Condé Nast to Put All Titles Behind Paywalls by Year End - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/conde-nast-to-put-all-titles-behind-paywalls-by-year-end-11548244800 <comment><USER2> "Condé Nast is considering charging advertisers a premium for access to those subscribers, said Chris Mitchell, chief business officer for Condé Nast's culture division, which includes the New Yorker, Wired and Vanity Fair."

This one is interesting. So they will charge fees from subscribers and they will sell their data to advertisers anyway. For me one of the advantages of paying for something in the Internet is that my privacy is not violated and I will not have to see ads.

<comment><USER3> >So they will charge fees from subscribers and they will sell their data to advertisers anyway.

Allowing advertisers to target paid subscribers for some very high CPMs is not "selling their data to advertisers".

In fact, it's not much different from ads in a printed version Vanity Fair or WSJ. You are being charged for a printed version of magazine and advertiser pays for having an ad in a said version.

<comment><USER4> > You are being charged for a printed version of magazine and advertiser pays > for having an ad in a said version.

I do get that, but this is not a printed magazine. This is the web, and I think I generally agree, especially with content like this, if I'm going to pay for something, I don't want ads there.

Generally the web is free because of ads, and if I pay for something then I'm paying because there's not going to be ads, and especially not going to be trackers like most media sites pile on.

<comment><USER3> My main point was against the "sell their data to advertisers ".

I know a bit or two about big advertisers, and I can absolutely guarantee that they have no clue what to do with said data anyway.

What their marketing departments ultimately want is "pls show our ads to affluent people who will buy our product, thank you, and we will go out and have a cocktail or two in a trendy bar near our HQ". You can give them huge dataset about people and they will have problems opening it, because powerpoint would not recognize the file extension.

<comment><USER5> > I know a bit or two about big advertisers, and I can absolutely guarantee > that they have no clue what to do with said data anyway.

I don't know what to do with someone else's social security number, are you comfortable giving me yours?

<comment><USER3> not being a US citizen, I don't have one, so I can't give you one, I just lack it.

But come on, do you really tell me that _advertisers_ have your SSN? Seriously, all that advertisers can know about you is that some random cookie bought some stuff (may be periodically). Reinstall your PC or just clear cookies, boom, and their data is worthless. This will not work with amazon.com, since you have to log in to buy something, but with advertisers on any Cande Nast property it will.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Which will make me read no more Conde Nast articles. Cool.

<comment><USER7> Those pesky journalists, wanting to get payed!

Not something you wrote, but HNs relationship to journalism is weird. On the one hand there's an infinite stream of complains about clickbait and how advertising ruined the media. On the other no one is willing to pay for a more sustainable model.

<comment><USER8> I, personally, can and do pay for a reliable and sustainable model. At least one of those is for a Condé Nast property. On days like this I find myself wondering why.

For the rest, I think it's something like the Netflix problem. Netflix is great if that's all you ever want to use. However, if what you want is scattered across Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, HBO, and other video services? Then you might be less sanguine about the situation. The costs add up, at $15 per month per service.

Journalism, for all it's _absolutely critical_ importance to freedom, democracy, and our shared hobby, is far more dispersed than that. How many different subscriptions would I need to have to read every article that graces the HN front page every day? At least a dozen, but perhaps more. That's going to add up too. WSJ wants $40/mo, Atlantic $80/yr, Economist is $180/yr, and that's just three.

How much do you think each HN reader should be paying monthly for jornalism?

<comment><USER9> Both journalism and video could be fixed with the same solution.

1) a standard oauth2 login system. One identity I can use to sign into all my streaming platforms.

1b) mint/manilla like management tools from the account provider for keeping track of subscriptions, bills, and what you are actually paying for.

2.5) something that can deduplicate when you are paying for the same content twice. It's very easy to end up paying 2 or 3 times for access to the same streams, whether they be viacom or fox or nbc. Once I pay for the rights to a library, I should be exempt from paying a second service again. Its very hard to see overlap, when youve signed up for access to the same libraries through multiple providers.

3) a rss/pubsub like standard for feeding video to a video player. Sure if I want to navigate to the Netflix app to see the netflix experience for browsing video, I can, but I should also be able to click videos and see all the videos I pay for across all services, in any library browser I choose.

Roku and Apple TV, and to some extent Amazon, have all somewhat recreated this experience for the user through sheer force, but it requires streaming platforms to be compatible with Roku and Apple and Amazons way of doing things. It's not an industry standard for 1) tracking licensing access 2) providing authenticated access to raw video. Anyone should be able to write a video player interface that can automatically interface with compatible video providers. Just like web browsers and websites.

And to the same extent, until paying, tracking, and access to journalism follows some kind of open standard, its just too hard to pay for access to tons of articles from a ton of providers. Ill gladly pay a la cart or through usage (not when I open a tab, but after i finish at least half an article?) And I know these kind of startups exist, but they are still proprietary, they arent a technology built right into the browser and and into each news platform. I should be able to prove I pay for a news site, and get the content, without the site caring what browser/librarymanager I am using.

In essence, the frontend newsreader/videoplayer should be completely decoupled from the backend content provider infrastructure, and both ends should be infinitely interchangable and compatible.

<comment><USER10> It should be something easy to implement, perhaps a "token" system where you start to read and a mesaage tells you "this article costs x "readerCoins" continue?".

<comment><USER8> As soon as you throw in a custom currency, the whole thing falls apart. From the user's perspective, part of the value-add is the _seamlessness_ of the proposal. Micropayments are anything but seamless.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think this is a good move, they need to make money to exist after all.

I just hope they price their subscription reasonably.

<comment><USER12> Agree.

And if we get better content instead of marketed content which is simply ads surrounded by cheap content, I think this is a cool move.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Does this include Arstechnica?

<comment><USER14> According to their subscriber forums, their current subscription model counts as a 'paywall' as far as Conde Nast is concerned, and there are no plans to change that currently.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Does this mean reddit is going to cost money now? /s

</comment><comment><USER16> If they allow each person to view a few articles for free, the "paywall" is just an inconvenience: you can simply make sure you look like another person.

Mozilla and Google have decided that clearing cookies and faking a referrer is illegal. Microsoft hasn't yet: [https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls- firefox](https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-firefox)

I think the add-on author would meet less resistance from the browser oligarchy if they described the add-on as "Read news anonymously: this add-on clears your cookies and referral info on news sites, so you can read their content without being tracked". Same thing, but avoids DMCA word-crime.

</comment><comment><USER17> There isn't a big enough audience that will pay periodic subscription fees for written content unless it's niche and/or really great.

With this move, Condé Nast is about to find out which of its properties are commodity content that usually find few takers who'd pay to go behind paywalls. It may then be forced to return to the ad supported model without a paywall unless it creates an innovative and _usable_ solution for micropayments to allow people to pay (others have tried and some are still trying, but I haven't seen a large enough success story).

I wonder what Apple is going to announce (rumored to be in a couple of months) on the lines of an "all you can read" magazine and related content offering based on its acquisition of Texture, and how Condé Nast's properties will figure in this offering.

</comment><comment><USER18> Not only a strict paywall, they're also planning significant price increases for their subscriptions.

I'm curious how this will work out in let's say two years and how this will reduce the current annual loss of 120 million. Desperate times, desperate measures.

<comment><USER19> Condé Nast says: Data does not want to be free, it's his brother that wants to be free.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Ironic that the article about Condé Nast putting articles behind a paywall is itself behind a paywall.

<comment><USER21> [https://outline.com/8Da2Ta](https://outline.com/8Da2Ta)

<comment><USER22> That's ironic at the next level!

Although, I do wonder if they will keep their sites open for search engines.

<comment><USER4> I thought sites had to serve the same pages to GoogleBot as they do to regular people?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


US demands social media details from visa applicants - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48486672 <comment><USER2> Also discussed a couple of days ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20065142](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20065142)

<comment><USER3> I has been discussed several times, including over a year ago [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16710838](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16710838)

I remember one thread which I can't find, which considered whether Hacker News counted as a site that should be disclosed. I also seem to remember a claim that having an account on a site with "Hacker" in the title was an automatic disqualification.

Hmm, this is the one I was thinking of: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17635403](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17635403)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> As any US Visa applicant can attest to, the DS-160 is already some of the most annoying form you have to fill - in fact for most people it's less pleasurable than doing 1040.

In addition to asking for details of every school you went to, every job you had, every country you've been to, they ask you questions like this:

>> Have you ever violated, or engaged in a conspiracy to violate, any law relating to controlled substances?

>> Are you coming to the United States to engage in prostitution or unlawful commercialized vice or have you been engaged in prostitution or procuring prostitutes within the past 10 years?

>> Have you ever been involved in, or do you seek to engage in, money laundering?

>> Have you ever committed or conspired to commit a human trafficking offense in the United States or outside the United States?

>> Are you the spouse, son, or daughter of an individual who has committed or conspired to commit a human trafficking offense in the United States or outside the United States and have you within the last five years, knowingly benefited from the trafficking activities?

>> Have you knowingly aided, abetted, assisted or colluded with an individual who has committed or conspired to commit a severe human trafficking offense in the United States or outside the United States?

>> Do you seek to engage in espionage, sabotage, export control violations, or any other illegal activity while in the United States?

>> Do you seek to engage in terrorist activities while in the United States or have you ever engaged in terrorist activities?

>> Have you ever or do you intend to provide financial assistance or other support to terrorists or terrorist organizations?

>> Are you a member or representative of a terrorist organization?

>> Have you ever ordered, incited, committed, assisted, or otherwise participated in genocide?

>> Have you ever committed, ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in torture?

>> Have you committed, ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in extrajudicial killings, political killings, or other acts of violence?

>> Have you ever engaged in the recruitment or the use of the child soldiers?

>> Have you, while serving as a government official, been responsible for or directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom?

>> Have you ever been directly involved in the establishment or enforcement of the population controls forcing a woman to undergo an abortion against her free choice or a man or a woman to undergo sterilization against his or her free will?

>> Have you ever been directly involved in the coercive transplantation of human organs or bodily tissue?

And now, this.

And don't get me started on the stupid fact that you cannot renew your US visa within the US, and in the end people on student/work visas have to take the pointless trip to Canada/Mexico just to get a new visa.

I hope someone eventually realizes visa applicants are people too.

<comment><USER5> Can some lawyer explain why these questions are necessary? I understand that you can add extra convictions for lying on these applications, but all the above questions are quite damning themselves. Like

>> Are you a member or representative of a terrorist organization?

Assuming you are: you answer yes and you get denied a visa (duh). Answer no and the gov doesn't know, what happens? You commit terrorist activities on American soil and get charged with that activity, which I assume is FAR worse than the punishment for lying on a Visa (if it isn't, somethings wrong). Can we not kick out a terrorist (found out after they entered) without this question?

It seems like the same goes for every single one of the above questions (except the first one, "Have you ever done drugs"). Every one of these questions is always going to be answered with a no, so doesn't that just create noise in the data?

<comment><USER6> > I understand that you can add extra convictions for lying on these > applications

You simply get kicked out pretty much immediately if they find out you lied. It can mean also the revocation of citizenship as it is now considered obtained fraudulently. That all can be done rather "easily" since it's procedural, without a long legal battle involved.

Now all kinds of "funny" things can happen there. Say someone belongs to an organization which was created and sponsored by the CIA and was not a terrorist organization 10 years ago. A new administration comes in, and the "friendly freedom fighters" are now the "evil baby killing terrorists". What should happen then? Can the government go back and kick out all the members they might have taken in? Technically they lied and they are now a part of the terrorist organization...

<comment><USER7> That one seems pretty simple.

If you played for a team, you were a member of that team.

If 10 years after you leave, that team goes on to win the championship, you are not and were never part of a "championship team."

<comment><USER8> Terrorist groups don't have formal rosters the way sports teams do. It is sort of like "former intelligence officer". It is definitely a strong argument (strengthened by time and distance separation, degree of clear separation or renunciation, etc) but it would almost certainly cause delays and substantial extra investigation, if nothing else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I meet a lot of tourists on a daily basis, and I have not heard anyone say they want to visit the United States in a very long time.

I can't imagine how much worse it is for people that are forced to travel there for business.

If the United States is trying to isolate itself from the rest of the world it is definitely succeeding.

As a side note, I have not spoken to a tourist from the US on the island where I live in several months. However there is a literal flood of French, German, Chinese, Dutch, Singaporean, etc. Last night I had dinner with an Uzbek and Tanzanian couple.

Where are you guys?

<comment><USER10> >> "I have not heard anyone say they want to visit the United States in a very long time."

US had the 3rd largest number of tourists in the world in 2017 (after France and Spain). [1]

Though YOY is trending down in Trump years.

[1] [https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284419876](https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284419876)

<comment><USER9> I did not see a breakdown by age demographic in that report.

The overwhelming majority of the tourists I encounter fall into the Millennial bracket, and I don't think it is possible for them to be less enthusiastic about visiting the US.

Maybe that will change once they have kids who want to go see Harry Potter World in Orlando, but as it stands I think most of my customers would rather visit North Korea than the US.

<comment><USER11> > _The overwhelming majority of the tourists I encounter fall into the > Millennial bracket, and I don 't think it is possible for them to be less > enthusiastic about visiting the US_

I'm a millennial with lots of international millennial friends. Nobody likes these measures. But getting into most countries is no walk in the park. As much as I hate to admit this, the pressure to end these policies will never come from tourists.

<comment><USER9> Depends on where you are coming from.

Most of the Europeans that come through have the financial means and strong enough passports to go pretty much anywhere they please. Same goes for most Japanese and Chinese.

My Arab customers however have the money, but getting a visa is a near impossibility.

<comment><USER12> EU travelers should understand - because the EU screens social media as part of visa applications too.

<comment><USER13> To the best of my knowledge there is no such thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This seems isolationist. Why would we want to isolate ourselves? For a country that was founded upon immigrants, that extremely benefited (and continues to) from diversity of thought and ideas, why would we want to stop that? I'm just under 30 and I still remember growing up how I was told that a major part of what made America great was the melting pot. In academia and at labs I've seen this be a huge benefit. But I don't really hear how great the melting pot is anymore (I can only think of a few times in the last decade). Maybe it was just childhood naivety. But it also seems to me that it isn't just the US that is becoming isolationist. So I have to imagine that there's something, at least in western culture, that is changing.

<comment><USER14> Nativism is a reaction to the decline of the middle classes prospects.

Half of America is not doing well and has been overlooked. The better educated amongst us are blinded by their own progress and weren't looking inward.

We will see more focus on nativist policies in our lifetime as automation continues to eat jobs.

<comment><USER15> Correct. A lot of people wanted an "outsider" and to "drain the swamp". In other words they don't feel represented by their elected officials, or treated fairly by the government, and they want things to change.

Despite this desire being co-opted and twisted by Trump's campaign and Fox News, the underlying feelings are valid for a lot of people across the USA.

The Democratic party should have realized this back during Obama's "Hope" campaign. A message of change, of saying "what's happening right now isn't right and we need to fix that", that message really resonates with a lot of people.

Of course, as Obama found out when he became president, "the swamp" has its own interests at heart. All that good energy and hope broke like a wave against that huge political cliff, and had far less impact than everyone needed.

If you ask a lot of people to articulate this sort of feeling, they'll have difficulty. Hence the easier to understand populist rhetoric coming from Trump. He steered that behemoth of public opinion towards xenophobia and other negative feelings. It's easier to blame the other than to look deeply at your own life.

The Democratic party has to understand this or Trump will easily win his second term. Back when Trump got the Republican nomination, I had a deeply unsettling gut feeling about the election. Trump was entertaining, Clinton was not. In the same way, Obama was entertaining, McCain was not. Bush was entertaining, Kerry was not. Gore was not. I unfortunately don't really see any entertaining people on the Democratic side.

As for the automation question, I think Trump, or his Republican successor, could pivot very easily to saying that robots are going to take Good Old- Fashioned American Jobs(tm) and a lot of people will follow that message.

<comment><USER16> > All that good energy and hope broke like a wave against that huge political > cliff, and had far less impact than everyone needed.

He seemed happy enough with the party-line vote in the Senate on the first major bill of his presidency:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvest...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009)

And he wasn't too concerned about bipartisanship when it came to passing the ACA only a year later, arguably the biggest bill of the decade. There were several forms of procedural hardball happening in the process of passing that. It was certainly passed narrowly and along party lines. And, partly because of the lack of bipartisan agreement, not all of it survived court challenges.

If it's true that Obama was genuinely optimistic and down on cynicism during his 2008 campaign, he must have wised up quickly. Otherwise, maybe people read some things into the "Hope" message that weren't actually there. He came from the Chicago school of politics, though, so I'm skeptical that the narrative of broken good energy really fits.

And I think this sort of thing feeds into the Trump narrative of a "swamp" that needs draining. Obama certainly didn't come up with Washington partisanship, but the hard landing after all the Hope posters probably increased cynicism on the whole and gave Trump a chance. Remember, he didn't exactly win his election by a landslide.

<comment><USER17> The ACA is already a result of a lot and even more compromise. It's even modeled after a Republican plan implemented in a red state. (In Mass. when governed by Mitt Romney, who at first vetoed it then took credit for it.)

<comment><USER16> And yet it received basically no bipartisan support in Congress. The Romney stuff is a talking point, not a reasonable way to pursue bipartisan progress on healthcare (which is still a mess).

<comment><USER17> It received just enough to pass, don't forget that. And also don't forget that nowadays it receives just enough support to stay on the books.

Also. Talking point or not, it pretty much showcases that policymaking today is not a deliberate good faith iterative process what it should be. It's just a front in the culture wars.

<comment><USER16> > It received just enough to pass, don't forget that.

Kind of. One version passed the House, another the Senate ( _), and a questionable reconciliation process created a unified bill.

My point is that I don't find the "Obama nobly lost to the Swamp" narrative all that convincing. He could have required, say, 10 republican senators agree before (unsuccessfully) overhauling one of the largest parts of the economy. _That* failing is what losing to the Swamp might look like.

Maybe that wouldn't have worked, to be fair. But preemptively deciding to play hardball doesn't fit the "The Swamp was too swampy for Obama" narrative.

(*) Including a vote from Arlen Specter, who switched parties mid-term and a vote in exchange for the infamous "Cornhusker Kickback".

<comment><USER18>
      Arlen Specter, who switched parties mid-term

He did so _twice_ (1965 and 2009).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This was stupid when it was just _potential employers_ expecting this information, and it's even stupider here.

Let's see how many bad reasons for this I can come up with in 30 seconds:

1\. Social media may be _popular_ but it is not _universal_ (I still know people without a Facebook profile for instance). Thus, while the government _should_ expect that someone may truthfully answer "I don't have social media accounts", I'll bet money that anyone actually giving that answer on their visa application is _screwed_.

2\. _Huge_ numbers of social media profiles are completely FAKE. Combined with #1 above, if you don't actually use a particular site but it _seems_ like you do, you are again screwed.

3\. Some people have extremely common names and legitimately do not want their pictures posted. Therefore, it is likely there are _hundreds_ of _real_ accounts with _your name_ , many even in your city, that are not you. If the government is trying to determine if you "lied" about having an account, how many of these are they going to accuse you of owning? Or are they just going to conclude, based on the stuff being posted by those people, that your application should be denied?

4\. The government does not run these sites, corporations do (and ultimately, random employees made some rules for running them). Suppose #2 above occurs, and someone is posting insane stuff as "you"; great, now _your entire damned visa application_ is in danger, and some random set of rules made up by an employee at Facebook or Twitter is going to decide your fate. Can you get the profile taken down? Ask Facebook. Can you "prove" the profile is not you? Follow random rules from Facebook. And so on.

5\. Not everything I do is on social media. And if I _were_ to set up a secret club or criminal enterprise, do you think I'd be writing about it on Twitter and Facebook?!?!? What _will_ exist on social media for a lot of people is an endless firehose of crap, which will mostly give the government way too much information to sift through. It will be a huge waste of time.

In other words, this policy can definitely hurt legitimate applicants and is not likely to add any useful information when screening applicants that "should" be denied.

<comment><USER20> >if I were to set up a secret club or criminal enterprise, do you think I'd be writing about it on Twitter and Facebook

You'd be surprised… :D

>In other words, this policy can definitely hurt legitimate applicants and is not likely to add any useful information when screening applicants that "should" be denied.

Exactly, I think that's the point. "Give me six lines written by an honest man and I will find something in them which will hang him." (~Card. Richelieu) All that extra content from social media will give decisionmakers _plenty_ of latitude to justify whatever decision they already wanted.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> This will have a chilling effect on speech in this country, which is extremely sad. Academic and trade conferences would be best taken elsewhere. And job seekers? Prefer remote.

For me as an American, this is, I guess, fine now. I won't be affected right away. But I fully expect other countries to institute reciprocal policies.

<comment><USER22> 1) Doesn't the First Amendment restrict the US government from curtailing free expression and free association anyplace, not just within US borders?

2) Isn't anything that results in a "chilling effect" tantamount to restriction?

I expect this will have a chilling effect abroad, among people who travel to the US, more than within the US.

<comment><USER23> 1 - no. The constitution explicitly only applies to US citizens / on US soil.

That's the legal rationale for a lot of 'bad behavior' such as PRISM -- they can intercept undersea cable traffic to legally spy on foreigners, as foreigners lack constitutional rights. Nothing new there.

<comment><USER24> > 1 - no. The constitution explicitly only applies to US citizens / on US > soil.

Why on earth do you say such things? Like, seriously, what's the point of saying something so easily refuted? Is this just to be inflammatory for the sake of it?

The suggestion that the US Bill of Rights only applies to citizens is so unbelievably toxic and contrary to the history of the country I am saddened to even read the words.

The Bill of Rights intentionally does not even include the word "citizen" and instead uses "people."

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

<comment><USER25> _> Why on earth do you say such things? Like, seriously, what's the point of saying something so easily refuted? Is this just to be inflammatory for the sake of it?_

I imagine your reply came from a good place and you're genuinely trying to improve the knowledge out here, but I just want to take a moment to address something that comes up often: this tone is very combative and it makes it incredibly hard for someone to yield and turn to you. What is OP supposed to say to this? "Oh I guess you're right. Thanks for taking my pride and putting me down. I see your point now." \-- this is not how people work.

Or, from another angle: you can usually tell a sarcastic question is off, if the honest answer is readily found, and defensible. In this case: OP said such things because they _thought_ it was true. The point was to share information with someone else and contribute to a conversation.

If you think they're wrong, there's more productive ways of getting that point across than calling into question good faith.

For the record: I thought it as well, so there were at least two of us, out here ;) and now after Googling, and judicial rabbitholes far beyond my expertise I still can't tell whether it's limited geographically or also meant to apply world-wide, or how I was meant to know, to avoid getting told off for being toxic if I ever daresay something else about it...

<comment><USER24> You're right of course.

But I also think that there is a palpable and strange injection into the zeitgeist a notion that non-citizens are less human - and it comes at the same time that a lot of racism and anti-immigrant ideology is reaching its way into public policy.

I'm finding myself with decreased patience for it than I might have for other falsehoods making their way through echo chambers.

But yeah, that's probably my bad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> If enough heretics have your name in their social network, your visa will be denied. Requiring social media on visa applications is like enforcing everyone to use Truecaller (don't use it!).

This feels like the start of a U.S. social credit system.

<comment><USER12> Not a fan of this, but the US is late to the game -- and has received criticism because of it.

Most developed countries already screen social media when processing visa applications.

<comment><USER27> oh, make no mistake the US /already/ screened this stuff. My now-wife had all her social media pages printed out and waiting for her on an entry to the US in the Obama years. Difference is now they can ban you for lying...

<comment><USER28> Since you have actual first-hand knowledge of border officials doing social media questioning, could you tell us more about this? What did they ask her? What prompted them to print out the social media pages? Which social media sites? What country was she coming from? How long did they question her?

<comment><USER27> I mean, keep in mind this was 8 years ago.

Not sure why they had them printed out - could have been to review them, could have been for intimidation.

IIRC they asked her why she had changed her FB location to the American city she would stay in for the next 3 months, asked a bunch of questions about past posts in the US talking about helping build our home, buy decorations, etc (all as proof she was intent on overstaying her visa, which was vaguely ridiculous as we had applied for a fiance visa at that point, so she was pretty clearly intending on living here, but we were also pretty clearly intending on going through the legal visa process)

Also asked a bunch of questions about some posts she had made seeking design clients in the US as proof she was working here illegally (even though she owned her own design business and paid taxes on it in Europe, obviously are allowed to take on US clients, but they were sketched out that she was soliciting US clients while in the US)

They questioned her for about an hour with no access to phone/lawyer/etc and gave her the option of immediately voluntarily leaving the US. At the end of the process they told her that it would be the last time she could enter the US on an ESTA and next time it would have to be on the fiance visa, they also told her verbally she had to leave within 14 days, but they still stamped her for a 3 month entry as per regular ESTA guidelines.

\--

It was mostly a bunch of silliness about work/residency/intent to work without a work permit/intent to stay in the US without a visa even though all things were aboveboard. The most concerning to me remains that her facebook at the time was not in any legal name, certainly not the name the passenger manifest, but she was still obviously tracked down

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> "A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members."

Immigrants are non-citizens are among the weakest members of American society (an outsize number of laws that impact them and zero capacity to participate in its political machinery)

<comment><USER30> Non-citizens aren't members of the nation, so the US are okay if we base morality on that random quote.

<comment><USER31> That's not a satisfactory excuse or interpretation of the quote.

Let's say North Korea selected a few of the leading family and declared they are "members", under such circumstances would that quote imply that North Korea is the greatest nation, because all its "members" have near King-like status?

Or likewise, can a nation increase its greatness by declaring the weakest among them to be "non-members".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I travelled to the US recently for the first time in 20 years or so. I had to apply for a Visa waiver (ESTA) and from memory they had a social media section that was flagged as "optional". I'm not big on social media and decided that my rarely used accounts would be of no use or interest to anyone. If I remember correctly though I did put my Github account on there (unless my memory is playing vicious tricks on me, yes Github was listed). Call me crazy but I decided that if the US government was interested in my C++ chess code, great!

I did gird my loins for a horribly unwelcoming experience at the airport (semi off topic but widely discussed here). At JFK it was actually super nice, but we were first off the plane and there was no queue to hit. We did take a side trip to Canada and had to enter the US _again_ at O'Hare and that was a different story entirely. Seemingly a million planes arriving at once. Even miserable looking and bemused cabin crew queuing from here to eternity. When we finally got to the head of the queue(s) the over-worked, under manned staff were perfunctory but non unpleasant. I haven't seen anything as disorganised and shambolic in arrivals at a European airport ever, but maybe I've just been lucky.

<comment><USER33> I'm here in the US via ESTA (sixth time in ten years maybe? More?). Three month road trip. I have active social accounts (not without a political slant) and didn't list them. Didn't seem to be a factor when I came through (with wife and kids), nor previous trips.

Colleague with minimal social profile but travelling by himself copped a three hour pressure-grilling last year. They were most concerned with the idea that he'd try to work and overstay.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." - Cardinal Richlieu, 17c.

</comment><comment><USER35> It might be difficult to provide the truthful answers. For example, I don't remember all of my current phone numbers, let alone those that I might have used in the past. Also, I don't remember all the names of fake SNS accounts I created, and don't remember throwaway email account names.

Also, US three-letter agencies already have access to Google, Twitter, Facebook and have all necessary information, as Snowden has said, so I guess it makes no sense to provide it again.

Maybe they just are trying to build a cause to be able to deport anyone from the country or reject entry. In this case it would be better to pass a law that allows to do it.

Also this is a good reminder that you better not post too much details about yourself in social networks, otherwise it can be used against you. And Hackernews is not considered a social network, right?

</comment><comment><USER36> I am happy to never visit the US due to the rules.

However it sucks that the US is the easiest/cheapest way to transit to many countries.

However I can't transit through say LA without "entering" the US.

So I can't visit other countries easily (especially Canada, or central America).

<comment><USER37> Huh?

If you don't want a visa, why do you care about this?

<comment><USER38> They explained that pretty clearly. The US insists that you are entering their country if your route of travel passes through US territory. So sensible routes to lots of other countries that don't themselves have obnoxious rules are off limits if you don't want the US nosing thorough everything.

<comment><USER37> If your social network accounts are public, the NSA can already see them, it doesn't matter if you explicitly give them your username.

If your accounts are not public, giving them your username won't really do anything.

I'm still not sure I see the problem? "Oh no, I'm traveling through the US and now they know that I have a social network account!" ?? They already knew that if you were actually a person of interest.

<comment><USER36> But the TSA and whatever other relevant departments don't have access to the NSA databases (or don't publicly show it, same thing from my POV).

I perceive that I might be denied entry to the US because someone shares a photo of me doing something the US doesn't like .. Then my trip to Canada gets cancelled, and I get to say "yes" when asked by every other country "have you ever been denied entry".

Meanwhile I must also provide biometrics.

And it is a federal form. The theoretical risk is high (although actual risk is low if you are a normal person).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> "The State Department regulations say people will have to submit _social media names_ and five years' worth of _email addresses_ and _phone numbers_.

When proposed last year, authorities estimated the proposal would affect 14.7 million people annually." [0]

[0] [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us- canada-48486672](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48486672)

<comment><USER40> I don't think they've thought about how precise 100% compliance is literally impossible for those of us with catch-all email domains, unless we have a record of every email address at that domain we've ever given out or through which we've received unsolicited email.

(Yeah, I realize that in practice they will probably accept partial compliance in that scenario, and that it won't affect me as a US citizen. But it could certainly affect people I care about.)

<comment><USER41> It can be advantageous for the government to issue laws that citizens can't comply with. That way they can prove you lied because you haven't provided this one e-mail address that they were able to trace to you. Now you're a liar and they can hold that against you.

<comment><USER40> All true. This particular one has no impact on US citizens since we don't need US visas, but other overly demanding laws certainly can affect us, and even this one can affect non-citizens We care about (even ones we may count as family).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I'm a bit confused, hasn't this been happening for years already? [0] [1] [2]

[0] [https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-16810312](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-16810312)

[1] [https://www.theverge.com/2016/12/22/14066082/us-customs- bord...](https://www.theverge.com/2016/12/22/14066082/us-customs-border- patrol-social-media-account-facebook-twitter)

[2] [https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/06/01/us-now- ca...](https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/06/01/us-now-can-ask- travelers-facebook-twitter-handles/102393236/)

<comment><USER43> It's been an optional question for people unless they had been to certain areas recently in the middle east.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> This is an unintended consequence of social media. It is the same as it was centuries ago. If you're known to criticize someone else, and it gets back to them, of course there will be ramifications.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with this comment. I'm just stating fact.

</comment><comment><USER45> This is just nuts. I have several social media accounts and in many of them I have said not so nice things about various governments across the world, including the American government. Wonder how that will be treated.

</comment><comment><USER46> Just filled in ESTA application, it is not demanded as the question regarding social media does not have to be answered.

<comment><USER40> ESTA is an application for permission to travel to the US by air carrier or cruise ship to apply for admission under the Visa Waiver Program. As the word Waiver suggests, that permission is not a visa.

People of VWP nationalities can apply for true US visas, but for short-term tourist or business visits there's usually no reason for them to bother unless they've been individually denied VWP eligibility or they want one of the few extra procedural rights which come from the visa and not through the VWP.

All of which is to say, maybe they're only asking this horrible new question of true visa applicants and not VWP applicants.

<comment><USER47> I'd wager VWP visitors outnumber Visa applicants by a wide margin. Assuming they actually intend to perform even a cursory check of each social media account they'll get bogged down for hours by trying to prove someone lying about _not_ having a certain account.

As an aside: someone posted a screenshot of the form showing one of the named sites was MySpace but doesn't include Telegram (and you can use Telegram without a username too). Anyway - I hope someone comes to their senses (perhaps an ACLU lawsuit re: should people be forced to disclose membership of sites like Grindr?) and they remove the stupid question.

<comment><USER40> My guess (pure speculation) is that they won't manually check most social media accounts indicated on the form, but will automatically check the provided info against (and add the provided info to) some intelligence community database. Then they'd manually check any cases where security concerns are flagged by that database or otherwise.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Do I have to submit all my spam email addresses as well? Madness

<comment><USER49> There's the loophole. Just send them all 500 of your email addresses!

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> All the more reason to not have them. Though email addresses? Are they demanding all pen-names too?

<comment><USER51> My fear is the day when the absence of a social media presence itself makes you a suspicious character in the government, and AI's eyes.

<comment><USER52> Do you have any reason to believe that it hasn't already come? You're certainly a suspicious character in the eyes of some employers for non-tech (and occasionally tech) jobs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> I think it is fantastic our beloved government is making these admirable changes to protect us!

<comment><USER54> I don't. It's fear-mongering bullshit.

<comment><USER5> I assumed the parent was being sarcastic. Though HN isn't really the best place for comments like that (without added context or /s)

<comment><USER55> I think the word 'beloved' did all the job of an /s tag and more.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> So what prevents me from leaving the requested fields empty or even put wrong account names on it? What if I lie about my phone number? Will they call me to check wether it rings in my pocket? Will they write me an email to check wether I recieve it?

<comment><USER57> Presumably something at the bottom you sign that says the information above is true to the best of your knowledge under penalty of perjury. Willing to risk 5 years in prison for lying?

<comment><USER58> The old visa waiver form asked whether you were a gunrunner, everyone lied about that.

This was when strong crypto was classed as a munition.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> Very discouraging to see this, especially because the overreach appears to have no limit. Today it's visa applications. Tomorrow it could be US citizens trying to get passports, driver licenses, or collect social security/medicare benefits.

On the other hand, a growing awareness of the many dangers posed by poor digital hygiene could ultimately lead to greater interest in privacy tools and practices. Along the road, though, lives will be destroyed as the ground shifts underneath them. Especially troubling is the possibility that previously-legal activities could be punished well into the future if not outright prosecuted.

<comment><USER60> > Tomorrow it could be US citizens trying to get passports, driver licenses, > or collect social security/medicare benefits.

Not really, since jurisprudence gives the executive a very wide latitude in deciding which foreigners to grant the privilege of entering the US. Much wider than it would give if it were a question of citizens applying for documents that they're entitled to.

<comment><USER59> The groundwork for domestic implementation is already in place:

[https://theintercept.com/2018/12/17/israel-texas-anti-bds- la...](https://theintercept.com/2018/12/17/israel-texas-anti-bds-law/)

<comment><USER60> Yes and the federal courts are taking her side (so far): [https://www.texastribune.org/2019/04/26/Texas-bahia-amawi- sp...](https://www.texastribune.org/2019/04/26/Texas-bahia-amawi-speaks-out- against-anti-israel-boycott/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> One of the reasons immigration laws ask so many questions is to set up an easy way to deport unwanted people without the tedious bother of an actual trial.

This seems like a goldmine. Forgot an email? Didn't turn over your account details on pornhub? Had a single-use throwaway account you can't remember the password for? Congratulations, you qualify for easy eviction.

</comment><comment><USER53> My reddit throwaways too?!?

<comment><USER62> SPECIALLY your reddit throwaways (and incl. twitter/fb/instagram/porhub throwaways too)

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> Everyone knows that the real danger of all this tracking and social media is that governments will start stealing the data and using it against people, or else by censoring things/manipulation.

This is how it starts in-earnest, rather than half heartedly. See China for a demo of the future

</comment><comment><USER64> What are they going to do with these? Just take a quick look or constantly keep monitoring them?

<comment><USER65> They will go into a yuge database and you can lay pretty good odds on what will happen next.

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> What I wonder is what is considered a social media. Twiter, facebook, linkedin sure.

But is github social media site? How about medium ? Steam webstore ?

How about reddit and hackernews ? Stackowerflow ?

<comment><USER67> Exactly, also what about E-Mail accounts from the 90s of which I hardly remember the spelling? What about usenet? Oh, and I must guarantee that everything is correct.

If this applies also for the visitor visa, this is really not good news.

I don't care that they ask about why I visit, about the person I visit, what is my relationship to that and more personal questions. But it's starting to get a bit too much.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> Perhaps it would help is US Gov explicitly mentions that they are looking for and specially what are the red flags that they consider in applicant social media accounts.

</comment><comment> DC-3 Whatever happened to 'those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither', America?

<comment><USER45> That was just a feel good message like "All men are created equal" or separation of church and state

<comment><USER18>
      separation of church and state

... is not an element of the U.S. Constitution. It simply prevents establishment of an official religion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> What happens if you run / have run a social media account for a company?

</comment><comment><USER70> I wonder if there is any sort of oversight of the process to ensure that the determination made as to whether to approve or deny is not arbitrary.

While I will grudgingly hand over my social media details, and I have no fear of being linked to terrorism or calls for violence or anything of the sort, I am worried that my anti-Trump posts (I'm an avid follower of American politics despite not being American) and other posts condemning Republican party politics will hurt my chances. Again, I've never called for any violence against the man, but have indeed called him a moron more than a few occasions.

</comment><comment><USER71> does this impact Eb2/EB3 green card applications and TN visas as well?

</comment><comment><USER72> So is PornHub considered a social media?

</comment><comment><USER73> It's interesting how the US implements a policy, and is rightfully scorned for it. Meanwhile Europe continues to do similar things, yet Europe implements similar policies, and no one cares. Politics as usual I guess.

[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/12054754...](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/12054754/Immigration- officers-to-check-social-media-of-applicants-to-root-out-fanatics.html)

<comment><USER74> The immigration policies of the UK are very much not representative of other European countries.

<comment><USER73> That's not my point, you don't see UK under the microscope. Just seems to be another case of "US bad/Europe good".

<comment><USER75> UK is not in Schengen zone - so it is not "Europe" \- even EU citizens go through customs when entering UK (unlike within Schengen zone).

<comment><USER73> That's not what I'm getting at, I'm not debating Europe vs "Europe". It's when a Europe area country does something, everyone seems to give them a pass. When the US does something similar, it's viewed with a different perspective.

<comment><USER75> Which country in Europe has has policies affecting 300M+ people (domestic) and eagerly exports it's policies to other countries?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Mirror, the Flame, the Seed, and the Brain - <AUTHOR> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://issuu.com/jkcotuit/docs/the_mirror__the_flame__the_seed_and_the_brain__by_&ved=2ahUKEwjO7b70kbnaAhWoi1QKHTAgBpcQFjAAegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw1LXAoKdcp7Y0hDyWosnVee <comment><AUTHOR> I just found this... Can people chime in with their perspective?</comment>


The Techcrunch Embargo - <AUTHOR> http://www.arcticstartup.com/2011/12/05/the-techcrunch-embargo

<comment><USER2> Sorry, but startups should not be relying on TC or any other blog coverage to launch their startup. TC only has power if you give it to them, because the 50k hits they give you are extremely low quality. 99% or more bounce after reading 2-4 words because by definition they are pundits or other founders, not customers of your service.

Remember, if you're in touch with real potential customers who are excited for you to solve their real problem that you've qualified in exchange for actual, bankable money then you don't need to even care that TC exists.

<comment><USER3> Maybe not rely upon but it is a good one time thing that you can get your name across multiple tech blogs, hard to get that much attention so fast without the blogs writing about you.

<comment><USER4> If you have something interesting to TechCrunch's userbase (say, a SaaS aimed at developers), then I could see that, but otherwise, I've found it much more productive to get written up on a moderate-traffic blog in the right niche. E.g. 5,000 people who care about, say, cooking, are way better than 50,000 TechCrunch hits, if you have something to do with cooking...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> tl;dr version: The PR world is full of people trying to get an edge. TechCrunch is very aggresive and not loved by other PR people, and even by some startups or personalities. This makes the author sad.

I remember complaining to my parents about the 'cliques' in high school that were simultaneously desirable (since being 'in' was a positive) and despicable because they would go to great unscrupulous lengths to besmirch you if you crossed them (even if they only _thought_ you crossed them). My mom, the psyche major in college, said "Chuck, you can only control the way _you_ are, not other people. Be a good example and be a good friend."

So true and so unrewarding at the same time. The injustice of it all rankled that piece of me that rebelled against the "fairness" of it all. But there is no "fair" in politics. Wasting time worrying about that gets you no where.

<comment><USER6> But it's important that these issues are discussed publicly. Here the point is not the embargo per se, but the fact that TechCrunch is deciding the embargo date, which might be really counterproductive for the startup, if it suddenly starts to get traction.

When I first started in the startup world, I was stunned how the whole PR ecosystem worked. It and it's ethics should be discussed more, not less, so that both readers and new startups understand it better.

<comment><USER7> Startups, like TechCrunch, are free to refuse to embargoes or even break them altogether if they think the extra publicity is worth more than building bridges with one media organisation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.arc...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.arcticstartup.com/2011/12/05/the- techcrunch-embargo&hl=en&strip=1)

</comment><comment><USER9> I don't see it mentioned in the comments: The TC situation is exactly opposite of the usual company/business-press relationship.

Normally, a company will cut off access to people in news organizations that provide bad press. TC has managed to turn this on its head.

(It tells you why CNBC is all cheerleaders, all the time. The biz press pages aren't exactly filled with the next Woodwards and Bernsteins either.)

</comment><comment><USER10> Welcome to the PR game. Embargoes are part of it. If you don't like this, find someone else to run PR for your company or at the very least, find someone with a lot of experience to advise you on how things work.

As hackers we're idealistic about how things work, expecting the world to follow logical patterns. But trust me, the press does not work remotely close to how one would hope. If you cannot stomach that, outsource it.

For TechCrunch, don't let them set the embargo time. Set one yourself, offer it to them as an exclusive. If they pass it up, move on. If they don't run it at the time you set, have a back up plan in place. TC will not make or break you. Do not allow yourself to be at their mercy. They have way more experience than you do. Act like you belong and control your own destiny.

</comment><comment><USER11> I'm really confused about this. So Techcrunch is telling companies that if they want coverage, they have to not talk to anyone else? Couldn't they instead just talk to everyone but Techcrunch?

<comment><USER10> Yes. It's very common for blogs and press outlets to ask for exclusives with a deadline at which it expires (embargo). If you want their coverage, you agree to their terms. Or if you have your act together, you set your terms, pitch it and have back up plans if they don't accept.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The TC reply to this: [http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/05/going-too-far-the- techcrunc...](http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/05/going-too-far-the-techcrunch- embargo-and-other-myths/)

HN discussion of reply: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3314206>

</comment><comment><USER13> Thanks for the discussion, ladies and gentlemen. I responded on behalf of TechCrunch here: [http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/05/going-too-far-the- techcrunc...](http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/05/going-too-far-the-techcrunch- embargo-and-other-myths/)

Have a fine day!

<comment><USER14> And here's the salient sentence: "Do we break embargoes? Sometimes. Do we break embargoes even after agreeing to them? Sometimes"

In other words,

"You cannot trust us"

<comment><USER13> The sentence goes on 'but very rarely'. In fact, don't think it's happened once this year that I know of.

Bottom line is, well, the bottom line (that startups have nothing to fear when it comes to trusting us).

<comment><USER14> Oh, _very rarely?_

Remind me to try using that one if ever I have to explain to a a company that I break my contracts 'very rarely' or my wife that I am unfaithful 'very rarely, or a court that I drive while drunk very rarely.

You do it. You cannot be trusted not to do it.

<comment><USER13> Newsflash. Everyone does it.

<comment><USER15> So fucking what? "Its OK if they do it too" is not journalism, its sleaze. I've heard people claim Techcrunch to be a rag, now I agree.

<comment><USER14> Moreover, I was a tech journalist for 15 years and we _didn't_ do it. We would argue very hard about them, but an agreement was an agreement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I agree, Monopolies are never good. While TC is clearly not a monopoly, no one can disregard their massive authority when it comes to the emergence of new startup.

</comment><comment><USER17> TechCrunch is a rag and everybody knows it. It's the TMZ of the tech world. The response to this blog post by TC is even more indicative of the journalistic rot going on over there than this blog post.

</comment><comment><USER18> Shouldn't startups sell themselves instead of relying on PR?

<comment><USER13> There are always exceptions, but yes, it works better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Showing a 500. Can anyone find the Google Cache link?

<comment><USER20> Few reloads and I got the page. Seems to be under a heavy load

<comment><USER21> [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.arc...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.arcticstartup.com/2011/12/05/the- techcrunch-embargo&hl=en&strip=1)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Hello Villponen, while I agree with you about the post and condemn this practice from TechCrunch, I'm wondering about your own practices of covering "ONLY" Nordic and Baltic countries Startups!? or am I missing something? Fact is, TechCrunch is one of the biggest player and Entrepreneurs don't really have that many choices while trying to get coverage from big tech blogs, and probably when they are not from the Nordic region or very big, they can't expect coverage from your own blog. Again, I condemn this practice, I'm just surprise to not read it from a RWW, TheNextWeb...or other "world Techblog" blogger but from you, while you already set your own Embargo from the start: "Don't talk to us or don't expect coverage from us if you are not a Nordic or Baltic Startup" . But of course, I could be missing something here!

<comment><USER23> I would think he doesn't have the resources of a techcrunch for one and the focus that local news can give is valuable.</comment></comment>


Google and Amazon to Put More Books on Cellphones - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/technology/internet/06google.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all <comment><USER2>
      But the public domain books available through Google Book
      Search are not likely to be the most popular titles, as
      they are older books for which copyrights have expired.
      In contrast, the Kindle library includes scores of newly
      released books, including many current best sellers.

Of course, who would want to read anything by Mark Twain or James Joyce when you can read bestsellers by the likes of Janet Evanovich and Danielle Steel...</comment>


Canvas is shutting down - <AUTHOR> https://usecanvas.com/?hn <comment><USER2> This is a pity, it's a great editor for collaborating on technical proposals / architecture documentation / etc.

A year ago the Ember Core team was using it for their meeting notes and collaborations [0].

I don't want to see it go. Anyone wants to help out and setup an open source hosted version?

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11384420](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11384420)</comment>


Why Antivirus Companies Like Mine Failed to Catch Flame and Stuxnet - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/06/internet-security-fail

<comment><USER2> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4054638></comment>


Show HN: Interactive and Generative Impressionist Paintings - <AUTHOR>

Here's a little experiment of mine which produces an Impressionist-style painting from a photo within a few seconds. Pics and tech details:
https://medium.com/p/afa98ccb97da
The experiment itself:
http://mattdesl.github.io/impressionist/app/ <comment><USER2> Posts without urls get penalized. I recommend that you repost this using [http://mattdesl.github.io/impressionist/app/](http://mattdesl.github.io/impressionist/app/) (or a slightly tweaked version of the url), with the same title. (Don't forget the "Show HN"; people watch for those.) This is great HN material, the kind we need more of!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the tips. I'm new here; would it be a faux-pas to re-post the app URL with the same "Show HN" title?

<comment><USER2> A small number of reposts is ok (you may need to use a slightly modified url), because we want to give high-quality pieces multiple shots at making the front page. There's a lot of randomness in the process at present. We have a plan for reducing that randomness which ought to help a lot with posts like yours—but it isn't implemented yet.

p.s. Welcome!</comment></comment></comment>


A Practical Quantum Instruction Set Architecture - <AUTHOR> https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.03355 <comment><USER2> The reason this is a practical ISA is because quantum computers will be serve as co-processors to classical computers; hence the Fig. 1 illustration in that paper. The variational eigenvalue solver [0]; which is used to calculate the ground state of a molecule is a good example of the kinds of programs that this ISA will be used for. The QPU is only used to make calculations which can be sped up by a quantum computer; and the CPU is used for everything else.

[0]: [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.3061.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.3061.pdf)</comment>


52-hertz whale - iso-8859-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/52-hertz_whale <comment><AUTHOR> Somehow this reminded me of the old `sound()` help file from Borland C++ 3.1. I think it was in dos.h.

[http://everything2.com/title/7+hertz+-+the+resonant+frequenc...](http://everything2.com/title/7+hertz+-+the+resonant+frequency+of+a+chicken%2527s+skull)

      /* Emits a 7-Hz tone for 10 seconds.

            True story: 7 Hz is the resonant
            frequency of a chicken's skull cavity.
            This was determined empirically in
            Australia, where a new factory
            generating 7-Hz tones was located too
            close to a chicken ranch: When the
            factory started up, all the chickens
            died.

            Your PC may not be able to emit a 7-Hz tone. */

<comment><USER2> Why would there be a factory for 7Hz tones?

<comment><USER3> Large equipment like fans could generate such frequencies. As they've been linked to ghost sightings in humans, I wouldn't be surprised if chickens got spooked by a similar effect:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrasound#Suggested_relations...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrasound#Suggested_relationship_to_ghost_sightings)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Since I was curious, I took the recording from Wikipedia, which is sped up 10×, and slowed it down 10×: [http://vocaroo.com/i/s0dMCeANPrbX](http://vocaroo.com/i/s0dMCeANPrbX) (No affiliation, just the first no-reg audio host I found.)

Edit: you may need to turn up your volume. Much of it (including the first ten seconds) is pretty quiet.

Edit²: I confirm hearing nothing at all using a laptop's built-in speakers; you'll need headphones or external audio.

<comment><USER5> Interesting, except on my macbook I can't hear anything. I wonder what the low frequency cutoff is.

<comment><USER6> Increase the volume. It's very low pitch track.

<comment><USER7> With the volume at maximum on my 2015 MBP I get sound... of some description, at least. It just doesn't sound much like it does through headphones. It sounds like speakers trying to reproduce something that's beyond them ;)

<comment><USER8> My computer is connected to an average HiFi and speakers (£300 / $500 worth) with an on-board soundcard. I didn't need to adjust the volume to hear the whale.

It reminds me most of waiting on the platform of a very deep metro line, and hearing the rumbling of a different metro train, some way above.

That, or the (apparently reasonably authentic) sounds played in a Sea Life centre.

<comment><USER7> The MBP's sound hardware might not have a problem with it, but I was using the MBP's built in speakers ;)

They're generally pretty good on the newer models, I think, as laptop speakers go. My 3-word review might be "better than functional". So having heard them make a tolerable go of music and games I was interested to see how they'd manage 52Hz. The answer: badly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> But, why presume it's lonely? Maybe it can also "chat" on the normal "whale channel" and it's conducting a SETI experiment on it's own via 52hz?

so much ethno- ego- centric decision making around animals ...

<comment><USER10> Or maybe it has had a wound or a disease that caused a frequency shift in the sound? (just a quick speculation)

<comment><USER11> The article mentions that the whale may be deaf.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > They speculate that it could be malformed, or a hybrid of a blue whale and > another species.

Are there whale species that have calls significantly higher than 50 Hz? Any ungulate experts here who can comment?

<comment><USER13> Orcas in the form of clicking sounds and humpback whales, who can sing in ranges as high as 8000Hz.

However, these calls are produced via an entirely different vocalization method.

<comment><USER14> Orca are not whales. Technically, they are really big dolphins. They are in the delphinidae family (dolphins) which explains why they look/act/sound/move so differently than other "whales".

<comment><USER15> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale)

See, specifically, the sub-heading on _Odontocetes_ — literally, "toothed whale".

You appear to be operating with the category that "whale" is wholly and exhaustively synonymous with "baleen whale". You're wrong.

<comment><USER14> From the same wikipedia article...

"They [whales] are an informal grouping within the infraorder Cetacea, usually excluding dolphins and porpoises. "

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I see the map of this whale's migration pattern goes north and south along the north american coast. Is it following an alternating current?

<comment><USER17> If you mean the alternating directions of the Kremlin, maybe.

</comment></comment><comment> nommm-nommm I read the citation given in the wiki but I can't figure out why exactly deaf people may think this whale may be deaf. It is not clear to me.

<comment><USER18> Because it vocalizes at an nonstandard pitch for its species, like deaf humans do.

And because it appears to be unable/unwilling to live in a pod with other whales, perhaps due to its inability to communicate with them vocally.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> The worlds loneliest whale. How fascinating and sad!

</comment><comment><USER3> I wonder if it's really a whale, or some sort of man-made source (possibly a classified military technology) that coincidentally happens to be particularly whale-like?

<comment><USER20> I thought of that, but if I were making some secret military sound I would try very hard to blend in exactly like other whales, not do something unique and identifiable.

<comment><USER21> But this is 52Hz, just around the 50Hz that a big part of the world uses as electrical standard. Some hidden generator somewhere could cause it.

I guess the hardest part to explain (in an artificial source) is how it migrates all the time, not the pitch.

<comment><USER18> Unlikely that broken electricity generator would be as loud as a whale, and survive 30years without repair.

Also, would someone choose to generate AC in a marine application?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Maybe it's trying to find The Bloop.

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

</comment><comment><USER23> My half-arsed guesses (apart from the ones given) 1\. birth defect affecting the 'vocal' cords 2\. autistic or similar 3\. dwarfism

</comment><comment><USER24> If we can track it, is it possible to locate the whale and observe it?

<comment><USER25> I suspect the researchers would love to, but that would mean expenses regarding ship, crew, and all that comes along.

Try getting that past management when all you got is a weird plot on a spectrogram.

<comment><USER26> This is a project I wouldn't mind backing on kick starter! Have there been any successfully crowd-funded documentaries with a big budget at all? A quick google search didn't reveal much, all the ones I saw were relatively low budget.

<comment><USER27> Mentioned in the article: [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/lonelywhale/help-us- fin...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/lonelywhale/help-us-find-lonely- whale)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> It doesn't appear to be as monotonous as the tiny spectrogram suggests, it's a sequence of subtly different tones: [http://imgur.com/Z7S9Chq](http://imgur.com/Z7S9Chq)

</comment><comment><USER29> Just notice that when I clicked to comment there were "52 comments" \- interesting coincidence.

Is locating the source that difficult? Don't we have tons of listening/triangulating stuff out in the oceans now?

<comment><USER30> Whales roam the oceans. I expect in some deep devops cave in a military office somewhere, they have a monitor showing the real time location of this whale using their sub hunting tech for a laugh. I really hope that's true.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> How hard is it to simply triangulate the signal and find the exact location of origin?

<comment><USER32> I think the issue is how quickly they identify the whales location. It seems like they have been able to track the movement fairly well. I imagine it takes a while to get a ship out to the identified location of the sound's origin, by which time the source has probably moved on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> This reminds me of Moby Dick

</comment><comment><USER34> Reminds me of the plot of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home!

<comment><USER35> Free Willy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Somehow this seems like the plot to the next Disney/Pixar film</comment>


My firm uses a crappy software for frequent task. Others use Excel. I can code. - <AUTHOR>

So i work at a professional service firm (non-programming job) and we use a software with a really crappy interface to do a specific project management task, other firms are even using Excel. What should i know/read before launching a product for this market and how do i approach it? <comment><USER2> I think the usual answer would involve looking at articles about customer development, lean startup, etc. But if you're still employed at your current company, it might be tricky (legally and ethically) to talk to potential customers and write a prototype.

Sorry for the obvious question, but does that "crappy interface" and using Excel imply that completing the task entails substantially more time than by using your hypothetical software?

If it's just user-interface/usability problems then you have to think twice before putting a lot of effort on it.

</comment><comment><USER3> You should read everything Patrick McKenzie (patio11) has written.

Then double your price.

</comment><comment><USER4> "Project management" is the worst possible domain with the worst possible customers to try to sell a product in.

Let them use excel, they deserve it. Seriously.

</comment><comment><USER5> timesheets?

<comment><AUTHOR> Not exactly, scheduling.</comment></comment>


The mistakes I made in Quora - <AUTHOR> http://scobleizer.com/2011/01/31/the-mistakes-i-made-in-quora/

<comment><USER2> I think it's hilarious how one person ... one registered user of a web startup can completely derail all positive discussion about the service and spawn so many blog posts and news articles.

This strikes me as one of those "lord of the flies" moments where we all need to stop and ask what we're all doing here exactly.

<comment><USER3> I'm just glad we didn't kill Piggy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> He has displayed some very poignant insight into his own behavior in that particular online community. I was able to take away some good lessons about my own activities elsewhere. It's definitely important to keep your ear to the ground, as he has apparently learned. I don't think I've read a lot of what he's written; An article or two over the last several years, maybe. That said I have an image created in my mind about the kind of person he is (very self- promotional) but this has shown me another side of the guy. Something I can relate to.

Good on him for being humble enough to lay his own flaws out there for everyone to see.

<comment><USER5> Isn't the TL;DR here "I was basically being a Karma whore"? It sounds like he was mostly trying to get upvotes rather than answer the questions...

<comment><USER4> That wasn't my take-away. He answers a ton of questions and made a conscious effort to maximize his return on that work (in this case, karma). He knew how to get what he wanted, but in order to get what he wanted he still had to be helpful in the process. If he wasn't being helpful then he wouldn't have gotten the votes in the first place.

If he actually wasn't being helpful but yet still received a lot of votes then that is a flaw in the community's voting habits. For example, people automatically up-voting him because of who he is after seeing other people do that countless times "so he must be insightful, right?" The guy knows how that place works so it seems logical that he might make the most out his time spent on there. There are power players in every community -- even this one -- who can relate to Scoble in this regard.

His problem was that he was playing too hard IMO. This ticked a lot of people off. Now, he does mention that some of his practices were annoying to other community members. That was also his flaw.

<comment><USER5> The definition of karma whoring isn't posting irrelevant things just for upvotes, it's focusing on getting upvoted rather than answering. His posting low-quality questions quickly just so he can get upvoted while refining them, posting irrelevant pictures just so the posts look nicer, etc, all points to karma whoring, not just answering a lot.

<comment><USER4> >The definition of karma whoring isn't posting irrelevant things just for upvotes, it's focusing on getting upvoted rather than answering.

Why is there a negative stigma around wanting karma and seeking it out even in the case where you're being helpful? It seems as though karma is something good to have but if you want it, that's bad. This seems similar to how wanting to be cool makes you so uncool.

>His posting low-quality questions quickly just so he can get upvoted while refining them, posting irrelevant pictures just so the posts look nicer, etc, all points to karma whoring, not just answering a lot.

Fair enough, my definition of karma whoring might be a bit off from the norm. I always took it as trying to gain karma from a community while basically doing nothing to further the quality of the community. I wasn't aware from his post that the pictures he was adding to the answers were entirely irrelevant. I must have missed where he said that (and I don't use Quora).

<comment><USER5> I don't use quora either, I just saw his example post where the photo seems to be an airport whereas the post is about some other issue. There's a difference between being minimally helpful to maximise karma gain and being helpful and getting karma as a side-effect. The things he posted weren't about getting the highest quality posts possible, they were about getting the highest amount of upvotes.

The fact that he posted low quality answers to gain karma while he refined them is a prime example of that, in my opinion. If you just care about helping you don't do that.

Karma is a reward for helpful users, it's not the goal (that's why you can't redeem it for anything). When users act in this way it stops being an indicator of helpfulness and turns into an indicator of who's the best at raking in karma.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Wow, that was surprisingly insightful. I have to admit I didn't expect Scoble to be that self-aware.

<comment><USER7> I did. It seemed to me he was trying to emulate Jon Skeet's Stack Overflow reputation (ref: [http://scobleizer.com/2011/01/02/crack-for-technical- recruit...](http://scobleizer.com/2011/01/02/crack-for-technical-recruiters- best-stackoverflow-users-handed-over/) ) but looks like he misjudged his effort.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> The interesting thing here, I think, is how obvious it is that it's the community and the rules of the community that shapes a service like Quora, not the feature set or the web design or the copy used etc.

Not that this is very surprising, it's just a reminder to not just look at the feature list of your startup but also its.... well, soul.

Hacker News is itself an example of this.

<comment><USER3> It's the people not the software? >shudders< ;)

<comment><USER9> It's the people _and_ the software.

Great points by Erik. I quoted this exchange at [http://www.talesfromthe.net/jon/?p=2374&cpage=1#comment-...](http://www.talesfromthe.net/jon/?p=2374&cpage=1#comment-127082)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Hate to sound negative (and prob will get downvoted), but why is this news at all?

<comment><USER11> I know your question was rhetorical, but I'll give an answer anyway. Because unfortunately (in my opinion) news has become as much about whos delivering the information as what's being said. And I use the word "said" because many times whats written or spoken isn't even what I'd call reporting. Take Wikileaks for example ... much of the main stream media reporting on Wikileaks has placed as much prominence (or more) on Julian Assange as they have on the trove of information thats been exposed. Cable-"news" has built brands around their personalities that pass off editorializing as reporting. This has resulted in viewer loyalty to the point where many of their viewers threaten to go elsewhere if their favorite newsreader isn't retained. This "story" has all the ingredients to fit into that model ... two prominent internet personalities (Arrington & Scoble) without enough followers, fans and haters to ensure that there'll be people on either side to fuel the fire using their platforms to promote their opinions about stuff.

Is it news? I guess about as much as what you see presented as news elsewhere.

<comment><USER10> Thanks for the thoughtful response. And I tend to agree. In the case of Wikileaks, the guy did something substantive at least (whether you agree or disagree with it) so I can understand the fascination with the man behind the story as his motivations, methods, etc are potentially interesting.

In this case, this whole thing appears void of any real "substance" which I guess is what led to the question.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> These are the self-ware posts by scoble which have made his respected in tech/startup circles.

Perhaps this clarifying post will lead to better discussions on quora. Any new service, when explodes, some one out there misses crucial point of using the service. But in the long run those mistakes become new yardstick to rate content and hence leads to better discussions.

So Scoble - thanks again!

</comment><comment><USER13> I've had his problem before -- being completely addicted to a service or forum and posting constantly just because I'm always there and am so enthusiastic about it. It's really hard to spot in yourself and deal with when you're just... so enthusiastic!

</comment><comment><USER14> There is something wrong with him. Slight case of narcissistic personality disorder?

<comment><USER15> If so, I'd hate to see what a severe case looks like.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Damn, 400 answers on Quora... no wonder why Scoble is so passionate about it. Scoble is a content creation machine, and unlike most answer sites and other bloggers, his content is high-signal.</comment>


Ask HN: How to deal with the tedium of programming? - <AUTHOR> I'm still excited about the possibility to build things, but I can not get my enthusiasm up enough to learn the latest technologies. Any way out? I can't really take time off because I need money.<p>(Context: I've been programming since I was 12, 30 years ago).<p>Edit: Thank you for all the replies! I can not comment individually at the moment because of HN posting limits. <comment><USER2> I would just build a few things however you want, not how you think you should. I wanted to learn some new languages but kept getting stuck not doing anything.

Instead I'm now mucking around with a Unity game, using C# which I already know, and have suddenly found the motivation to start the udacity android course.

Just do what you want to do, not what you think you should do, once you've got your enthusiasm for programming back you'll find an excuse to learn something new.

</comment><comment><USER3> Go build something that doesn't require programming. Sounds like a simple case of burn out.

One of the most insidious ideas people fall into is that they _have_ to spend all of their free time learning new things all the time or else they will fall behind. You should spend some time on professional development, but when you've hit the wall banging your head against it doesn't help.

Go build some hardware or a rocking chair, or a yoga studio or whatever. The lessons learned doing that can apply to your profession as well.

</comment><comment><USER4> What I've noticed when it comes to programming is that after a while, almost everything is a reinvention of the old stuff. Programming languages? Bah! Just same old stuff, if you are already well versed in something, then you are not phased by the new stuff, no new paradigms.

Then the annoying time it takes to setup frameworks and do the simplest things! IDEs? meh! Especially if you are super comfortable with your vi or Emacs.

So what do you do? Pick up a book with lots of examples, don't think too much about it. Just type in the damn examples like a zombie, breeze through the chapters, by the time you are half way you will start getting into the book, don't forget to modify the examples to your own taste as you learn.

</comment><comment><USER5> How about grad school?

<comment><AUTHOR> I have the equivalent of a MSc (in maths). Sometimes I ponder doing a PhD for fun, but it would have to be on the side because otherwise it costs too much money.

Looking into data science, now is actually the first time I keep seeing PhD listed as a requirement for jobs that would interest me.

Maybe one day - atm I don't really have any connections into academia and wouldn't quite know how to find a worthy subject and a willing mentor.

Also, I am 42.

<comment><USER6> You get paid to do a CS PhD. I left industry to go back and do one - was only 26 but was married and settled with dependants and a mortgage and things. I Googled for and then cold emailed professors who did research I was interested in to get started.

<comment><USER7> A PhD is the ultimate leisure class purchase no matter how secure your funding. As a paid PhD student, my earnings are much, much lower than they were in my former professional career. And for the most part, a PhD isn't an entry into vastly higher paying work--especially as a programmer. So, there's definitely an opportunity cost. I'd advise anyone to skip the PhD unless they've got a burning desire to do the sorts of things people do with PhDs, and are drawn to lower / foregone earnings

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Technologies change, math doesn't ;).

</comment><comment><USER9> What do you mean by the "latest technologies"? Nothing really changed fundamentally during the last 30 years.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well I can't get a job as a JavaScript developer atm because I have never used any of the new client side frameworks like AngularJS or React. I have only toyed with NodeJS and CouchDB is the only NoSQL database I have tried.

I used to be a Java developer, but haven't monitored the developments of the language and best practices for the last 3 years. Also I don't really like Java anymore.

I ponder getting into Android, but it's Java again, and then I find I have to learn a whole new style language that is almost but not quite like CSS, but seemingly less powerful.

I don't really care about agile development or scrum, another deal breaker for many jobs.

I like data science, but it seems mostly PhDs fresh from university or other young people are being hired for that. I actually enjoy doing Coursera or Udacity courses in data science, but it's not enough.

<comment><USER10> _"...I have never used any of the new client side frameworks like AngularJS..."_

You have just saved a considerable amount of time and nerves. Not only will they fundamentally change it in version 2.0, they are going to use a different language - TypeScript flavour.

<comment><AUTHOR> I had in fact started a learning project with AngularJS and the very next day they announced that they would change everything in version 2. Naturally I didn't feel like investing more time into version 1.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: How I put together a lightweight blog in a few hours - <AUTHOR> http://bbrennan.info/blog/making-of <comment><USER2> Haha classic [http://i.imgur.com/kzza281.gifv](http://i.imgur.com/kzza281.gifv)

Might wanna spend more than a few hours.

<comment><USER3> Please fix 99haskell, I'm on problem 10 and want to make progress.

<comment><USER2> Done. And I found and fixed the damn problem that was causing it to crash in the first place.

Sorry about that.

<comment><USER3> Thank you very much. Other two people have upvoted my comment, so we are at least 3 happy proto-haskell-users here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> It's cool that you made an experiment here, but I wanted to say that whenever I see people hosting blogs with expensive software (NodeJS with Express, or a PHP CMS, or other complete stack) I think it will be complicated to host those things forever, so probably the content will vanish some time in the near future. This could apply to experimental setups also, but perhaps experimental people are totally different from people that use the same tools for all kinds of jobs and will perhaps be able to migrate their data from the experimental tools if they prove to not be as good as first imagined.

<comment><AUTHOR> Curious what you mean by "expensive"...are you talking about monetary or maintenance cost?

I keep a cheap bottom-tier ec2 instance alive to run my website, stand up demos, etc. Keeping a node instance alive is pretty easy, and one of the reasons I used GitBack was so I wouldn't have to stand up a MongoDB instance...the content just lives with the code on GitHub.

Given that all my content lives in Markdown files, I'm not too afraid of migrating to GitHub pages, Medium.com, etc

<comment><USER3> Computing cost, or maintenance, whatever. It takes a machine running a memory- intensive NodeJS process, more if it uses a memory-intensive database.

It is much cheaper to host a static site, that's why GitHub offers it for free.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Pretty cool idea to use git-back! However I can recommend React for your MV* framework and I guess you can use disqus for your comments and save yourself from comment spam on your github repo!

</comment><comment><USER5> I'd add an RSS feed at a minimum, and probably email/twitter notifications as well. I'm not going to check your blog daily, but I would add you to my feed reader.

<comment><AUTHOR> Done!

[http://bbrennan.info/blog/rss](http://bbrennan.info/blog/rss)

<comment><USER5> You're quick!</comment></comment></comment>