I lost my boyfriend to cancer 'conspiracy theories' - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/72396917-47b0-4aac-856f-e213c3a0c3fa <comment><USER2> If you have someone in your life who is thinking like this and you can get them to read it I highly recommend "The Emporer of All Maladies".

It's not a debunking book. It doesn't even address alternative treatments at all. It is a kind of biography of cancer.

I think it can help because it puts faces to some of the people who have developed cancer treatments over the years. And it really demystifies the work pharmaceutical researches have done to develop chemotherapy.

[https://www.amazon.com/dp/1439170916/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_apa_i_Z...](https://www.amazon.com/dp/1439170916/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_apa_i_Z3XeFbDJNYEBM)

<comment><USER3> The problem is that reading an entire book takes effort, and the whole reason why these quack treatments thrive is because people can't be bothered to do effort (and if they did they would have a very high likelihood of disproving the quack just based on reading existing medical literature) and want a quick and easy solution.

<comment><USER4> I'm "quick to anger" when quackery is involved, but I don't think this is correct. Often the conspiracy people think they're well informed. And they are, but only informed by misinformation.

<comment><USER5> No. I have to agree with the person who says they want a quick and easy solution. I am in a totally different area where I think people are mistaken, but if I suggest let's do the math or let's do some experiments to see the results the excuses start thick and thin.

The fact is these people are too busy doing "magical thinking" when they know they are smarter than the average person and know something that the general "sheep" do not know.

But the one thing they refuse to do is test their beliefs in such a manner that if they are wrong that they will be proved wrong. When they do show effort it is more do only the things that can prove them right, failure is not an option for them.

<comment><USER6> So you're saying that conspiracy theorists don't obsessively research? That's kinda their thing.. I would definitely say that they think they're well informed

<comment><USER7> "Research" is much easier when there's no accountability mechanism for the claims you're encountering. People may spend a lot of time watching YouTube videos, but that's closer to binging a TV show than actually researching treatments.

<comment><USER6> you're missing the point altogether. i said "they think they're well informed". read it again please

<comment><USER7> You said they obsessively research. I said that what the might call "research" is not really the way other people use the term.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've seen stuff like this a number of times. Someone gets their opinions horribly warped by well-crafted YouTube videos and graduates to spending a lot of time with like-minded peers on Facebook groups, subreddits or discord, reinforcing those beliefs.

I used to watch a talented gamer on twitch who goes on rants about how covid is a liberal scam, constantly advocates an all-meat diet ("there's no proof vegetables are healthy"), and shares YouTube videos on stuff like that. Trying to tell him otherwise only reinforces his beliefs, and he'll parrot talking points from videos. Completely soured me on his content and it's just really sad to see.

When someone lacks the scientific training or education to know whether something is a conspiracy theory, they can really get pulled in by charismatic YouTube personalities espousing nonsense. Social media is really poisoning some peoples' minds.

<comment><USER9> It's scary how vulnerable everyone is to this kind of thing.

It makes me wonder what would happen if I watched YouTube videos every day that were misleading but well produced.

Would I eventually end up the same way?

How damaging is just repeated exposure and reinforcement to this kind of stuff? Is everyone vulnerable?

Even being scientifically minded and trying to be a good rational thinker, the way otherwise intelligent people are corrupted scares me.

It makes me extra cautious with what information I choose to expose myself to.

I do take some comfort that I was able to throw religion away even while growing up surrounded by it as a child.

I hope that means there's a way to be more resilient to misinformation.

<comment><USER10> > Would I eventually end up the same way?

In theory no, if you have developed critical thinking.

I wonder if critical thinking works like a muscle that we have to train. I personally check opposite opinions on youtube, but it's scary how youtube algorithm wants to brainwash me with recommendations on any direction I take, I use the option of "not interested" a lot, to clean up recommendations.

That and the evident radical polarization, scares me.

<comment><USER11> Theory and practice are often very different things. It's not hard at all to find intelligent, educated people, skilled in critical thinking, who believe very wacky ideas, because those ideas strike some emotional chord with them, which leads them to simply not see contradictory evidence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Coronation Street - a popular TV soap in the UK had a storyline about this last year [0]. As the storyline played out, the character chose alternative therapies before finally trying conventional medicine, but it was too late & she lost her life.

I think it was quite brave of a soap to tackle that, & hopefully it's made people think if they were considering alternative 'solutions'.

[0] [https://metro.co.uk/2018/11/06/coronation-street-spoilers- si...](https://metro.co.uk/2018/11/06/coronation-street-spoilers-sinead- tinker-considers-alternative-cancer-treatment-8040952/)

<comment><USER13> > the character chose alternative therapies before finally trying conventional > medicine, but it was too late & she lost her life.

Isn't this the same story as Steve Jobs? I recall reading that on this forum

<comment><USER14> It may be that Jobs shortened his life with his rejection of mainstream treatments, but pancreatic cancer also has relatively poor prognosis even with optimal treatment. Good thing it's rare.

<comment><USER9> That's true, but I think in Jobs' case he actually had a rare type that is treatable.

It's hard to know how much impact his delay had, but it's possible his focus on alternative medicine killed him.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Jobs&mobile...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Jobs&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop#Health_problems)

> In October 2003, Jobs was diagnosed with cancer. In mid-2004, he announced > to his employees that he had a cancerous tumor in his pancreas.[158] The > prognosis for pancreatic cancer is usually very poor;[159] Jobs stated that > he had a rare, much less aggressive type, known as islet cell neuroendocrine > tumor.[158] Despite his diagnosis, Jobs resisted his doctors' > recommendations for medical intervention for nine months,[160] instead > relying on alternative medicine to thwart the disease. According to Harvard > researcher Ramzi Amri, his choice of alternative treatment "led to an > unnecessarily early death". Other doctors agree that Jobs's diet was > insufficient to address his disease. However, cancer researcher and > alternative medicine critic David Gorski wrote that "it's impossible to know > whether and by how much he might have decreased his chances of surviving his > cancer through his flirtation with woo. My best guess was that Jobs probably > only modestly decreased his chances of survival, if that."[161] Barrie R. > Cassileth, the chief of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center's integrative > medicine department,[162] said, "Jobs's faith in alternative medicine likely > cost him his life.... He had the only kind of pancreatic cancer that is > treatable and curable.... He essentially committed suicide."

<comment><USER15> By 'insufficient diet' they mean that he decided to eat only fruit. High sugar intake combined with the pancreatic cancer likely did him no favors and _may_ have taxed his pancreas even more. Such a shame, I'd have liked to see him grow older and wiser.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> When my grandmother was diagnosed with lung cancer she refused medical treatment. She did not want to go through the therapy, the medical process was a worse outcome than death for her. She seemed to just decide that she was done, resigned to her fate.

My uncle offered her some kind of herbal tea as a solution to her cancer. Grandma had a worse view of alternative medicine than the actual medicine she had already refused. I had never seen her so upset with my uncle. Her reaction has stayed with me.

<comment><USER17> I find it admirable that she was able to be accepting of her fate. I wish I could be that strong, although perhaps it comes with age ("I've lived a full life, I am ready").

I don't believe in naturopathy either, but I wonder if it still has a positive impact for those whom believe in it, ie. the placebo effect.

<comment><USER18> It's probably easier if your odds are not as good as 50%.

<comment><USER19> True, but that may be the perfect opportunity to place hope in these alternative remedies, which she refused.

I have a family member with lung cancer and when they felt traditional options have been exhausted, they went full alternative. TCM and such.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> > He started documenting his journey on Facebook Lives and grew a huge > following.

This is a major problem; not only did this stupidity cost him his life but he also put others at risk.

<comment><USER20> It's not fair to say it cost him his life when his survival chance was 50% to begin with and the first chemotherapy failed to cure him. Nobody can say whether the outcome would have been better with a second chemotherapy or perhaps with no treatment at all.

<comment><USER21> The first chemo gave him six more years. The 50% estimate was for long term survival, which is generally considered to be 10-15 years or more. It doesn't say what his short term survival odds may have been. Somewhere between 51-99%.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Yep. Same thing is happening to me now. My dad got thyroid cancer in 2006. In 2018 it spread to his lungs, and in 2019 to his brain. My parents spend a lot of time daily researching "alternative therapies". It's terrible to watch it and not be able to do anything about it.

<comment><USER23> I was there almost 10 years ago. My dad's cancer had metastasized, conventional treatments were failing, and a "monk" wandering the cancer ward offered meditative therapy to the tune of $30,000, up front, no refunds. My brother and I begged them not to waste their money. The charlatan sustained his sales pitch for nearly a month before my parents eventually refused him. My dad lived for another year, and my mom still regrets not "trying" the snake oil.

<comment><USER24> That's so low it is disgusting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> BBC Three is aimed at the 16 - 34 year old demographic. The article talks about someone who went all in on alternative therapies and declined mainstream treatment available on the NHS.

<comment><USER25> I know people that have gone through chemotherapy. Since this was his 2nd cancer diagnosis, I can understand why he wouldn't want to go through it again. I can understand why he would so desperately want an alternative.

If I were to be diagnosed with cancer tomorrow, I don't know what I'd decide for myself. Of it depends on the diagnosis, if it was just a small skin cancer they could just cut out, sure, let's do that.

But if it was something more pernicious, like the Hodgkin lymphoma, I might refuse chemo. I may prefer to just get my affairs in order while _not_ going through chemo, and just trying to appreciate what days I have left. And being _able to_ appreciate the days I have left, because chemo can really knock you out. What's the point of getting more months of life, if you can't do anything?

 _I_ wouldn't put any of my hopes in an alternative medicine cure, but I've been studying science in various forms for a long time. I have a reasonable knowledge of what might work and what wouldn't.

<comment><USER26> > What's the point of getting more months of life, if you can't do anything?

I sympathise with the way you feel, but here he did not refused treatment to better live the time he had left but chose "alternative medicines" instead. The discourse in those online communities is not that you should appreciate the time you have left but that they can heal you.

Those are two very different situations and while the outcome is sadly identical, they should not be conflated.

<comment><USER27> > The discourse in those online communities is not that you should appreciate > the time you have left but that they can heal you.

The sedatives and painkillers, are the biochemical discourse that you feel like you heal / healed.

When my father was dying from cancer, the doctors said his treatment was curative not palliative, which is essentially the same discourse you are offended with.

<comment><USER26> I'm sorry you had to go through this.

I'm not offended, I'm pointing out how the situation differs.

If doctors gives inaccurate information, it's an important problem that needs to be discussed.

> the doctors said his treatment was curative not palliative

In the present case, it seems like it was not the case: "At the time, Sean's doctors told him he had at least a 50% chance of long-term survival if he underwent chemotherapy", while the alternative medicines gave false information: "Sean also relied on "thermographic scans" \- heat images of the body" or "I'd use words like, 'oh no it's the Herxheimer's reaction'".

It seems to me like we are preaching for the same thing, which is to give the correct information to the patient and let him decide.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> _But after reading a lot online, Sean believed he could cure his cancer by detoxing and completely changing his lifestyle, avoiding the gruelling side effects he remembered from chemotherapy._

Strongly recommend reading "The Unwinding of the Miracle" by Julie Yip- Williams ([https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/39216478-the- unwinding-o...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/39216478-the-unwinding-of- the-miracle)). A NYC lawyer and mom diagnosed in her 30s with Stage IV colon cancer, she provides a document of her thought processes as she is confronted with terminal cancer.

She describes the multiple types of modern medical treatments and trials she participated in and (with her oncologists' permission) flirts with Chinese medicine and alternative diets and treatments. It really is unflinching and uncomfortable look at the disease from a patient's point of view, but also a beautiful book.

</comment><comment><USER29> Bob Marley died at 36. His early death may have been avoidable had he not chosen "alternative" medicine and just chopped off the toe. [0]

[0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Marley#Illness_and_death](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Marley#Illness_and_death)

<comment><USER30> huh, TIL

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> If you go on amazon and choose just about any "apricot kernel" product page, the comments invariable mention people consuming them to treat or prevent cancer.

In fact, as I typed "apricot kernel" into the search bar, Amazon suggested "apricot kernels bitter seed for cancer". That seems dangerous to me.

<comment><USER32> That scam's existed since the 1960s:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23883134](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23883134)

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Thankfully Google got better at pushing this kind of stuff down. It wasn't that long ago that they often returned sketchy websites for mainstream type cancer queries: [https://cdn.zmescience.com/wp- content/uploads/2017/08/t-goog...](https://cdn.zmescience.com/wp- content/uploads/2017/08/t-google-cure-for-cancer-top-result- carrot-1501591007.png)

</comment><comment><USER34> Everyone involved in this disinformation are murderers.

Instagram hosting false cures (memes) like thermographic scans, coffee enemas, and other whackadoodle bullshit is profiting from death, misery, despair.

I'd have a wee bit more tolerance for Freedom Speeches™ advocates, and their specious slippery slope blather, if they acknowledged that rights come with responsibilities. So go ahead and tell your lies. And then rot in jail.

Similarly, Freedom Markets™ assumes rational actors with perfect information. I invite everyone who blames the victims to hang out in the oncology waiting room, see the desperation. Tell me that if it was your child or your husband sitting there, you wouldn't do absolutely anything, no matter the cost or the long odds.

</comment><comment><USER35> Sounds to me like he was holding on to some sense of control while he was struggling with losing control to cancer. He'd survived it once already, and had been given a coins' toss chance at long term survival; in medical terms, that's a decade and a half more of life. Faced with painful chemotherapy and likely years of pharmacological interventions that have their own side effects, he ... took a different path.

I'm thinking it's a safe bet that there's a deficiency in the NHS' delivery of counseling and mental health services for those facing mortal crisis.

</comment><comment><USER36> She didn't lose her boyfriend to conspiracy theories, she lost her boyfriend to the pervasive system of beliefs that prevents people from confronting their assumptions when it really matters.

Belief in conspiracy theories is the specific issue from a whole class of problems: what is the most important thing you believe, how do you know it's true, and is that good enough or do you need to take additional action in case it's false?

<comment><USER37> Except his stance before the cancer came back was pro medical science, it was his youtube and facebook research that dragged him into the conspiracy.

<comment><USER38> This is not clear. Based on the article:

> Soon after Sean found out his cancer had returned, when he had decided he > was rejecting chemotherapy, the pair found themselves watching countless > YouTube videos

it seems that he first decided not to undergo chemo, then clinged on whatever he could.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I have to say, the article itself is also not very "scientific" though. The doctors mentioned that chemotherapy would result in a 50% long-term survival rate. So it is entirely possible that he could have gone with chemotherapy, and still died in the end. In the same way, the fact that he went with alternative therapies and died doesn't "prove" that alternative therapies are all effectless.

Though I also believe that in the case of cancer, until a definitive cure comes out, chemotherapy is probably as good as we can get, and I don't really assume any ill intent on the part of the people who invented it, even though it's perfectly understandable that people (even including Steve Jobs) try to seek for alternatives when it doesn't work out. But I do think that it is not entirely meritless to keep a healthy dose of skepticism on the drug industry, especially given precedents that are plain to see such as the rampant opioid crisis, as well as the dubious practice of using antidepressants on juveniles etc. etc.

</comment><comment><USER40> an interesting aspect of this is the aversion to traditional therapy caused by experiencing it the first time and how much it made him suffer, I wonder how much of the motivation was due to that versus how much was due to the "false hope"

I also wonder if this is a argument for there being value in investing in ways of making chemotherapy less traumatic even though it wouldn't be making it more effective, just less psychological damage

</comment><comment><USER41> edit: (I say all this as a sick person who was bed-bound for years. I was able to reverse the course of my illness after studying the work of biochemists that is considered "alternative")

The attitude in this thread is ableist.

Sick people are intelligent. Sick people are capable. Sick people can feel what is happening in their bodies. And they have a right to seek treatments they deem best.

Sick people often seek alternative therapies because doctors do not have any treatments to offer, or the treatments they do offer have devastating, profoundly life-altering side effects. Many of these sick people are going to die anyways. It is cruel to treat them like crazy conspiracy theorists because they choose to fight back in hopes of a cure.

When it gets to this point it makes sense to strike out on your own. Some have success. Others do not. But it's a battle that has to be fought unless you want to just give up and lose the life you had.

I really struggle to understand why healthy people are so hostile towards sick people who are just trying to survive. Yes, it's sad to watch sick people desperately seek for effective treatments. But just imagine how hard it is to be that sick person desperately searching for effective treatments while your peers treat you like you're crazy, and then simultaneously refuse to provide any reasonable alternatives.

<comment><USER42> > or the treatments they do offer have devastating, profoundly life-altering > side effects.

One of the foundational principles I use to reason is "if there was a free- lunch (i.e. a higher-ROI solution—more reward for less risk), then anyone truly motivated to _solve the problem_ would have switched to it, or at least added it to their offering as an extra hail-mary on top of their current approach. Given that they didn't, the free lunch must either not be free (i.e. no less risky), or not be much of a lunch (i.e. not rewarding.)"

Yes, in this case, you've got a _system_ with mixed motivations; the FDA isn't motivated to solve problems, so there might be some beneficial drug that isn't _on the market_. But that doesn't mean that your doctor in particular—someone who _is_ motivated primarily to solve your problem—won't still tell you about such drugs, and help you to acquire them through grey-market channels. Doctors do this all the time—they get patients into drug trials, order in drugs from the medical systems of other countries, acquire new-old stock batches of drugs no longer produced, etc. They also will just tell you to eat a certain food or take a certain supplement as your "prescription", if doing that is a higher- ROI solution than any drug.

If doctors are only offering you treatments with devastating side-effects, that's because those are the highest-ROI treatments that exist. Doctors _always_ prioritize safety over benefit[1]; the only time they offer unsafe treatment is when there _is_ no safe treatment—or at least no safe treatment that pays for the costs of going through it by actually having a non-zero likelihood of helping you.

[1] For example, doctors use known placebo-equivalents as the first-line treatments for many psychiatric conditions, because placebos have no potential risks; so even if the likelihood of remission from placebo is low, as long as it's higher than zero (which it usually is in psychiatric conditions), doctors want to first make sure you aren't someone who _would_ go into remission from placebo, before moving onto trying to treat you with drugs that actually do something (and therefore have risks.)

<comment><USER41> I've seen about 50 doctors. I have extensive first hand experience, and what you're saying is not common at all. This is in the USA, although I have many European friends with similar experiences. Universal health care doesn't cover anything but the most basic (read: ineffective) treatments.

Are you sick? Because millions of sick people disagree with you. You can't read about our experience in a book and tell us how things actually work. You have to live it.

And if you work in healthcare, well, you only see the sick people who have the time and financial resources to navigate your tyrannical bureaucracy. And you won't see any sick people with an illness you don't understand, because we learn to stop wasting our time and money with you quickly.

"Doctors do this all the time—they get patients into drug trials, order in drugs from the medical systems of other countries, acquire new-old stock batches of drugs no longer produced, etc."

Maybe a small small percentage of doctors. Finding them and affording them is not something most sick people can do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> It would help a lot if popular alternative treatments were studied thoroughly (including testing on big numbers of human volunteers - every person who chooses to exercise their right to deny conventional treatment should be convinced to contribute by letting scientists observe him while he is treated alternatively) with intention to identify and dissect every humble positive effect they might cause in any particular kind of patients.

A statement like "there is no credible evidence that thing helps" really can't convince an alternative treatment enthusiast to give his idea up. "Obiviously" there is no evidence because nobody no scientist for it.

We need to be able to tell them honestly: "we have tried hard, hundreds different people were studied thoroughly for this particular treatment, it really doesn't help or only helps slightly a particular kind of patients you don't fit, please go and get treated the way proven efficient".

<comment><USER44> The problem is that there are an infinite number of 'alternative' treatments to any illness. How many of these should be taken seriously and tested? Typically, if enough people take an alternative seriously, someone eventually tests it.

<comment> em-bee all of them?

you are not testing the treatment, you are testing the development of the cancer in the patient, regardless of which treatment they get.

simply test everyone diagnosed with cancer on a regular basis just like they get tested when they do the recommended treatment.

in other words, if someone refuses the treatment, don't let them refuse the tests as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Having had 5 others in my life die from traditional cancer treatment I can certainly understand why people look for alternatives. I've seen brain, skin, blood cancer as an adult and I'm not sure what other cancers relatives had while I was growing up.

I've always worried if I would have the strength to fight or cave.

<comment><USER32> Treatments, side effects, and recovery rates vary _tremendously_ among types of cancer. Some are eminently treatable with virtually no downsides. Some progress so slowly that treatment is all but unnecessary in most cases. And some remain tremendously aggressive, treatments themselves debilitating, and spread or recurrence all but assured.

Cancer is not s single disease, with a common origin, treatment, or outcome. It is a common characteristic --- malignant cell growth --- with multiple distinct manifestations, causes, prognoses, and treatments.

Knowledge of what specific condition is being faced makes a huge difference in response options.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> While this is an interesting subject, the article is very ambiguous abous the causality relationship:

> Soon after Sean found out his cancer had returned, when he had decided he > was rejecting chemotherapy, the pair found themselves watching countless > YouTube videos

It seems to me that he had already decided not to undergo chemiotherapy, and clinged on whatever it was available, or at least, more subtly, he deeply wanted to find any other cure that was was not chemotherapy.

While cancer conspiracy theories are certainly damaging, if the reading above is correct, such theories correlated to his death, didn't cause it - he may as well have turned to religion, drugs or anything else.

<comment><USER46> It is clear from the article that he was told thermoscans of whatever would track the progress of the cancer, and showed that is was being defeated. There is a huge placebo effect on mental outlook of a sciencey test like that. It seems clear that if he had had regular medical scans that showed a growing tumor he might have changed course.

The alternative medicine community it complicit in many avoidable deaths. It's a testament to the power of self delusion that they can sleep at night.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> After reading the article and comments here, I can't help but think about the times I've seen people here, on Hacker News, writing that they would be happy to be treated by doctors who get their entire medical education from YouTube.

Yes, it's expensive and difficult, but maybe "gatekeeping" is not so bad, given the intellectual and emotional pitfalls of being human and the number of people out there who have it to their advantage for you to believe false things.

</comment><comment><USER47> After lots and lots of discussions I now belive pepole are fundamentally irrational.

75% of the world population believes that there is a god, despite not having a single tangible reason to belive that.

Somehow they have a need for simple, rigid explanation for the world. One that is always right. All these medical scams perfectly fit that paradigm. They are right, not like these pepole who have a "theory".

Ultimately I think they are happier.

</comment><comment><USER48> IIRC Steve Jobs also went with alternative before turning back to mainstream before passing from pancreatic cancer.

I find it's hard to blame people when there's such a storm of information surrounding these things. It's easy to see how even very intelligent people can pick the wrong remedy.

Also I used to think it was clear cut, but I've run into doctors who believe in homeopathy.

<comment><USER49> The more vulnerable/desperate you are the more likely you are to fall into snakeoil traps. It has little to do with intelligence.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> This thread could just as easily been titled: "an example of how powerful cognitive biases are." People come to believe many things and believe them, in the face of contradicting evidence, even to the point where the belief kills them.

</comment><comment><USER51> The opposite can be just as dangerous * . "Medlife Crisis" has an [informative video][1] that explains some of what can happen.

* Edit: I shouldn't have equated the dangers here. This was a bad take. I still believe there are good bits of info provided in the video, but the relevance to this thread is less than I considered and I should have thought more about what I was sharing.

Edit 2: I didn't mean to link to a specific timestamp of the video in the original link. That has been removed.

[1]: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNzQ_sLGIuA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNzQ_sLGIuA)

<comment><USER52> I clicked on his COVID-19 video[1] on a whim and while I have not watched it yet, my god is the comment section alarming. Is the YouTube comment section always like this when it comes to this topic?

[1]: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ts8X3HDtPE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ts8X3HDtPE)

<comment><USER51> Yes that seems to be typical. YouTube comment sections tend to be of poorer quality when the topic is popular or if the channel has a large enough audience.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> There are a lot of wrong theories you can give, then surely it doesnt matter if its A, B or C. There is only evidence based treatment we can rely on.

</comment><comment><USER54> > "Cherries neutralize acidity in the body and kill cancer cells," read one > post on Instagram.

"Memes" on Instagram and other social media platforms disguised as misleading and inaccurate health advice is the actual problem.

Looks like the word "Meme" in 2020 is now totally different to when it was used in 2006.

<comment><USER55> The whole concept of memetics is anti-intellectual pseudoscience. The analogy between idea and gene is an extreme stretch, and the pop understanding of this speculation loses whatever more subtle context might be there.

The pop understanding robs ideas of their context in systems of ideas, rendering them isolated sound bites with no integration or higher level thought. It promotes a kind of Orwellian "duckspeak" and the utmost short attention span culture.

I don't think it's a coincidence that meme culture dominated forums originate all the worst ideas and culture on the Internet. I am looking at Twitter with its ideological lynch mobs, 4chan, and the popular Reddit forums.

Richard Dawkins originated the concept, and for him it was only a speculation anyway. In any case Dawkins has never impressed me. He's not the greatest thinker in evolutionary theory by any measure, and he's among a collection of people who lost their minds after 9/11\. I have no idea why he is so high profile.

<comment><USER56> You don't believe that ideas reproduce (transmit between people), mutate (get re-interpreted during transmission), and then compete against other ideas (fail or succeed to transmit further/persuade)?

That's essentially the extent of the analogy to genes and is basically self- evident.

<comment><USER57> We used to call that 'culture'.

In practice now, memes are exactly what the GP says: manifestation of simpletons communicating on the Internet.

<comment><USER7> We also knew that children tend to look like their parents long before we knew about genes.

<comment><USER57> Genetics is a falsifiable scientific theory with predictive force.

Memetics, or whatever you are willing to call it, is not. Mostly a way for people with frog avatars to sound important.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> >"'False information online is so dangerous'"

I agree completely!

</comment><comment><USER59> Ultimately, individuals are responsible for their choices in "free societies." I don't want to live in a world where all information is regulated by the government.

This is a good story about poor choices made by an individual, but I hope it is not fodder for any attempt at regulating what free people choose to do with their lives. I think we need to do a better job at educating people on the dangers of freedom...what do you guys think? Perhaps we need some sort of "media literacy" education at the primary school level that trains people in evaluating sources of information ( which seems to be reserved for the university level in many cases, unfortunately ).

My thoughts are with the family of this man.

Edit: Wow, I'm surprised at the negative response to my comment. What is so controversial about my views here?

<comment><USER3> I don't think there is any argument at regulating what free people do. The argument here at best is for good, _proven_ information to be available as well as eradicating quack therapies based on false claims that don't work because they unfortunately put people (like this man) at risk.

This is not an argument for regulating _information_ , you are still free to peddle quack as long as you don't make false or unproven claims, and if you are sure your "quack" is actually legitimate you are free to do research, studies and tests just like the supposedly-evil "big pharma".

<comment><USER59> > The argument here at best is for good, proven information to be available

I believe going to a doctor is the way of accessing "proven information."

> eradicating quack therapies based on false claims that don't work because > they unfortunately put people (like this man) at risk.

What would the mechanism for "eradicating" these "quack therapies" look like?

> the supposedly-evil "big pharma"

Well, can we really say big pharma isn't evil to some degree - [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622774/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622774/)?

<comment><USER3> > I believe going to a doctor is the way of accessing "proven information."

Either that or government-approved websites (like the NHS is providing in the UK). It is in the government's best interest to keep you alive for as long as possible (if nothing else, just so you can pay tax longer), and while they aren't always perfect (like the current covid-19 response from some countries) I would still trust them more than some random people playing doctors on social media.

> What would the mechanism for "eradicating" these "quack therapies" look > like?

Outlawing unproven medical claims, and actually enforce the law?

> Well, can we really say big pharma isn't evil to some degree

Perfection will never be achieved, but if we take all the effects of "big pharma" (both good and bad, across all diseases) and compare it to the effects of backyard quack medicine, who wins? I'm willing to bet good money that big pharma wins by a large margin, so I'd be willing to trust them until there is enough evidence that says otherwise.

<comment><USER59> > Outlawing unproven medical claims, and actually enforce the law?

Would faith based approaches fall under your definition of "unproven medical claims?"

I get what you are saying, but if someone wants to take their chances on some "quackery," shouldn't it be their right to do so? Obviously this individual knew that he was engaging in alternative medicine that is not recognized by the mainstream.

I don't believe in this particular alternative medicine, but I don't believe established science understands everything in this world and believe individuals should retain the right to explore alternative perspectives.

<comment><USER3> > Would faith based approaches fall under your definition of "unproven medical > claims?"

Yes, I don't see why it shouldn't.

> I get what you are saying, but if someone wants to take their chances on > some "quackery," shouldn't it be their right to do so?

The problem is that quackery being around puts people at risk like this man. This man didn't outright decide to do quack, he decided based on unproven claims made by the quack peddlers that this alternative treatment would somehow work and be better than the conventional, modern medicine.

Furthermore during his alternative "therapy" he not only did it for himself but attracted a large following online, claiming that this treatment was working and thus encouraging other people to go down the same path.

> I don't believe established science understands everything in this world and > believe individuals should retain the right to explore alternative > perspectives.

Established science has never claimed to understand everything. Established science adjusts its understanding of the world based on evidence and is constantly doing new research to further that understanding. I find it very unlikely that someone playing doctor on social media would do better than a multibillion-dollar industry.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> It's deeply ironic that the BBC served me this ad while reading the article:

[https://ibb.co/CVTw7pT](https://ibb.co/CVTw7pT)

<comment><USER61> The BBC does not serve ads, that's a part of the article as a demonstration of the memes that are out there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> Why is this article so bend on blaming the meme, as they obviously got the majority of the false information on forums? I don't believe anyone does this based on memes.

<comment><USER63> I think that's fundamentally misrepresenting what the article is saying. They are saying that the memes shared in these communities serve to reinforce and spread the ideology.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> 50% chance of survival. So at least a 50% chance, even by the doctors' own admission, that she just lost her boyfriend to cancer.

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with naturopathic solutions, but people seem to lose the ability to reason about probability after the fact.

This is not to make light of the situation, but more to say "don't beat yourself up" about a bad thing that happened.

<comment><USER3> Their decision to pursue "alternative therapies" reduced that 50% chance to a guaranteed 0% since at best these therapies don't have any beneficial effect.

<comment><USER65> I'm sure the alternative therapies have some effect. Maybe even a strong effect sometimes. Placebos are very powerful.

<comment><USER66> It's very powerful against a subset of problems, usually the kind of things that are affected by perception of severity, would heal themselves over time anyway etc etc.

It's far less of an effect, if what I've read is to be believed, when measured against things like terminal cancer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> 50% of long-term cancer survival is high. He probably should have took it.

Alternative treatments don't guarantee higher success than modern medicine. However, if modern medicine puts the chance of survival at < 5%, it's not a bad idea to try fringe approaches.

Modern science aims to create a standardized approach for categorized diseases. Controlled experiments aim to find a magic bullet, but are these experiments really "controlled"?

Everyone eats differently; everyone shits differently. Different air quality; stress levels; sleep; metabolism. Not to mention, the body and its disease are both is ever-changing systems over time. Until we have nano-machines, we won't know the true cause and effect of all these variables.

Therefore, the holistic approach* is to use intuition, adaptation, and nonstandard ways to deal with this recognition. The downside of this approach is the amount of information and the ability to determine the credibility (eg. random social media), especially for a layman. However, if one was knowledgeable enough to read thousands of academic papers, from various fields (outside of oncology) -- one could develop a more tailored plan for the individual that accounts for these other factors.

*Holistic approach does not mean disregard of science. It does not mean rejecting standard protocols. It means that one should consider a wider-range of factors, in addition to standard protocols. It is an approach that places more value on breadth.

<comment><USER3> > it's not a bad idea to try fringe approaches

Fringe approaches would not be considered "fringe" if they were proven to have an effect. Even if it improves your survival rates by merely 1%, it would be still used as part of modern medicine if there was nothing else.

The problem is that the quack makes you believe that it will work, so you're still wasting time trying the "treatment" and potentially suffering its side- effects (not to mention the financial impact). It's worse than not doing anything, since at least the latter means you've accepted your fate and can enjoy whatever time you have peacefully instead of being busy with a quack treatment.

Furthermore, modern medicine isn't inherently hostile to "alternative medicine". If you think about it, all the potential treatments being researched in labs right now (including for covid-19) are still at the "alternative" stage, and if they end up being proven to work they simply become "medicine". What modern medicine is hostile to is unproven, or proven not to work treatments.

If you think you actually have an "alternative" theory that isn't quack, you are welcome to do your research on it to at least rule out any existing reasons why it couldn't work (using existing medical literature), and if the theory still stands by then you are free to engage with the mainstream medical community or study, become a researcher and then test your theory in a safe and controlled environment so the outcome is actually valuable (and will influence further research even if this particular theory doesn't work) and not just anecdotal evidence.

<comment><USER67> Testing things is different than practicing things.

You cannot test many things. You also cannot prove many things. Look at nutrition. Determining the cause and effect of a substance on a human body is difficult.

Science is aimed at proving things. Sometimes, in life, that luxury is not available.

<comment><USER3> You can't test/prove _everything_ , however my understanding is that at least a large part of these quack treatments (if not all of them) have already been proven not being able to work (or being actively harmful) in existing medical literature.

<comment><USER67> Perhaps you should rethink the concept of "proven not being able to work".</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Copyright infringement alert from ISP - <AUTHOR> I am a TWC customer. They said my network is allegedly used for illegal content download. So far my tenants said no illegal activity. I am asked to do an independent review by AAA CCI ($35 fee) or they will shut down my service again.
I have a few questions.
1) Do you have any experience with dealing ISP alerts like this and ever used the AAA CCI review? It has options such as "I do not wish to challenge" or "Unauthorized use of account" and etc. What's the safest bet? If I did find out my tenant is lying and said "do not wish to challenge" will they used this against me?
2) Any monitor tools to identify possibly bittorrent traffic? The same film content was reported to have been downloaded FIVE times from five different timestamps, so something is really suspicious there. <comment><USER3> EFF has a page on this topic, in case you haven't come across it:

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/six-strikes- copyright-...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/six-strikes-copyright- alert-system-faq)

See the section on "What can I do if I receive a notice?", as it covers the arbitration process for dispute resolution.

The upshot is:

1\. You have to challenge within 14 days, dropping the $35 fee at that time. 2\. You only get six choices of defense. 3\. Case is argued in front of an arbitrator ( _not_ a judge) and the judgement is legally binding. 4\. If you win, you get your $35 back.

The second defense _might_ apply... maybe... but you only get to assert it _once_.

Assuming, of course, your arbitrator isn't more worried about retaining their clients than about delivering a fair judgement...

Meanwhile, as for monitoring, frankly, no, there's very little you can do. A standalone firewall with basic port blocking enabled for common bittorrent clients would probably cover most uses, but for anyone determined, you need L7 packet inspection to identify BT traffic, and even that only works if encryption isn't being employed.

Lucky for the group involved in CAS, they've managed to foist this technological impossibility onto their end users... convenient for them, not so much for the consumer. :/

Your best bet is, unfortunately, to stop offering broadband to your tenants in this fashion, as it opens you up to these kinds of legal issues.

Edit: Fun Fact: TWC claimed account termination would _not_ be a sixth strike penalty:

[http://mashable.com/2013/02/27/isps-six- strikes/#OImwJenOiiq...](http://mashable.com/2013/02/27/isps-six- strikes/#OImwJenOiiqn)

Everything else I can find seems to suggest account termination is not supposed to be a consequence of multiple violations... is there additional background, here, that we're missing? You indicate a previous termination of service. What was that about?

<comment><AUTHOR> > Case is argued in front of an arbitrator (not a judge) and the judgement is > legally binding.

By in front did you mean digitally?

Yeah. I am going to print the page and have my tenant seriously look at it. I will see how much I can block.

But thanks for the help here.

<comment><USER3> Alas, that I don't know. I'm sure a bit more online research would bear fruit. My bet would be that you present evidence along with your challenge and they render judgement accordingly, but that's just a guess.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I don't have any advice for you here (I wish I did), but I have to ask - <USER2> you think this sort of enforcement is a result of the Cox vs Rightscorp case that just happened this month?

<comment><USER3> Nope, CAS goes back to 2013 (see the EFF link I posted above).

<comment><USER4> Right, but I thought Cox got in hot water for not taking the CAS seriously.</comment></comment></comment>


Paul Miller Loved Teaching Math So Much That He Did It for Nearly 80 Years - happy-go-lucky http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/08/19/541163173/paul-miller-loved-teaching-math-so-much-that-he-did-it-for-nearly-80-years <comment> happy-go-lucky [http://abcnews.go.com/US/Media/maryland-math-teacher-paul- mi...](http://abcnews.go.com/US/Media/maryland-math-teacher-paul- miller-75-years-classroom/story?id=10892454)

> Miller's advice to the rookies -- and anyone else angling for chance at > longevity of any kind -- is simple: "Stay in good health. Watch your diet. > Get enough sleep. And most of all, after the day is finished, don't worry > about it."

I'll never forget that advice.

<comment><AUTHOR> Interestingly it also says:

> His children recall him working long hours, leaving home not long after dawn > and returning home at 11 p.m., spending his days working two or three jobs > at a time.

Getting home at 11pm doesn't leave a lot of time to worry about anything I suppose.

</comment></comment><comment> happy-go-lucky [http://abcnews.go.com/US/Media/maryland-math-teacher-paul- mi...](http://abcnews.go.com/US/Media/maryland-math-teacher-paul- miller-75-years-classroom/story?id=10892454)

> Technology, he says, can't make a student any smarter.

</comment><comment><USER2> Some teachers are just gems. This man deserves all the accolades he gets and then some.

</comment><comment><USER3> Amazing teacher! I love what he says about repetition. Rote learning is not cool, but it helps with learning and mastering math immensely.

<comment><USER4> Rote learning is the most important skill I've ever picked up. It teaches you humility and that hard work matters. It's unattractive but I found it fundamental to my education.

<comment><USER5> It's useful to bootstrap things but it cripples your mind too, often you need to be creative and that's where rote learning stops being useful.

But in a way, I feel like many times, I reach understanding of a topic, after some information has sit in my brain enough that "i get it". I often don't feel I've done something special compared to my state the day before. So maybe it's all rote learning.

<comment><USER6> It does not cripple your creativity it helps it.

<comment><USER7> I would argue that memorization of an algorithm or formula without understanding of how they work cripples your ability to apply them creatively.

However I would also argue that memorization is the precursor to understanding.

I think the main issue with rote learning in schools is when _only_ memorization is taught and tested. For example: teaching and testing how to solve the same type of problem and grading the accuracy of solving without having any critical thinking/application problems is, in my opinion, a mistake.

<comment><USER5> Maybe cripple is too strong, it allows for atrophy since you don't attempt to see on your own.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> happy-go-lucky > "I don't think he ever considered it work because he loved what he was > doing," she says.

</comment><comment> happy-go-lucky > the advice Miller gives teachers who are just starting out: "Be sure that > you know your subject."

</comment><comment><USER8> I am also a math teacher , can know about the books he wrote , thanks.

</comment><comment><USER9> I am also love to teach math.</comment>


Facebook deletes Norway PM's post as 'napalm girl' row escalates - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/09/facebook-deletes-norway-pms-post-napalm-girl-post-row <comment> norea-armozel This is what you get out from centralizing your communications medium. Sure, we all can easily talk to each other but now you have to assume the host will find something you do or say a liability thus remove it as quickly as you post it. To say that Facebook shouldn't do this comes into conflict in protecting share holder value (which means also avoiding illegal content per local laws). So, you can't have it both ways. Either you have a corporate defend it's share holder value or you have it all nationalized and get NPR. I just wish people would realize that corporations aren't our friends, they're here to make a profit. And profit isn't always what's ethical. I think the better solution to the problem as it stands is to force people to start hosting their own content (which is why I support net neutrality and anti-metering laws). That way, you're in charge of your content and responsible for getting people to view it. We shouldn't have to return to the days of AOL (which we have largely done) to get eye balls. People still go to websites, so why depend on Facebook to distribute your content?

<comment><USER3> > _I just wish people would realize that corporations aren 't our friends, > they're here to make a profit._

I wish people would stop saying that _corporations_ are some disparate entity, rather than a collection of people with a defined purpose, like our friends and family members. People just like you in other words.

Corporations don't have a mind of their own, nor do they pursue profit regardless of ethics.

<comment><USER4> > I wish people would stop saying that corporations as some disparate entity, > rather than a collection of people

The whole _point_ of a corporation is to be a separate entity from the collection of people that have interests in it.

<comment><USER3> > _The whole point of a corporation is to be a separate entity from the > collection of people that have interests in it._

It doesn't have a mind of its own, any direction comes from real live people making decisions every day. Or can you point to a single instance where this isn't the case?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm torn.

Freedom of speech and freedom of expression mean that the government can't put you in prison or punish you for saying or believing what you do. Facebook aren't the government, they're a private entity and don't have to host anything they don't like- including hosting photos that they don't like. It's a walled garden, and it's their walled garden, and if you don't like it you're welcome to leave.

And on the other hand: it's the only garden. If your friends are in that garden, they can't share with you, interact with you, etc, without you also being inside. Facebook's created a 'with us or not with us' distinction that has a very sharp boundary. And it's worked- they've won the social network wars. A billion people are on it.

The question is, as the social network champions does Facebook have to have to public's interests in mind or just their own bottom line profit margin? As a public company, the shareholders will fire their leadership if they don't choose the bottom line. As the major social network of the world, the public will denounce them for actions like this.

<comment><USER6> The PM didn't post the photo. Someone else did.

The PM posted a criticism saying Facebook should "review its editing policy".

And then Facebook deleted that.

I can concede that there could be good reasons to pull the photo. But I don't see good reasons to pull the PM's post. I don't like any organization having so much power to make criticism about itself disappear.

<comment><USER7> The PM's post included the photo.

> Erna Solberg, the Conservative prime minister, called on Facebook to "review > its editing policy" after it deleted her post voicing support for a > Norwegian newspaper that had fallen foul of the social media giant's > guidelines.

> Solberg was one of a string of Norwegian politicians who shared the iconic > image after Facebook deleted a post from Tom Egeland...,

<comment><USER8> That doesn't say the post included the photo.

<comment><USER7> > > Solberg was one of a string of Norwegian politicians who shared the iconic > image after Facebook deleted a post from Tom Egeland...,

> > > shared the iconic image

....

<comment><USER8> Shared the image? yes. Shared the image in the same post? Not clear.

That's all I was trying to say. The way the two cited sentences are written — and "her post" os on a different sentence from "who shared the iconic image" — does not say the image share was in the same post as the one being talked about.

<comment><USER9> So, youre nitpicking?

<comment><USER8> What's the opposite of 'drawing from incomplete evidence'?

I hate the power Facebook as a behemoth and a monolith holds and abuses. But when accusing, we should be fair. The statements cited as evidence are from a publication, not an offhand comment by a random person on Facebook with no regard to correctness or clarity. And even in that, there isn't clarity for what was being accused.

So, if pointing out a lack of clarity in an accusation is called nitpicking, so be it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> If you're a Facebook user and you are unhappy with the way the company strongarms, censors and manipulates its audience, the most effective way for you to express this dissatisfaction is to close your account, block social media bugs and encourage your friends and family to do the same.

Facebook doesn't care how you feel when you use their service; their bottom line simply depends on your contribution to the statistics they use to sell ads. Apathy, or even outrage, are perfectly acceptable provided you express it through channels they control and profit from.

As far as I'm concerned, as long as this conversation is couched in trying to appeal to Mark Zuckerberg's imagined sense of ethical responsibility it will lead nowhere.

<comment><USER11> No. It's more effective to lobby your local member of parliament/congress to pass laws restricting what media organisations can or cannot do.

Granted, by "more effective" I mean something like 0.1% instead of 0.01%, but it's worth a try.

<comment><USER12> Absolutely not. Government should have no say what a private entity can/can't do in their walled garden. The fact that over a billion people use it is a different issue.

<comment><USER13> A private individual, sure. I'll accept that argument.

But a corporation should have no such leeway. Companies exist for the mutual benefit of the citizens, and their shareholders. Just because we've lost that sense of ethic doesn't make it not true.

Now, the predominant view is "A company can fuck over whomever they want, as long as it lies within the confines of the law", is preposterous. Public corporations are already required to be sociopathic, given the legal requirement of profit (exception given to benefit corps).

Or in much more shallow words, "I'll believe corporations are people when they execute one in Texas."

<comment><USER14> Corporations are just a group of people with legal status. How many people beyond which you won't accept that argument? 1? 10?

<comment><USER15> Not the OP but:

A corporation crosses the line when it has a single person who is protected from the legal actions of the corporation by statue (i.e., a shareholder). At this point the quasi-libertarian theory of a corporation as "just a bunch of guys" completely breaks down as there is a special legal protection for shareholders.

A corporation isn't a partnership. A partnership is just a group of people who have agreed to do business together. All of them are jointly legally liable for the criminal actions and liabilities of the corporation.

A corporation, on the other hand, has _legal protection_ for shareholders. A VC can bankroll eMurder.com and the VC isn't liable when the officers of the corporation go on a shooting spree. The options are : Investors get no special legal protection, and creditors and the law can pursue them and their personal assets for the liabilities and crimes of the corporation OR a corporation really is a special instrument of the State, and only has particular standing because we as a society believe the corporate veil provides social benefits.

<comment><USER13> The state can still attack people in the corporate structure individually. For example, if VP Jones decides to go execute a competitor, VP Jones can be brought to trial for murder.

But if that company decides to, say dump toxic chemicals in the waterways, it's only a few hundred thousand dollars, versus millions to dispose of them. Or if the company decides to refuse doing a recall because the cost of recall doesn't equal or exceed its liability, well, too bad.

Corporations can, and do, a great deal of harm. And many of those behaviors are collective across multiple levels and people. But yet, the most we do is a hand-slap of a fine.

<comment><USER14> > Or if the company decides to refuse doing a recall because the cost of > recall doesn't equal or exceed its liability, well, too bad.

Is that wrong (I think that's what you're implying)? I'm serious. More money can be used to make things safer, but there's a point where the benefits become marginal compared to the costs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Any centralized social network is subject to moderation because if it's centralized, it can be attacked, fined or shut down by a court. So facebook can't escape that rule and must decide what is acceptable or not and have to anticipate any flak they can get.

In the end, moderation is a gruesome job and nobody really wants to do it, and it will be subject to how moderators anticipate public perception, so it's a PR race.

So of course you will have those situations where facebook will make bad choices, but it doesn't only depends on their moderation team, it also depends on political correctness. That's why decentralized networks are better, because nobody is really responsible, and it can hardly be attacked.

You can decide to either have a politically correct website and get investments, or disagree with political correctness and be like 4chan.

It's not great, I'm sure people realize that, and that the internet will go back to decentralized systems.

<comment><USER17> This particular picture was on the cover of the New York Times. Surely a human reviewer from Facebook must consider this as reason enough to revert the censorship?

<comment><USER18> Sadly, the human reviewer at Facebook is quite likely to not have even been alive in 1972 (or not old enough to even remember the photo) and so it is likely they are just following the "official facebook policy" without thinking, and thereby hitting the "censor" button.

Note - this does not excuse their actions, but may put some context around 'why' it is happening.

<comment><USER19> That just makes things worse. Uneducated, inexperienced people are judging what can and can't be posted on Facebook. Well, that's just dandy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Was the Norwegian Prime Minister's post removed because she posted the image again in that post ? This is a crucial question and not clear from the article. If Facebook censored only words then this is a much larger issue. If they censored the whole post (including photo) then while debatable this is Facebook's policy i.e. a blanket ban on such imagery, irrespective of history.

Edit: I don't find it clear journalism, but the fact is there:

 _Solberg was one of a string of Norwegian politicians who shared the iconic image after Facebook deleted a post from Tom Egeland_

So the post was removed because it had the image, not because she had dared to criticize FB.

<comment><USER21> In the article itself the PM gives Facebook credit for at least being consistent, w.r.t removing posts that contain that photo. So yes, it seems likely it was removed because of that picture.

However, you probably want to think twice before removing a post by any PM. Having done so only fuels the fire, which arguably can be a good thing in this case.

<comment><USER19> I rather hopes she keeps putting it back up again. Then they can suspend her.

<comment><USER22> Yes.. I don't like her policies, but she has her good moments, and while I don't think they'll keep reposting it, as they'll have more important things to do, the Minister of Culture has _also_ posted it and had her post taken down, and she has already indicated she very much wants to get Norwegian newspaper editors and Facebook together for a meeting. They'd not do that unless they're very displeased.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This iconic picture was not only a Pulitzer Prize winner, but was also on the cover of the New York Times. Surely this will help the anonymous "Facebook spokeswoman" determine on which side it lies of the thin red line of "censor" / "do not censor"?

</comment><comment><USER23> Why doesn't fb just blur the content that users find disturbing like "Viewer discretion.., flagged by our users". Then you can click to view or adjust the sensitivity in your account settings.

</comment><comment><USER24> At Google certain images are considered EDSA (Educational, Documentary, Scientific or Artistic). I wonder if this would have been considered EDSA vs Facebook's decision to say it's against ToS.

That said, it totally makes sense that they have a consistent policy. Whether you find their overall abuse ToS objectionable should be the main consideration here. It's OK to me that they seem to have decided that imagery containing nude children should be hard-banned. It's a decision couched in the desire to protect children, not some heavy-handed censorship.

</comment><comment><USER25> I think censoring the PM's complaint is a bad move by Facebook. Regarding censorship of the photo, I think it should be left to Norwegians to decide whether it's appropriate or not - I think different people might have different views on this.

</comment><comment><USER26> I feel like this is a good argument for taking another look at projects like Diaspora and Friendica Red

<comment><USER27> As much as I'd love to see some alternative to Facebook that provides generally the same basic features (easy sharing of original content and links/reposted media with a large group of contacts) I feel that they'll all face the same issues for the foreseeable future.

Same issue with the ones you mentioned or even ones like G+ that are backed by another big player: critical mass of users combined with no standardized protocol.

I've made the analogy plenty of times before but basically I compare and contrast with email, another service where you can "roll your own" but most general users just stick with a service, either paid or ad-funded, from another company. The thing with email is that it can be 2001 and you're happily using your @aol.com email account but down the line you decide to switch over to Yahoo. Then maybe later you switch to Hotmail and later still, to Gmail. All of those switches are up to the user and nothing stops you from even setting up your own email server if you have the desire.

Regardless, none of the people you email need to do anything or change anything. And it's a good thing too because it would suck if in order to move off AOL or Yahoo you need to convince every one of your friends, relatives, business contacts, and potential email recipients to switch over as well. It might be feasible to get that 5% of your "techie" friends to switch services based solely on some new feature or whatever but you won't have much luck getting Aunt Mabel, your kid's 2nd grade teacher, your barber, or your potential clients to all switch over to some new UI and remember some new account address.

But since email is based on a common protocol it doesn't matter. No matter how popular one provider is, you can switch to any other one and not lose the ability to email. Contrast this with centralized social media and you're basically screwed if you want to switch to another one.

This really struck home when G+ came out. I found it to be a better Facebook for the most part. Faster mobile app, more granular sharing permissions, no stupid game/app spam, better media hosting, and better text/video chat. Maybe 10 of the people I generally connect with on social media felt the same way but the other couple hundred in my friends/contact list? They found it annoying to learn a new interface or they weren't already using Gmail so they'd need to sign up for another account or they just didn't like something else about it.

And that's legit. Variety in services means there will be preferences. But in this case it didn't matter because the end result was the same: unless everyone moved over to G+ (or Diaspora or whatever) en masse, you'd either be cutting off contact with most of your list or you'd be maintaining multiple profiles and sharing links and pics on two sites.

So G+ only got used for more specific groups and niche interests while Facebook kept more general social networking. And now Google seems tired of trying to build a better Facebook and is de-Plus-ifying most of their services. I seriously wonder how anyone will conceivably succeed at this where massive companies like Google can't pull it off.

Instead, just as centralized social media replaced mass email chains for most people, I don't see Facebook going anywhere until something entirely different (not just new and improved) comes along and grabs mass user attention in the same way.

<comment><USER22> Something that "gateways" to Facebook would be great, but of course Facebook would fight it with every weapon possible if it were to get any kind of traction.

<comment><USER28> Can you explain your thoughts a bit more on what might be that "gateway"?

<comment><USER22> Let's say you built a distributed social network where you can add plugins to communicate via different protocols... And one of them happen to know how to interact with Facebooks APIs or website, so that you would not need to care whether your contacts are facebook users or non facebook users.

The same way we have IM clients that can talk multiple protocols.

Facebook almost certainly would try to shut it down if it got any kind of traction, because the set of people you could interact with on this new platform would be a strict superset of Facebook users. It'd be bound to have clunky usability issues (e.g. group communication would be hard to get right with groups split across platforms), but it'd enable users to start extracting themselves from Facebook more and more if/when more of their friends decide to try it out.

I'd love to see someone try. I won't try myself for two reasons: I don't use Facebook enough to know what features would be necessary, and secondly it's likely to be a game of cat and mouse with Facebook both technically and legally.

<comment><USER29> I totally agree with the concept of "gateway". Kind of like a social protocol similar to SMTP(which is for emails), by which Facebook/G+/<some-new-player> inter-operate. That's the best solution and the only solution to fix this situation.

If needed, Facebook must be _forced_ to open up. Its a wrong kind of monopoly.

 _> I'd love to see someone try. I won't try myself for two reasons: I don't use Facebook enough to know what features would be necessary, and secondly it's likely to be a game of cat and mouse with Facebook both technically and legally._

SMTP protocol[1] is created and maintained by IETF. Ditto for social. I wonder why don't Google, who didn't succeed with G+, submit a 'social' protocol already to IETF.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> The article makes a reference about an open letter from the editor-in-chief - Espen Egil Hansen, the link return an internal error, you can read the open letter in the web.archive website [https://web.archive.org/web/20160909061907/http://www.aftenp...](https://web.archive.org/web/20160909061907/http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kommentar/Dear- Mark-I-am-writing-this-to-inform-you-that-I-shall-not-comply-with-your- requirement-to-remove-this-picture-604156b.html)

</comment><comment><USER31> I suspect a large part of this isn't so much an attempt by facebook to impose US cultural norms to the rest of the world, as much as an attempt to avoid financial burden by simply applying the ban stick as bluntly as possible. After all, being multicultural, providing good editing suitable for several countries acceptable norms, while trying to advance/modify them... Well that might be viewed as admirable work or cultural imperialism. The point is it's not work that they want to do, nor do I think is it work that they feel they can get paid for.

</comment><comment><USER32> It is kind of scary to see how countries are powerless when it comes to Facebook. I know that this article and the whole discussion here is not about that but I get a eery feeling reading about it.

<comment><USER33> Theoretically, the PM could find herself having trouble with her social media reach in the lead-up to the next election.

The primary criticism that gets leveled toward Facebook is about privacy, but I think the degree of control they can exercise over communication is the more worrying issue.

<comment><USER28> In a way, both privacy and control issues of FB are related.

Privacy => how FB chooses to share your data with others, Control => how FB allows you to share your data with others

Ultimately it is the data about you that is funneled through FB.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> If you want something from FB: its reach, you need to play by its rules, however arbitrary they may be. If you wish to change the laws of physics, go and get yourself your own planet. It is much easier in this case: just choose a different forum.

Having said that, this incident should teach Norwegians (and the countrymen of any country) a thing or two about where they stand on the totem pole of power.

Facebook > Every other country on the planet

Facebook is a country because it is acts as an independent sovereign state which is not answerable to anyone at this point. Apparently, it already makes up its own taxation laws[1]. I expect them to release their own flag, maybe a national anthem?

[1] [http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2016/07/29/face...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2016/07/29/facebook- ignores-another-irs-summons-reveals-it-could-owe-billions-in- taxes/#71ea3ae30bfc)

But of the many truly troubling things I see with FB's policies - <USER2> alarming intrusiveness and ruthless exploitation of our need for being social, choosing its own censorship policy is not one of them, especially if it is consistent. I would rather see them made answerable to privacy violations.

</comment><comment><USER35> Maybe the censorship team was too young know the significance of the picture. I am guessing average Facebook employee is under 30. Probably younger than that. Vietnam war is over 40 years old, most American students learned about it and knew that picture, but I don't know how much Vietnam war is taught in other countries. It might have been a combination of age and where the person grew up that contributed to deleting the picture?

<comment><USER36> "Most American students learned about it and knew that picture..."

I'm 38: We didn't learn much about the Vietnam war, honestly. The sections on everything from the 50's onward were very short, and sometimes glossed over due to time constraints. I think we had one teacher tell us that it was simply because not enough time had passed since it happened, which always seemed ridiculous to me.

It is kinda like we _knew_ it happened, but didn't really _learn_ much about it formally. Lots of heresay and rumors and things.

<comment><USER35> If you took AP history they went through Regan.

<comment><USER37> What year?

<comment><USER35> 2002 2003? early part of 2000s

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I always find it interesting that no level of violence is deemed inappropriate in the US but nudity has to be avoided at any cost.

<comment><USER39> Also the censorship of a few spoken words on TV while showing gore and other violent scenes are not a problem. I find it weird also cause when the word is censored as a viewer you already know that's what the character was meant to say.

<comment><USER40> Gore is a problem, yeesh. The whole "americans love violence" is overrated. The love of violence is a worldwide thing. Not like John Woo, Dario Argento, or Takashi Miike are american.

<comment><USER41> The amount of clean, bloodless violence against faceless enemies (watch any Hollywood movie) is a kind of soft propaganda IMO

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Let's create a walled garden that embraces facebook's walled garden. A new social network that displays your facebook timeline and other items.

BTW. I'm Norwegian.

</comment><comment><USER43> Facebook has reversed its stance and is reinstating posts featuring 1972's "The Terror of War" picture, according to

[http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/9/12865670/facebook- censorshi...](http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/9/12865670/facebook-censorship- napalm-girl-aftenposten-reversal)

"Because of its status as an iconic image of historical importance, the value of permitting sharing outweighs the value of protecting the community by removal, so we have decided to reinstate the image on Facebook where we are aware it has been removed"

<comment><USER44> Not really a good sign if it takes a country's PM to complain before they reverse their position.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> That moment when government officials start realising their biggest publishers are American companies.

</comment><comment><USER46> This is a place where I do not agree with Facebook's decision but I agree they have a right to decide who and what can be on their platform. Freedom of speech does not give me the right to come into your home and say whatever I like without being asked to leave. I'm free to do so in the public park across the street though. Your property rights trump my free speech.

</comment><comment><USER47> It's particularly troubling because facebook is primarily about communicating with your own friends and acquaintances. Censoring public content is troubling, but removing content that is private and only available to people who took the step to friend you on Facebook is really really crappy.

</comment><comment><USER48> Facebook is very arbitrary in its censoring and account deactivation decisions. Many cases I have read about are instances where Facebook is in the wrong and does not provide users a way to get things resolved (perhaps these instances surface online more often or more prominently).

Every time I read about Facebook's decisions, I feel extremely frustrated and downright angry. Humans need an alternative to Facebook that's not as evil and can get better traction (no, this does not mean everyone closing their FB accounts and switching to email or text messaging). I'm waiting for that to happen.

</comment><comment><USER49> Posters may find it informative to review Tom Egeland's response (in Norwegian, so a translation site may be helpful).

[https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1203560296...](https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1203560296352340&id=185679154807131)

Is the collection of the other 6 or 7 photos still available? - my google-fu has not found them.

</comment><comment><USER50> It would be neat to have a decentralized social network simply to avoid the editorial demands of the walled garden. I think we'd have a lot more unsavory content making its way to people's eyes though. There'd need to be more sophisticated ways of filtering information than just "unfriend", I suppose. And people would need to have tougher skins for it to work.

<comment><USER51> We had a decentralized social network called the web (or I suppose blogs if you want to think of it at a more granular level). Facebook won.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> I can accept why they need to draw a line on naked child images and be done with it. Like most silicon valley companies they want everything automating with as little human customer service as possible.

However if they aren't going to do that job of editorial then they need to stop trying to be a news source while abdicating any responsibility that entails by saying they are a tech company.

</comment><comment><USER53> Ironically, Facebook is not censoring the news articles covering this story. The unedited photo is now shown all over Facebook.

</comment><comment><USER54> On the subject of whether speech protections apply to the government only: it's all well and good to apply a _legal_ analysis to free speech issues, but if you're looking to the law to tell you what's _right and wrong,_ you're trying to buy milk at a hardware store.

</comment><comment><USER55> Facebook needs to be broken up like Ma Bell was. It's too big to manage well and network effects are preventing alternatives from gaining ground. The world needs more diversity in policy than it has with this mediated communications juggernaut.

<comment><USER56> I tend to agree. Microsoft needed to be punished by authorities and they do better now as a result, all while behaving better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> The bigger problem is that the new media is US controlled,and youre going to have some culture conflicts. Maybe legislative action could force facebook to federate the users content

</comment><comment> pi-rat The prime minister's original post: [http://snpy.in/5Nv92c](http://snpy.in/5Nv92c)

<comment><USER8> "Sorry, no image found"

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> This outrage is ridiculous. Of course, the Guardian is pimping it, they are outrage professionals.

</comment><comment><USER59> I'm not on fb. I read in the comment from the spokeswoman that the distinction cannot be made by their robotic rules. So I believe this illustrates a limitation of their AI. And they don't care so much about the people than their algorithms. Just an opinion.

<comment><USER37> The article states that it was flagged by users and moderated by people. This has nothing to do with AI.

<comment><USER59> Do you mean the last paragraph? I am not native English, so I thought the "would", "would" sounded highly hypothetical.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> We really need a real public safe space on the Internet.

</comment><comment><USER9> facebook is really an infrastructural service.

</comment><comment><USER61> What was the PM's motivation to make the post in the first place?

<comment><USER62> "Yes, your honor, but I believe the jury should know what the victim was wearing that night."

<comment><USER61> Oh please. I am honestly curious. Why is the PM of Norway posting a graphic photograph of the Vietnam War?

<comment><USER63> A Norwegian newspaper made a post about 7 photos that changed the course of war.

[http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kommentar/Dear-Mark-I- am-...](http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kommentar/Dear-Mark-I-am-writing- this-to-inform-you-that-I-shall-not-comply-with-your-requirement-to-remove- this-picture-604156b.html)

> First some background. A few weeks ago the Norwegian author Tom Egeland > posted an entry on Facebook about, and including, seven photographs that > changed the history of warfare. You in turn removed the picture of a naked > Kim Phuc, fleeing from the napalm bombs – one of the world's most famous war > photographs.

> Tom then rendered Kim Phuc's criticism against Facebook for banning her > picture. Facebook reacted by excluding Tom and prevented him from posting a > new entry.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> I honestly think it was an algorithm that flagged it.

<comment> pi-rat Pretty sure you would have a manual step for important verified people. Imagine the PR disaster if an algorithm removed a post by Obama.

<comment><USER65> Now I'm curious what would happen if Obama posted a similar response, including the photo.

<comment><USER56> Anyone here knows him or some of his close friends and want to ask? I might be wrong but I'm pretty sure someone here is _at least_ friend-of-a-friend to him.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> A picture of a naked child was removed from FB because of the law. No story there.

Are we going to allow child porn on FB because it is artistic ?

<comment><USER65> Which law?

Depending on the legal system involved, "child porn" and "artistic" are mutually exclusive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> Why are we thinking of FB as some monolithic entity? Isn't the most likely explanation that some low-wage contractor in the Philippines saw a picture of a naked girl and flagged it? That contractor may not even know the historical significance of the picture.

You're in a low-wage job and have to look at horrifying shit all day, every day. Are you going to let the one image through that maybe will cost you the job that you really need?

<comment><USER68> Unlikely. A lot of publicity was generated when the original photo was removed. Not only was a photo removed, but the newspaper employee who submitted it, IIRC, had their account suspended. So that's at least two levels of decision making. Then (as linked to in the OP), the newspaper's editor made a public appeal that was well-read in media and tech circles.

And now this, involving the Norwegian prime minister. I don't think the higher levels of Facebook are ignorant to the issue at this point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> Guardian is pretty trashy for tossing that picture up _twice_ in one article. The article isn't even about napalm or the war, the picture is being used as snuff shock. Show some respect for human dignity.

<comment><USER63> > snuff shock

Snuff normally refers to dead people. She's not dead. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc)

She uses the picture in her work around child victims of war: [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia- pacific/8678478.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia- pacific/8678478.stm)

> However, the realisation came to her she did not have to remain an unwilling > victim. The photo was, in fact, a powerful gift that she could use to help > promote peace.

> "I realised that now that I have freedom and am in a free country, I can > take control of that picture," she says.

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> She should simply publish it somewhere else, such as her own blog or some other website. When she signed up to Facebook.com she ticked a box agreeing to their terms.

I never signed up so couldn't care less, but aren't most people on Facebook talking about what they had for breakfast and how awesome stuff is? I'm not sure where Napalm girl fits in with that culture except maybe "awesome war photography - thumbs up!!".

<comment><USER71> Facebook wants to be a place for news as well, with things like their "Instant Articles". It's a historically significant photo and was actually on the front page of the NY Times when it came out. So, would they censor a post from the NY Times if it had the same photo?

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> Wait, Facebook censors pictures of naked children because they are afraid that some pedophile might get off on then?

That's kind of twisted, isn't it?

<comment><USER73> Is it sarcasm?

<comment><USER74> sarcasm, the other no-no :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> Dear Norway,

The US governments make us legally complicit in child pornography if we don't have automated processes to take this stuff down. People keep blaming corporations for censorship of porn-like (but not porn) content, song lyrics that get mistaken for terrorist threats, and overly zealous take downs of anything that might infringe on IP. Do you think we want our users to get angry at us over this shit? Look at the US child porn laws, the numerous governments spying under the banner of the war on terror, and laws like the DMCA. Our hands are tied and you are blaming the wrong people.

\- Facebook

</comment><comment><USER76> Why should the PM be treated differently than anyone else? Just because she's the PM?

FB has any right to remove whatever they want from their private property.

<comment><USER77> I'm starting to get tired of making this point in some of the many discussions of this topic (most recently [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12457371](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12457371)), so the last time for a month, I swear:

You tell me when I can open a segregated lunch counter, or refuse to bake a gay wedding cake, and I'll consider your argument to have merit. Otherwise, it's only a matter of time until Facebook and company are brought to heel under that sort of "public accommodation" approach.

See also mabbo's well thought out comment: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12462031](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12462031)

<comment><USER78> I still don't understand the gay wedding cake argument.

If I'm a baker, why can't I refuse to make certain cakes? I mean, I would never turn away a customer, but if the customer asked me to write obscene things on the cake, don't I have the right to refuse their request?

"I'd like to have a rainbow cake" "ok" "with little penises sticking out of it for my gay wedding" "no, sorry."

What's wrong with that? It's no different from refusing a straight man's request to have a cake with the outline of a nude woman on it.

<comment><USER79> You're manufacturing your example. The refusal in a famous case wasn't based on lascivious content, it was based on the people buying the cake.

[http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminate...](http://aclu- co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/)

<comment><USER78> Well, in that case I agree. You should not be able to refuse service based on the person, but you should be able to refuse service based on the request.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Facebook Massively Overpaid for WhatsApp - <AUTHOR> http://continuations.com/post/77698925932/facebook-massively-overpaid-for-whatsapp#comment-1260570571

<comment><USER2> _They could have promoted their version via Facebook itself and then spend a "cool" billion or two on advertising this globally and /or incentivizing installs._

Assuming a $2b ad spend matched by $2b of internal Facebook promotion value, that'd give an user acquisition budget of around $8 per user. If the author thinks that'd be enough to tempt the majority of Whatsapp users to use a Facebook equivalent then he's grossly underestimated the value people put on Whatsapp - more specifically, the value in fact it wasn't Facebook. Facebook would have needed to spend _a lot_ to overcome that.

I have no doubt that someone at Facebook ran the numbers and realised it'd be cheaper to simply buy the opposition. I actually think Facebook would have paid a good bit more than they did.</comment>


The absence of curiosity - <AUTHOR> http://fullstackhumanoid.com/the-absence-of-curiosity-2/ <comment><USER2> Some things you don't want to be curious about, such as the thousand ways to write a urlencode function that isn't quite right...</comment>


How to get 170k users in six months with zero marketing - <AUTHOR> http://blog.corkboard.me/2011/06/16/how-to-get-170k-users-in-six-months-with-zero-marketing/

<comment><USER2> I like the visual appeal of it. Evernote or Springpad have maybe 20+ times as many features, but I end up using Corkboard because it's simple and looks interesting.

I showed it to my middle-school daughter and on her own she used it to collaborate on a project with another kid.

<comment><USER3> Agreed. The ascetic approach to features is what keeps me using it, even though there are other services with 20x as many features. Very simple, very useful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Totally misleading headline. Not OPs fault -- the problem is in the post. 171k unique visitors is not 170k users.

Take my project, a daily email newsletter (<http://dlewis.net/nik> if you're interested). It's about a year old, and I've had about 500k uniques over that period. I have 5,000 subscribers.

I'm one of Corkboard's 171,000 people but I'm not a user of Corkboard. I tried it for a few minutes and left, not coming back since. And honestly, if you're not capturing people, that traffic is not all that valuable.

This isn't to say that you _aren't_ capturing people; hopefully, you are. Just that you shouldn't conflate a visitor with a user. Visitors visit; users stay.

<comment><USER5> How did you get those testimonials from some rather interesting people? Did you know them before you had this service?

<comment><USER4> I know Jimmy, didn't know the others.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks like you've had 170k unique visitors on your website, not 170k users -- quite different things, no?

The advice is good, though.

<comment><USER7> As far as I can see, the site basically creates a public account for you automatically when you visit it, so unique visitor = user.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I can only assume that what the author really meant is zero advertising. Most of what is described falls under marketing.

</comment><comment><USER9> I wouldn't say zero marketing :P

</comment><comment><USER10> It doesn't load

</comment><comment><USER11> This is misleading because if LifeHacker hadn't found your article on HackerNews, everything else probably wouldn't have happened. So I don't know if I would want to build something people wanted, and not focus on marketing... and hope one or two people spread the word to others. You might've gotten lucky. Yes, building something people want is the first step, but there's more.</comment>


Ask HN: Should I get a master's degree or a job? - <AUTHOR>

I'm a computer engineering student graduating in April. I'm having a hard time deciding whether I should pursue an MEng, MBA or start working full-time. I'd eventually like to be an entrepreneur. I don't feel like I have a solid business idea right now.<p>Should I get a master's degree or a full-time job? <comment><USER2> I don't want to date myself (and so I won't ;) but I too was contemplating the same thing when I graduated (after getting a bachelor's in Computer Eng). In hindsight, passing on getting an MS in CmpE (or CS) was absolutely the right thing to do - nothing beats on the job experience.

However an MBA is a different story. Getting an MBA at a good school can be extremely expensive and only you can decide if the opportunity cost is worth it. I have several friends who wanted to switch careers after spending a few years in technology and used an MBA to make that leap. But even they will tell you today that you don't need to spend 2 years and $150K to make that happen.

Hope that helps.

</comment><comment><USER3> I went for a master's degree (actually two) and don't regret a day or dollar spent. The upper division CS courses are wonderful for a mathematical mind. It brought together everything learned in undergraduate CS and Math courses into practical, real world, mathematical applications such as machine learning, natural language processing, data mining and others.

Today I'm a software engineer at a company that requires MS degrees for all their developers and it's a good environment - although I'm still looking for a place where I can leverage both my master's degrees.

</comment><comment><USER4> I say get a job at a startup if you want to be eventually your own founder. There are a ton of really interesting startups hiring technical folks so you would have choice. I feel that rushing into a grad degree isn't necessarily going to benefit you and you'd be saddled with extra debt. You can always go back for a Masters anytime, and the work experience would serve you well. Good luck!!

</comment><comment><USER5> I was in the same situation 3 years ago.

In short, I'm happy I chose a job. Granted, I was lucky to get one that is doing work I consider meaningful. But having that job has made it much more clear to me what I'd like to do in the future. The MS I'd apply to now is dramatically different than the one I'd have applied to before having the experience. Which is a good thing I think.

</comment><comment><USER6> You have a lot of time to decide, so why not apply to both jobs and graduate programs.

If you can't get a job upon graduation, then go to grad school. But know that graduate degrees (in computer-related fields) offer a poor ROI. You should probably only pursue one if there is specific research that really interests you and you don't mind being in debt for a while.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks a lot for the input guys. I'll probably take a job if I can find a position that I'm really passionate about. If that fails, then I'll do graduate work in an area that I'm passionate about. I think things will work out either way.

</comment><comment><USER7> Get a job. You'll actually learn more working than you will at grad school. The Harvards and Whartons of the world want applicants with industry experience anyway, so worst case scenario you go back and get a masters in 3-5 years.

</comment><comment><USER8> Either's good experience, just different experience. I know a number of people who did both at once.</comment>


Show HN: Levels.fyi – Compare career ladders across companies - <AUTHOR> https://www.levels.fyi/ <comment><USER2> This is pretty cool, looks like I know some people who didn't negotiate hard enough ;). It would be nice to get a sense of the standard deviations as well for those positions where you have many data points. Is that possible?

</comment><comment><USER3> Weird that it's not on the Show HN page with 28 points under 40 minutes.

</comment><comment><USER4> Really great to see some transparency in this area.

</comment><comment><USER5> This is amazing!

</comment><comment><USER6> where are y'all getting this information from?? job posting websites?

<comment><AUTHOR> Mostly crowd sourced. There's a button to submit additional companies if you have additional suggestions.</comment></comment>