"? This implied they were ever anything other than a money-making machine.

<comment> ng-user This guy's got it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> I think you're being a bit hyperbolic, HN uses the same mechanism (shadow banning) for moderation.

<comment><USER92> Shadow-banning in HN works differently in that users can choose to see shadow- banned comments. If I ever felt that a user was being censored then I could (a) read the censored material, and (b) tell the user that they were being shadow-banned. This has never happened so far, I see no evidence that HN is shadow-banning as a form of political control.

<comment><USER93> You can't tell a user he's shadowbanned because posts by shadowbanned users do not have a reply button.

<comment><USER94> You can vouch for dead comments, they become visible and reply-able.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER95> Why create a new one? Who not just use the one they use for Europeans and Americans?

</comment><comment><USER96> Breaking news: CEO of Fortune 500 company is a hypocrite. /s

<comment><USER97> Why hypocrite? It's way better for Facebook to do business in China with censorship, than do no business in China at all. Otherwise other companies will just take that role and do the same Facebook would do.

<comment><USER98> "It's better for us to cooperate with this regime which goes against our core values of enabling speech, rather than not make money."

Oh wait, that's not their core value is it. Their core value is... MONEY!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER99> A million users isn't cool. A billion users though...

</comment><comment><USER100> And then one day. By accident or design. It stops working.

</comment><comment><USER101> Hello, Uber 2.0. WeChat greets you.

</comment><comment><USER102> "Social" Network.

</comment><comment><USER103> Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard

Zuck: Just ask

Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS

[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?

Zuck: People just submitted it.

Zuck: I don't know why.

Zuck: They "trust me"

Zuck: Dumb fucks

</comment><comment><USER104> tight. compromising human rights values for capital gains! nice!

</comment><comment><USER105> Who is "we Austrians"? I'm an Austrian and I have no problem with Facebook not censoring that video!

Just so everybody here knows why the Austrian government wanted it banned: It showed how Muslim immigrants beat up a 16 year old girl and broke her jaw, reportedly as punishment because she dared to pull the veil off a Muslim girl.

That doesn't sit well with our government that wants to invite all of the Middle East here!

And probably the same is true for jakobegger, who enjoys freedom of speech only when it is an opinion that he isn't offended by, otherwise censorship is very much appreciated.

<comment><USER106> I have no opinion about Austrian politics but you can't post like this here, and we've asked you so many times not to, that I'm banning your account. It's one thing if people intend to use HN in good faith and don't know what the rules are; quite another to just keep flouting them. The personal attack in your comment was also egregious.

Using HN primarily for political or ideological battle is poison here. Regardless of what your politics or ideology are, this site exists to gratify intellectual curiosity, not weaponized conversation. This is particularly critical, because we can't have both: the one simply tramples the other, and that's not ok.

We detached this subthread from [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13020908](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13020908) and marked it off-topic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER104> tight

</comment><comment><USER16> I'm flagging this article because while the topic itself is totally on-topic, the discussion has devolved into ridiculous discussions of "censorship of fake news" which is a totally different problem.

<comment><USER107> Or maybe not. I am pretty sure dissident views in China are or can be labeled as something close to what we mean by "fake news". Having a big beta test for Facebook in China can also facilitate the expansion of a similar tech to the U.S.

<comment><USER16> Nobody is proposing that the government decide what is "fake news" in the US. Thinking that developing such an algorithm for China (a massive market where censorship is a requirement) is a beta test for a similar tool in the US (where attacking "fake news" is a minor problem) has their priorities out of whack.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER108> What part of the business' only imperative is to make money for its shareholders did you not understand? Do you really think any of these people care about any of the values that you hold dear? Maybe in the back of their minds. Maybe. But business as usual means that you do whatever to make money, and to make more money and increase your social and political power and market share. Sell secrets to governments? Sure. Unless it gets out and causes bad P/R. Then you do damage control, that usually involves scapegoating a someone, but that's just an opportunity for another company to exploit, and there are an infinite number of those and a limited number of consumers.

<comment><USER109> There is not an infinite number of companies like Facebook.

<comment><USER108> No there are an infinite number of companies that can be created that service government needs. So someone will. Recently a company cut its staff in half because Twitter and FB cut them out of their streaming service after the media and ACLU reported that they were using to monitor protesters. But what do you want to bet that another company will not take its place? Supply and demand.

<comment><USER109> There is also not an infinite number of other companies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER110> Remember when Apple was like na, we're not gonna build that feature for you Uncle Sam cause then you and every other government will abuse it. They must have allowed China to backdoor the iPhone. Also, this is evil.

Forget China and forget doing things they want them done. There are more people in the world not in China than in China. Would you rather the world be more like the USA or more like China? For better or worse I say USA.

This is how manufacturing left the US. We allowed it to happen. Why is there no regulation that says if you build stuff anywhere it has to be to US labor standards? I think that's what Bernie and Trump were getting at. Fair trade. I would put this Facebook debacle in that bucket.

Downvote away!

</comment><comment><USER111> Don't they own all that content according to their TOS? So what exactly is being censored when the content is owned by the same company that is choosing whether to show or not show certain content?

Edit: I stand corrected. They don't own the content. They can just do whatever they want with it.

Muddied thinking when it comes to these things doesn't help anyone. Facebook is not a champion of democracy or human rights. They're a business. No one should expect their core value system to be aligned with anything more than making more money and we should use the proper words. When they virtually own the content by asking you to allow them to do what they want with it we shouldn't call it censorship when it is suppressed. It's not like facebook went to the library and burned all the books that said bad things about China. It's more like the book was never put on a shelf to be accessible to begin with.

<comment><USER94> > _Don 't they own all that content according to their TOS?_

No they don't. They have extensive usage rights to it, but they don't own it.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Review my startup - findAlong.com - <AUTHOR>

http://www.findAlong.com.
Often people work in teams to find information on the Web e.g. team of students working on a class project, members of a research group writing a paper, geographically distributed teams of programmers searching for help on forums, corporate research departments writing market surveys or reports, online shopping with family or planning a trip with friends. Typically people collaborate via ad-hoc means, such as sharing links over email or IM, or sharing tags on social bookmarking services.
FindAlong.com is a firefox plugin that enables teams of people to search together. You can start a "search session" with your team and start adding pages. Everyone is kept notified in real-time about searches performed by others in the group, pages added by a team member, comments on pages added by others, instant messages to team members etc. When "labels" are enabled within a session, each added page is automatically tagged with the query against which the page was added (avoiding duplication of work within team members) and helping organize the information.
You can also use the findAlong "search sessions" to organize your own research (and don't want to keep tagging each page with the same tag-name or invent awkward naming conventions to store relationships between tagged pages). You can email your sessions to friends, access them from the findAlong website or even post them as a bundle on delicious.
We are still tinkering with the UI, but it'd be great if people here can try out the extension and give us some feedback. You can also write to me directly at firstname.lastname@example.com.
Thanks, -Umar <comment><USER2> My first reaction to the site was "I have no clue what this is". Your tagline lets you know it has to do with search, but it isn't clear until you read everything on the page. I think the first page of the "Take a tour" explains it well in the first line.. If it were me I'd use something like this as your tagline: "Save and share your searches."

Jer

<comment><USER2> Clickable link: <http://www.findAlong.com/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Your user experience really needs some fixing up. I won't talk too much about your UI, because you said you're working on that, and it has HUGE flaws right now (you sign up and the first page you reach is like a void).

Your user should be guided through the experience of finding out about and beginning to use your product. The big "click me" button on each page should lead on naturally in every step.

Hire a copywriter and an experienced UI designer (not a "leet gfx" designer). I would say with 99% certainty that all of you working on this are programmers. It shows.

The experience has got too much friction. In fact, I didn't install your plugin in the end, which means you've failed for me. The "Download" button just dumps me at the "this webpage tried to install an application..." toolbar, and a login prompt.

Really, the big problem is.. it's a plugin.

Plugins can be great, when used correctly. My definition (please correct me) of correct use of a plugin is to enhance an experience. So, if a user wants a faster/more convenient experience, they can opt to install your software to do that.

Requiring a plugin to be installed causes a lot of friction in the user experience. I don't know much about your site, and you're asking me to install your software? I don't know you, I haven't used your service and I don't have a relationship with your service, so it's not something I will do.

And, even then, if I do install a plugin, I have to relaunch my browser (okay, not true for IE). Huge roadblock. I have loads of tabs open, maybe some streaming media going on, I don't want to lose all that.

What if i'm using a browser that doesn't support plugins, or I'm surfing from school/work (two of your IDEAL markets) and the system doesn't allow plugins to be installed (likely). Or (just checked) what if i'm using IE? No luck.

You could implement everything you want to do here with javascript. That is my recommendation. Sure, you can have a plugin to enhance your features, but make it something you find out about after you've signed up and tried it, otherwise people will feel like you're forcing plugins down their throat.

Excuse the lack of co-ordination, I wrote this post as ideas came to me.

I've dropped you an email too, if you want get more feedback.

</comment><comment><USER4> It took a little bit of looking through your tour before I really understood it's usefulness.

To help get it across, it might be useful to have something that highlights the value a tad more concisely on the front page, maybe "it's the buddy system for researching online" or something like that.

I have to run to mother's day fest, but I'll give it a shot later. Looks like it could be handy for some uses-- probably not for our team "searching for help on forums", but for long multi-page research collections.

</comment><comment><USER5> I would not have known this was a Firefox plugin until I took the tour, you should include this on the front page. Also change "New User" to "Register", and make it look more like a link, right now it just looks like text

</comment><comment><USER6> I haven't gotten a chance to play around yet, but so far it seems like a good idea. One thing that I would suggest is that the left hand side of the main page is a little 'overwhelming'. Compared to the other two ('Share', 'Collaborate'), it is very busy with many pictures kind of stacked on top of each other. I just find it looks like the odd man out and doesn't match the theme of the other two.

</comment><comment><USER7> I think this would be useful but I can count on one hand I've had to do something remotely approaching this. You might say: well, now that it's easier with this tool, maybe you'll do it more often. Well, maybe. It's true that there is a lot of pain associated with emailing documents and search results around. But how often will this be useful?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for all the feedback folks! Please install the extension and try it out with your team/co-workers. Will love to get feedback on the extension.

Thanks, -Umar</comment>


GoodRx shares my prescriptions with third parties - and it's perfectly legal - <AUTHOR> https://gizmodo.com/goodrx-shares-my-prescriptions-with-third-parties-and-i-1841772965 <comment><USER2> See also Consumer Reports' take on this:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22438654](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22438654)

</comment><comment><USER3> This is why I've largely stopped using apps, and I would particularly never touch health-related apps.</comment>


Ransom: Routing Around Nation-States - <AUTHOR> https://ransom.cs.princeton.edu/ <comment><USER2> > _In some cases, countries are taking extreme steps, such as building new > Internet Exchange Points (IXPs), which allow networks to interconnect > directly, and encouraging local interconnection to keep local traffic local. > We find that although many of these efforts are extensive, they are often > futile, due to the inherent lack of hosting and route diversity for many > popular sites._

Anyone with a background of datacenter, IDC or VPS knows a simple fact: most of the time, the default routes are often sub-optimal. Even if you are using a CDN, sometimes the traffic just doesn't terminated at the local/nearest/best- connected datacenter of your CDN provider, but a remote datacenter, sometimes in another country. Pretty frustrating.

Because the traffic travels through the cheapest and/or the most convenient path, not the shortest path, and it also depends on your physical location, your ISP, the network topology of your local ISP, the national/international infrastructure, etc.

Finding the optimal path for a specific ISP is a pretty tricky task. My networking-guru friends have the ability to learn the interconnections of different datacenter through the BGP looking glass, and identify the fastest VPS to rent based on their experience in the industry, the knowledge of the national/international infrastructure (which core router the network is using? which submarine cable does this ISP use? which national subnet of the ISP is the server located?, etc).

It is very common that your traffic have to travel around the entire Earth, and crossing USA in the middle, even if you are just connecting to a nearby continent.

Sadly, there is almost nothing anyone can do to about it.

<comment><USER3> I wouldn't be surprised if the EU passed a law requiring domestic traffic to stay domestic. You could even argue existing privacy laws require it already - it just hasn't been enforced in that way.

It's not a hard problem to work around if ISPs were sufficiently motivated to deal with it.

<comment><USER4> A few German ISPs/internet companies made noise about keeping traffic locally during the Snowden leaks, some were slightly miffed when others pointed out that it would already be the case if they played ball and freely peered with everyone at the German IXPs. (Although with the biggest one of those being monitored by German intelligence agencies with whatever filtering rules the NSA gave them fairly pointless too)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Does this really "move the needle" in terms of security? TLS should be sufficient to allow your traffic to enter and exit hostile territory.

<comment><USER6> If you could avoid certain pipes it could only help security. Even with the security of TLS, that doesn't prevent state-level actors from observing meta data with the advantage of internet-wide timing data, which could be useful for say, analyzing TOR traffic.

Not a crypto expert but doesn't trusting TLS imply trusting root certs on your PC? Regardless, the Snowden leaks showed that internet traffic can be modified to contain harmful payloads for targeted individuals. Even if only susceptible over non-TLS it still represents a non-zero percentage of internet traffic.

<comment><USER5> Who will you even "avoid"? It's in the interest of every major country to do surveillance.

<comment><USER7> It may seem equally compelling to all countries, but in practice some countries put huge resources in to gathering everything, and some don't. Avoiding the ones that in practice collect everything in favor of ones that in practice don't would increase security. Separately, we should stay mindful of who is doing this collection, and simultaneously take additional measures to secure our communications.

<comment> semi-extrinsic I'm trying to come up with a list of countries that don't collect basically all data, and I'm coming up short. Do you have any suggestions?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Looks very similar to [http://alibi.cs.umd.edu/](http://alibi.cs.umd.edu/) but doesn't reference it and doesn't seem to have actually been published (?)

Also, maybe the title should mention this is from 2016.

<comment><AUTHOR> See also:

[https://ransom.cs.princeton.edu/pdf/surveillance.pdf](https://ransom.cs.princeton.edu/pdf/surveillance.pdf)

[https://ransom.cs.princeton.edu/system.html](https://ransom.cs.princeton.edu/system.html)

<comment><USER9> From the PDF:

> There has been research into circumvention systems, particularly for > censorship circumvention, that is related this work, but not sufficient for > surveillance circumvention. Tor is an anonymity system that uses three > relays and layered encryption to allow users to communicate anonymously > [19]. VPNGate is a public VPN relay system aimed at circumventing national > firewalls [40]. Unfortunately, VPNGate does not allow a client to choose any > available VPN, which makes surveillance avoidance harder.

That's _damn_ cursory.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Maybe don't install random PAC files in your main browser profile, unless you enjoy surrounding control over your web browsing to a third party.

Instead, install this in a separate profile.

<comment><USER11> Where's the PAC? People will often surrender control of their systems for less (watching Netflix, accessing thepiratebay)

<comment><USER11> Found it - [https://ransom.cs.princeton.edu/pacs/au_uk_pac.pac](https://ransom.cs.princeton.edu/pacs/au_uk_pac.pac), substitute two letter country codes. Seems oddly specific. In that example, only Yahoo, BBC and XHamster (nsfw) are re-routed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> [https://ransom.cs.princeton.edu/pacs/](https://ransom.cs.princeton.edu/pacs/) \- seems a bit strange, there's only a few sets of options, each with only a few sites.

</comment><comment><USER12> NSA: et tu, Princeton?

<comment><USER13> I doubt NSA is _that_ mad at Princeton overall.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Defense_Analyses...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Defense_Analyses#Center_for_Communications_and_Computing)</comment></comment>


Distributed Simulation and the Time Warp Operating System (1987) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://ftp.cs.ucla.edu/tech-report/198_-reports/870042.pdf <comment><USER2> Very good stuff. The only drawback of this approach is that it must be limited to environments where the state can be stored to allow the time warp. When heterogeneous /hardware/ in the loop enters in the simulation, it becomes impractical because either the state cannot be extracted or because the ´discipline' required in the coding has not been followed (and sometimes cannot). However, the pattern of storing an 'antimessage' can be used to enable VCR forward / reverse during replay of a live sim. Very powerful.

</comment><comment><USER3> Georgia tech at one time had code base based on these ideas as an HLA simulation architecture. I'm not sure if it is under active development still or not. If I remember right, it was free as in beer but you had to contact someone to download.

[http://www.cc.gatech.edu/computing/pads/tech-parallel- gtw.ht...](http://www.cc.gatech.edu/computing/pads/tech-parallel-gtw.html)

<comment><USER4> Brian Beckman recently asked questions on the Clojure mailing list indicating that he is working on sth. related in Clojure.</comment></comment>


Minimal character-based LSTM implementation - <AUTHOR> https://eli.thegreenplace.net/2018/minimal-character-based-lstm-implementation/ <comment><USER2> I have not read this particular piece, but here just to endorse Eli's blog in general. I am definitely smarter after having read just a few of his posts.

<comment><USER3> How does he find the time?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> it would be nice to parameterize it a little; for instance the unrolling could be a variable you could change. If anything that would increase the pedagogical value a lot.

<comment><USER5> seq_length in this line: [https://github.com/eliben/deep-learning- samples/blob/master/...](https://github.com/eliben/deep-learning- samples/blob/master/min-char-rnn/min-char-lstm.py#L47)

Is a variable that controls how much unrolling is done during training.</comment></comment>