Convicted of sex crimes, but with no victims - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/26/magazine/sex-offender-operation-net-nanny.html <comment><USER2> I think a big chunk of the population are follower types who could be convinced to go along with all sorts of things. These people are generally going to behave as society expects them to, or at least as the last persuasive person they talked to expects. I think the type of sting operation described in this article could ensnare _millions_ of such people, few of whom would have ever felt any impetus to commit this sort of crime.

The subject of this article certainly displayed poor judgement, but wasn't any kind of danger to society without this scenario constructed by the police. I don't think public in any way benefited from this operation. All it did was take a productive member of society out of commission. I think this is like the time the government put out a bounty on rabbit heads, so farmers started breeding more rabbits. The farmers are the police and the rabbits are sex offenders.

<comment><USER3> > The subject of this article certainly displayed poor judgement, but wasn't > any kind of danger to society without this scenario constructed by the > police.

I don't agree. The whole point of sting operations is that they enable police to catch people that pose a danger to society by catching them in the act.

In this case we have a man in his early 20s caught actively trying to meet a 13yo girl for sex.

The same man stated he already had sex with 5 or 6 other girls like this, although he didn't specified their ages.

<comment><USER2> I'd agree with you if the supposed victim wasn't a 24 year old who provided pictures of themselves in the lead-up to the meeting. To me, it reads like the police constructed an interaction where it would have been clear to the target of the sting in the moment that he was engaging with an adult (which was indeed the truth), but that included a few phrases that show evidence of guilt when removed from that moment.

I think the police could have demonstrated much more convincing evidence of guilt if they had someone who looked like a 13 year old answer the door, and recorded the man's reaction.

<comment><USER3> > I'd agree with you if the supposed victim wasn't a 24 year old who provided > pictures of themselves in the lead-up to the meeting.

That's quite the disingenuous take on the case. You're just cherry-picking the age of the police officer tasked with the sting. During the whole sting the same agent repeatedly made it very clear that the girl he was trying to meet to have sex was 13 years old. That fact didn't discouraged him the slightest and, just like he did 5 or 6 times before, we went to meet the 13 year old girl to have sex with her.

<comment><USER2> I think you've made a big error in your reading of this story if you got the impression that he regularly hooked up with underage girls. He regularly had sex with women, like many men. A history of having sex with women is not evidence of him being a child predator. Neither is going to meet up with someone who looks 24.

If the police wanted to target actual child predators, they wouldn't be sending out photos of 24 year olds. It seems like the were targeting non- child-predators with bad judgement. Maybe finding the real predators is too much work.

<comment><USER3> > I think you've made a big error in your reading of this story if you got the > impression that he regularly hooked up with underage girls.

I said he admitted he already had sex with 5 or 6 girls of unspecified age the same way he was caught trying to have sex with a 13 year old girl. That's what he did, and that was his motivation when he knowingly tried to meet that 13 year old girl.

> A history of having sex with women is not evidence of him being a child > predator.

Trying to meet 13 year old girls for sex is the evidence of him being a child predator.

> Neither is going to meet up with someone who looks 24.

The girl repeatedly stated, and made it quite clear, that she was 13 years old. That fact, which was made quite clear to him and he acknowledged and fully understood she was a 13 year old girl. Still, the fact that the girl he tried to meet repeatedly stated quite clearly she was 13 years old was not deemed by the criminal as a good enough reason not o have sex with her.

<comment><USER4> >Users had to certify that they were 18 or older, but at the time Craigslist didn't verify users' age. People described their appearance in personal ads, then sent photos that didn't match. Some seemed to enjoy role playing. He once replied to a post describing an attractive 21-year-old, but when he arrived at the address she gave him, an old man answered the door. He got out of there fast.

Yeah and the 60 year old man that cat fished him also repeatedly stated that he was an attractive 21 year old women so everything people tell you on craigslist must be 100% truth even if they provide a picture that completely disproves what they have said.

Come on cragislist is full of bullshit. You can't trust anything people say on that platform.

> That's what he did, and that was his motivation when he knowingly tried to > meet that 13 year old girl.

He saw the picture of an adult women and then met an adult woman. Is that really against the law nowadays?

>The girl repeatedly stated, and made it quite clear, that she was 13 years old.

Quite clear by showing an image of an adult woman?

<comment><USER3> > Yeah and the 60 year old man that cat fished him also repeatedly stated that > he was an attractive 21 year old women

What's your point? Having sex with a 21 year old woman isn't a crime.

Perhaps you could have a point if he tried to meet a 21 year old woman that actually was an underage girl, but the convicted sex offender never mentioned anything similar to that.

> Come on cragislist is full of bullshit.

The underage girl he met online made it quite clear to him she was 13 years old. That fact popped up repeatedly during their chats. Intentionally ignoring the age of an underage girl just because you want to have sex with her isn't a valid legal defense.

<comment><USER5> > The underage girl he met online made it quite clear to him she was 13 years > old. That fact popped up repeatedly during their chats.

"The underage girl" does not exist. "That fact" is a fiction, and Hambrick would not have been imprisoned if Net Nanny had not entrapped him with a picture of a 24-year-old police officer (that Hambrick correctly identified as an adult) and false messages written by a middle-aged detective.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This one's going to get flagged to death quickly.

Apart from the paedophile angle, there is an interesting philosophical question of whether something is a crime if there is no victim, and whether you should go to jail for something you hypothetically might have done at some point in the future.

Personally, I think of Minority Report the same way as 1984: both are magnifying glasses showing how dangerous some of our tendencies are. Definitely not manuals of how things ought to be done. Being convicted without having harmed anyone is a travesty of justice.

<comment><USER7> There are lots of 'victimless' crimes - speeding in your car (reckless driving), buying drugs to consume yourself (use of controlled substances), planning to murder your partner (conspiracy). The victim is either 'society' or the person committing the crime. If you commit one of these crimes you're punished for demonstrating a willingness to do what society as a whole has decided it doesn't want people to do. Whether or not that's correct is a matter for debate, but the idea of 'if there's no victim there can't be a crime' is probably nonsense. There's bound to be at least one or two victimless crimes you think should actually be criminal.

<comment><USER8> I think it's less about whether or not actually intending to commit a crime should be punished, but about whether there was ever such an intention in the first place.

The article makes it sound like this person didn't really believe that the person he was talking to was only 13 years old and, given some of the messages mentioned in the article, that sounds reasonable.

He was talking to a bunch of adult using the photo of an adult woman. People on the internet are not exactly known for never bullshitting people just for the lulz.

<comment><USER9> The problem here is that this is just the pedo version of asking a prostitute if she's a cop and the intention is exactly the same--to limit the police's ability to catch them.

<comment><USER6> No, the problem is that the people being caught aren't "them" (the actual paedophiles you would actually want to get) in the first place.

<comment><USER9> Speak for yourself, I don't have a problem with going after people trying to have sex with people who claim they're 13.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I knew someone that this exact thing happened to. Literally the casual encounters section with different women (many older) over months, and a bad choice /poor judgement one day that lead to arrest and conviction. For him, ultimately it added up to a huge pain in the ass for years but he didn't do prison time. It appears that many aren't as lucky or resourced.

It's easy to judge harshly based on the topic, but all I can say like TFA is that many of these people have no prior history and this type of police activity likely leads to just ruining as many lives as are being protected. Its similar to living in a gated community or such; a false sense of security with questionable effectiveness.

A lot of the harm for those who get caught up in this came from the Adam Walsh Act ([https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Walsh_Child_Protection_...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Walsh_Child_Protection_and_Safety_Act)) which required mandatory minimums that have now been successfully challenged in courts. If you read about Adam Walsh's story, while tragic the circumstances had nothing to do with a sexual predator type situation, and could be judged as negligence by a couple adults responsible for Adam's safety the day of his disappearance.

What I would hope everyone could support is possibly leaving these stings in place but allowing first time offenders the ability to rectify the situation like the person I knew by participating in ongoing therapy and reasonable monitoring to ensure they do not pose a threat to society, and stepping things back a bit with labeling them as offenders when no actual victim was harmed and there were no priors.

<comment><USER4> The article mentioned that people being caught by the sting operation usually receive harsher punishments than people who actually commit the crime that the sting operation is supposed to prevent. It's truly absurd.

<comment><USER11> Some people get off on power, just look at what is said about politicians. How many people know women breastfeeding can orgasm? [https://www.nct.org.uk/life- parent/sex-after-baby/breastfeed...](https://www.nct.org.uk/life-parent/sex- after-baby/breastfeeding-and-sex-five-surprising-facts) [https://www.todaysparent.com/family/womens-health/i-was- turn...](https://www.todaysparent.com/family/womens-health/i-was-turned-on-by- breastfeeding-am-i-a-freak/) [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1468181420003018...](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/146818142000301894)

Either way, whether its hormonal or not, it could explain why some usually older women get really nasty towards other mothers breastfeeding in public. Maybe these older women have difficulty reconciling the feelings and/or knowledge of breastfeeding with social norms?

Question is, is this orgasming when breastfeeding paedophilic and if so why the bias in the law enforcement, legal system and society in general? Is it simply to reduce penetrative harm and/or the mental harm that occurs when stepping outside social norms?

Such a massive controversial subject.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> So she was in fact as she doubtless appeared to him on video, a woman 120% his age, not someone aged 65% of his age.

To older people it can be hard distinguishing the ages of people a lot younger. But there's no way a 20 y.o. could confuse a person barely out of primary school with someone of University graduate age.

<comment><USER13> Looking at the picture in the article, how many 13-year-olds have wrinkles on their forehead? Certainly not many at all. So in this case, it's even really easy to see that she is not that age.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> So with the exception of a handful of states, mistake of fact is not a defense against statutory rape. I.e. someone who has sex with someone under the age of consent whom they believe to be 18 is still guilty of statutory rape.

The opposite is happening here, since the perpetrator isn't planning to do anything with someone actually under the age of consent - just someone whom they believe to be under the age of consent.

<comment><USER15> This is a good point. It seems we convict people for crimes they don't know they are committing, and also for thinking they are committing a crime when they aren't.

It seems they should have just had the cops hide and wait until he actually tried to make a move on the undercover "girl" cop. Him showing up out of curiosity, perhaps even concern, is impossible to distinguish actual willingness to hurt a child if the jump on him immediately and arrest him.

The subject of child rape is so terrible, we give a pass to shoddy police work. One would think that a lack of child porn, or overt sexual conversation from the guy would have made the judge think he didn't actually intend to take advantage of her without more evidence.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> If you dare to look further into this topic, please also look at a child protection non-profit that considers human and civil rights as a core value and tries to bust the enormous amount of stigma that surrounds the topic: [https://prostasia.org/about](https://prostasia.org/about)

You might feel uneasy about "sex positivity" being associated with preventing child sexual abuse. They also have a lot of other messages around primary prevention that might initially repel you. These days, they've got their own Twitter mob trying to shame and cancel them away, but really, "when you associate shame and guilt with sex, you are facilitating sexual abuse": [https://prostasia.org/blog/the-weapon-of- shame](https://prostasia.org/blog/the-weapon-of-shame) and [https://prostasia.org/blog/who-should-be-excluded-from- child...](https://prostasia.org/blog/who-should-be-excluded-from-child- protection)

Here's their take on offender registries: [https://prostasia.org/blog/how-the- registry-harms-families/](https://prostasia.org/blog/how-the-registry-harms- families/)

<comment><USER17> I wonder why this comment is dead; Prostasia is a great organization that does a lot of work for artistic freedom and a better understanding of how the law and child protection organizations can help people. It stands resolutely against child abuse, to a greater degree than other organizations who may only have good intentions but not the actions to show for it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> If this could work with millions of people it's possible to leverage chat frameworks and GPT to automate the dragnet.

With a Ring door camera the evidence gathering could also be automated. Facebook / Faceswap / reverse google image search could get us a pretty good guess at a legal name and cell number. Homeland security can correlate to online handles.

If the private face databases do not cooperate then that's going to make life difficult, but exerting media / public pressure on them to "help catch pedos" should enforce their compliance.

Correlate this all with taxpayer and employer information too. It's a victimless crime so a fixed penalty — 20% garnished from wages for a decade — seems appropriate. (It's "fixed" in that the percentage doesn't change, even though the amount does.)

Getting to trial is time consuming and expensive even if we _have_ caught the same person that we catfished into showing up at the doorbell camera. However, if we automatically WhatsApp the perpetrator a link to a plea bargain Google Form, a good percentage are going to no-contest the charges and admit guilt via a submit form button. Degrade the video quality enough and apply some ML to match skin and hair tones. We don't need to be precise if we make it seem like we won't back down in court.

Tie this all into the IRS and we of course will automate the fines collection. 20% of average income multiplied by a million would be a significant enough revenue to cover the salaries of our consultants and admin staff.

Moreover, sir, there will be a significant impact on your reputation with key voters. According to our analysis of private conversation sentiment in the most volatile quintile in key swing states, this proposal will be sure to secure you a third term in office.

<comment><USER4> Do it like in Germany. Just send out a letter to every citizen asking for money with some neatly hidden clause that you admit guilt of the supposed crime if you pay the fine. Doesn't actually matter if there is any meat to it. Some people will sign it simply because they can't afford a lawyer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Sentences that are too short, or too long, are both a byproduct of a lack of latitude on the part of the judge to apply reason and common sense. Our system a judge's "bias", but then end we up with a bureaucracy instead of a human who can see nuance.

Mandatory minimum sentences have the same effect. The prosecutor uses the fear of the sentence to get a guilty plea and negotiates a plea bargain. This means people who should have gotten a fair trial in front of a judge and a jury are scared into pleaing guilty and letting the prosecutor decide how much time they will do by framing the plea offer. We bother to have judges to prevent this stuff, and should use them.

Mandatory minimum sentences have the same effect

</comment><comment><USER19> O.U.R. published response to the NY article here:

[https://ourrescue.org/blog/the-new-york-times-misses-the- poi...](https://ourrescue.org/blog/the-new-york-times-misses-the-point-not- preventing-children-from-being-sexually-victimized-would-be-the-real- misservice-to-society/)

> the new york times misses the point: not preventing children from being > sexually victimized would be the real misservice to society

<comment><USER20> Seems like yet another instance of "give up your rights, think of the children" case.

<comment><USER21> Give up your rights to send sexually explicit messages to 13 year old girls online and arrange to meet them in person when they are home alone to "play video games"...?

Yes.

<comment><USER4> Let me ask the opposite. If you are trying to meet a 13 year old girl and the girl on the other side is sending you a fake picture of herself pretending to be 24 year old, pretending to speak like a 24 year old, and in general pretending to be a 24 year old except when asked how old that person is, then why on earth would you meet that person? Anyone who was interested in underage girls would want to make sure that the person they are talking to is actually underage. That guy completely failed to confirm that she was actually 13, he made the "really stupid mistake" of confirming that the person he was talking to is 24.

<comment><USER21> She said she was 13.

If you're so naive that you think this was just a silly mistake by a man who wanted to play video games with her then you're so naive there's little point in continuing this discussion.

No man in his right mind continues the discussion at that point. Even a sociopath would have the good sense to end communications out of concern for his own safety and freedom, even if he had no concern for the safety and happiness of the child.

You're welcome to describe to me the type of man who continues to message a 13 year old online even after she has shared her age, taking that discussion to the point of explicit sexual messaging, and arranging to meet privately where she is alone.

He just wanted to play video games, right? Why not wait until the parents are home and introduce himself? We both know why.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> It makes no sense to be looking for child predators on adult sites, by pretending to be teens who are looking for random adult strangers to offer free sex to. Real child predators are not likely to fall for this. Vulnerable people who are curious and confused are the ones falling for this trap. Here is how to catch real child predators (video below). These people have done it right because they really were interested in catching child predators. Running sex sting operations on adult sites (to catch child predators) is just a lazy, easy way. It's much easier to create fake crime, by targeting vulnerable people and fooling them into playing the role, and it's a fact that it's all done for money. Doing this has brought them in so much money.

[https://youtu.be/dbg4hNHsc_8](https://youtu.be/dbg4hNHsc_8)

Here's the reality of how they trap vulnerable people. (Watch and listen to the video)

[https://floridaactioncommittee.org/watch-oral-arguments- in-2...](https://floridaactioncommittee.org/watch-oral-arguments-in-2nd-dca- entrapment-case/#comments)

Here's a very interesting article about the cult group that has been behind this scam.

[https://americancrimejournal.com/operation-underground- railr...](https://americancrimejournal.com/operation-underground-railroad- retains-controversial-firm-kirton-mcconkie-threatens-legal-action-against- acj/)

</comment><comment><USER23> > She used slang a 13-year-old probably wouldn't know, like "FTP" [Fuck The > Police]

This, I am afraid, represents a rather naïve view of 13-year-olds.

<comment><USER24> The story of how the ADHD man was set up by the power hungry sting op disgusted me; the pic of the officer with the headphones looked like that of a young _adult_. His challenge of the age went unanswered, from what the report said.

My impression of the US is steadily not improving.

The only FTP I'm familiar with is that of a certain protocol... (Mid 40s, two decades in Australia).

<comment><USER25> me too brother.. me too :-/

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This reminds me of the case of Dan DePew, where a police officer got too deep into an investigation to let it go. The NYT cases are less involved, but the ethical issues are almost identical: [https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2019/02/05/the-fatal- ensnaring...](https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2019/02/05/the-fatal-ensnaring-of- dan-depew/) I find this kind of approach to police work very unsettling.

<comment><USER27> > _I find this kind of approach to police work very unsettling._

Especially since this "too personal involvement" is celebrated in each and every TV cop show and movie, it seems...

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I'm not a psychologist but from what I understand some people who have urges for young people just like some people have urges for people of the same gender. Obviously I have no problem if someone acts upon their urges towards people of their gender, but do have problems with people who act upon urges to young people. I would assume that in such case some form of voluntery conversion therapy would be useful. Similarly if someone has urges towards their gender but would prefer for whatever reason (to be more normal, to follow their religion, to have kids, ...) they would like to have urges towards the opposite gender, I see no problem with voluntery conversion therapy.

One big pet peeves of mine with a lot of left leaning people is that they are pro gay because "it is their choice and doesn't effect me" yet they are against voluntery conversion even though the same logic holds. And before anyone says "they aren't proven to work", maybe we should allow scientists to work on that. After all, if armies have been able to convince POWs to fight for them patriotically against their country, I don't think it should be that hard to get people to love certain people

<comment><USER5> > to be more normal

The assertion that opposite-sex attraction is "normal" and that same-sex attraction is abnormal is not supported by science. Homosexuality was removed from the third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III) in 1973.

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

The American Psychological Association advises against conversion therapy because it is ineffective and potentially harmful:

> The American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic > Responses to Sexual Orientation conducted a systematic review of the peer- > reviewed journal literature on sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) and > concluded that efforts to change sexual orientation are unlikely to be > successful and involve some risk of harm, contrary to the claims of SOCE > practitioners and advocates. Even though the research and clinical > literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, > feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human > sexuality regardless of sexual orientation identity, the task force > concluded that the population that undergoes SOCE tends to have strongly > conservative religious views that lead them to seek to change their sexual > orientation. Thus, the appropriate application of affirmative therapeutic > interventions for those who seek SOCE involves therapist acceptance, > support, and understanding of clients and the facilitation of clients' > active coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, > without imposing a specific sexual orientation identity outcome.

[https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic- response.p...](https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf)

<comment><USER28> > The assertion that opposite-sex attraction is "normal" and that same-sex > attraction is abnormal is not supported by science.

I don't know what "science" you are referencing but according to the NY times [0] 0.003% of marriage in the US are homosexual. To put that into context 0.006% of the population has 2 different colored eyes [1]. I would call someone with the same color in both eyes to be more "normal" than someone with different colors.

Now to the point. It may be true that there is no scientifically proven conversion therapy, but that is the case with many psychological characteristics. Many people have mental "things" (I won't call it a mental issue because it is not inherently bad, but you get my point) that science has no proven way to treat. But scientists continue to try to find a treatment. Of course there are limits to what they can try. Shocking genitalia is not allowed for any therapy and as such is not allowed for conversion therapy. But there are many other effective methods that psychologists use to help people who want to change.

[0] [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/upshot/the-most- detailed-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/upshot/the-most-detailed-map- of-gay-marriage-in-america.html) [1] [https://www.medicinenet.com/heterochromia_iridis/article.htm...](https://www.medicinenet.com/heterochromia_iridis/article.htm#how_rare_is_heterochromia_iridis)

<comment><USER5> > I don't know what "science" you are referencing but according to the NY > times [0] 0.003% of marriage in the US are homosexual.

That is an absolutely terrible argument, and your numbers are also incorrect. The NYT article said, "In 2014 there were 183,280 same-sex marriages in America, roughly a third of 1 percent of all marriages," which is 0.33%, not 0.003%.

More importantly, same-sex marriage was not recognized nationwide in 2014, and the Supreme Court only later declared same-sex marriage a fundamental right in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). Finally, the number of gay marriages is not an accurate indicator of the number of gay people. Prior to Obergefell v. Hodges, only 7.9% of LGBT Americans were married to their same-sex partner.

[https://news.gallup.com/poll/212702/lgbt-adults-married- sex-...](https://news.gallup.com/poll/212702/lgbt-adults-married-sex- spouse.aspx)

About 4.5% of Americans identify as LGBT in a 2017 Gallup poll, and the current percentage is likely to be higher due to social stigma, which is stronger for older generations who lived during periods of lower LGBT acceptance. Only 1.4% of traditionalists (born 1913-1945) identify as LGBT, while 8.2% of millennials (born 1980-1999) do the same.

[https://news.gallup.com/poll/234863/estimate-lgbt- population...](https://news.gallup.com/poll/234863/estimate-lgbt-population- rises.aspx)

The APA makes it very clear that homosexuality is normal.

> The longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the > health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a > normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation (Bell, Weinberg, & > Hammersmith, 1981; Bullough, 1976; Ford & Beach 1951; Kinsey, Pomeroy, & > Martin, 1948; Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, & Gebhard, 1953). Homosexuality per > se is not a mental disorder (APA, 1975).

> APA is concerned about ongoing efforts to mischaracterize homosexuality and > promote the notion that sexual orientation can be changed and about the > resurgence of sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE).

[https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic- response.p...](https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> This is ridiculous and yet another demonstration of the absurdity that they try to sell as US "justice" system.

So let's summarize.

1) Guy is looking for adults on an adult page

2) Adult women(24) with an adult picture says she is 13

3) Guy probably thinks like "okay, doesn't look 13". Which arguably is stupid, given that US citizens should know how stupid the US is when it comes to minors.

4) Talks more

5) Women says again she is 13

6) They agree to meet anyway

7) Guy drives to her home and she greets him. She is obviously a grown women.

8) Guy gets arrested for child rape

Yeah sounds about right. God bless America!

So let's rewrite the story a bit:

1) Guy is looking for some mint on craigslist

2) When asking the seller why the mint "makes people high", the seller says it's actually weed.

3) Guy thinks, okay, doesn't look like weed, it looks like fucking mint

4) Guy says, I will buy this mint anyway, looks like mint

5) Seller says again "Dude, it's fucking weed, but okay"

6) Seller sells the mint

7) Guy receives the mint in his mailbox and opens it

8) Cool it's mint, smells of mint, looks like mint.

9) Guy gets arrested for drug possession

Erm what?

In the real world, that cop should have been suspended for false advertising and the seller's account as well.

Good thing the world has no other problems...

</comment><comment><USER30> is being punished for attempted murder unjust because you failed to hurt the person and thus there is no victim?

<comment><USER2> If I had to come up with an equally just sting where the crime is attempted murder, it would go something like this:

Officer: "I'd love if you'd bring some chocolate ice cream to our date! By the way, I'm deathly allergic to chocolate."

Rube Sting Target: "Allergic to chocolate? You're joking, right?"

Officer: "What's your cell number?"

...

Officer: "See you soon! Don't forget to pick up that death by chocolate on the way!"

<comment><USER31> Even though it's a very sad story, that comment made me laugh.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Sorry it was abundantly clear she said 13. He knew what he was doing was wrong full stop.

<comment><USER33> I'm actually 12 and as such should not be on this website. Should the moderators be held accountable for not deleting my account, even though I have previously discussed my experience in college?

<comment><USER34> Possibly. There are laws like COPPA that companies have to follow around storing the data of children under 13, and they may delete your account after learning your true age, rather than undertaking the efforts that the law requires, lest they risk getting into trouble.

<comment><USER33> I know about COPPA; that is why I specifically chose "12" and not "13" ;) I brought this up because I am fairly sure the the moderators know enough about me to say that I am not actually 12 regardless of what I state here, which is the point I am trying to make: does the law require one to take statements made by a person on the Internet at face value if they seem patently false? If yes, is such a law practical and/or reasonable?

(FWIW, Y Combinator forbids children under the age of 13 from making accounts for this reason. However, when people have done so in the past it has usually been tacitly ignored for reasons pertaining to "it would be a net loss for everyone if we enforced this".)

<comment><USER4> >does the law require one to take statements made by a person on the Internet at face value if they seem patently false? If yes, is such a law practical and/or reasonable?

Doesn't this effectively legalize fraud? If you order a product on Amazon and something else arrives you'll have to take the merchant listing at face value because it was communicated over the internet.

You are a construction worker and go on Amazon and order a power bank. It was actually a fake listing by a third party seller.

Two days later the package arrives, you unpack it only to discover that you have received a brick instead of the promised power bank.

You dispute the sale and send an E-Mail to the third party seller. You tell him this product is red, it is square and it is heavy, it's a brick, not a power bank.

The seller responds. Yes, the product is red, it is square and it is heavy, it's a power bank. Here is a picture of the power bank (shows the brick).</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


DNS lookups can reveal every web page you visit, says German boffin - <AUTHOR> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/21/dns_records_more_revealing_than_you_think_says_german_boffin/ <comment><AUTHOR> My solution is a linux router between my home network and the cable modem that intercepts ntp/dns requests and sends them on over several VPN paths to different VM's around the country, each using multiple resolvers that are not google or opendns. It isn't perfect, but my ISP has never seen a single DNS packet from me.</comment>


In Defense of COS, or Why I Love JSON and Hate XML - <AUTHOR> http://jimpravetz.com/blog/2012/12/in-defense-of-cos/ <comment><USER2> XML, being in the markup family tree, has a lot more history then simple json encoding ... measuring its usefulness on a corner case has always been well ... boring. I am glad people are using JSON to sling simple data across the web versus markup.

Come back to me when you are using json to encode an entire document ... you might look at XML a bit differently.

tl;dr use the right tool for the right job.

<comment><USER3> _"Come back to me when you are using json to encode an entire document"_

How is that relevant to the article, which is about COS? In other words, what does _COS_ lack what XML has?

<comment><USER4> * Infrastructure (schema support - DTD, Schema, RelaxNG; transformation - XSLT) * No obvious document format (What encoding are the strings? How to escape characters? * Only used to describe predefined object types (boolean, strings, arrays, dictionaries * Hard to ensure the integrity of the data without interpreting the data from the interpreter itself (no external validation)

<comment><USER5> You know this can be done on top when you have demand for this? I prefer a non-bloated protocol format over XML anytime. How often does the DTD not matter at all ? How often is the encoding fixed by convention ? ...

<comment><USER4> I use schemas (in the form of RelaxNG most of the time) almost every time I deal with XML. Together with schematron you can make very complex lint-like scripts to verify your data. Actually I program in XML with a self created programming language (formulated in XML). This together with RelaxNG and a good XML makes it fun writing XML and absolutely (syntax-)error free.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Dings XML for crappy commenting syntax then gives JSON a pass for not supporting comments at all.

I love JSON, but it does have it's issues.

<comment><USER7> JSON not having comments is a benefit when used for it's primary purpose: information exchange. JSON is not a great format for configuration files or static documents even though it's increasingly used for it.

<comment><USER8> YAML is better suited for configuration files.

<comment><USER9> Yaml is not good for configuration files because it is not easily human- editable. It seems "easy" but meaningful whitespace is a cluster-f _ck_.

Edit: I have been looking for reasonable configuration file formats for a while. Json actually has pretty bad human-readability at any scale because of its quoted key-values. Yaml is easily _readable_ but when a user tries to change anything, things go to hell. The humble ini-file has won so far. It's limited and not fully standardized but it is human readable and human writable. I'd love see something better but human readability/writable is going trump all sorts of cleverness.

Edit2: From <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YAML> " _The specific number of spaces in the indentation is unimportant as long as parallel elements have the same left justification and the hierarchically nested elements are indented further._ "

Yeah, a user of your software is going to be able to understand when they mess up on that rule, riiiight. Screw Yaml.

<comment><USER10>
      It seems "easy" but meaningful whitespace is a cluster-fck.

Tell that to everyone using Python. If your editor can't handle meaningful whitespace transparently, it sounds like you need a better editor.

<comment><USER9> _you need a better editor_

I think you misunderstand the concept of "configuration file". These are not intended for programmers but for users of the program you write.

White complaints about Pythons' meaningful white are still common, programmers can get over that by, indeed, getting a better editor or otherwise wrapping their head around the situation.

But end-users can't be expected to have this kind of sophistication. Explaining to someone while things they can't see have made their program usable is no fun.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Like many, I feel that the poster is throwing the baby with the bathwater. Yes, SOAP and XML Schema are horrible. Don't use them, then. Yes, XML is verbose, but that's exactly why Relax NG has a compact syntax. Use that if you don't like the XML syntax. Yes, data can be expressed as attributes or elements, but there are simple rules of thumb to decide between one or the other: if your data can have structure, or you may want to have multiple instances of the same thing, it's generally better to use an element; otherwise an attribute should do the trick.

There are also errors and approximations: XML did not introduce the bracket syntax, it inherited it from SGML. A DTD is not a schema (and if you want to criticize XML, you should point out that it should _not_ have inherited DTDs from SGML.) He doesn't even mention the worst part about comments, which is that you can't have -- inside a comment (very annoying when commenting a large block of data...)

XML has many beautiful applications, like SVG, SMIL (which never took off but keeps getting rediscovered/reimplemented in an inconsistent manner [full disclosure: I participated in the SMIL and CDF W3C working groups]), XSLT, &c. XHTML was not perfect by a long stretch but the new HTML5 syntax is much, much worse.

Use XML, JSON, and whatever is necessary to get the job done. For the project that I am working on right now, I am using XML for serializing Web app descriptions; in _this_ situation, XML is clearly better than JSON.

</comment><comment><USER12> the main arguments are about syntax. there's no mention of namespaces and schema are dismissed because the author didn't use them. no mention of tools for automated processing.

this is not a very good article, in all honesty. he doesn't like the syntax, but doesn't seem to consider that different technologies can be suited to different problems, or that he simply hasn't experienced the kind of uses where xml works well.

<comment><USER13> Agreed. I like JSON and I think it's the better choice for serialization and data exchange in many cases where XML is used today, but pretending it's the magic alternative to anything you could also do with XML is crazy, and it only shows a very limited understanding of what XML actually is.

Transformations, schema checking, xpath queries, well defined linking and embedding, a host of tools that support applications of XML on every platform, the list goes on and on. JSON has none of this, it's basically exactly what its name says it is ('JavaScript object notation') and not much more. It covers maybe 10% of what XML and all its related tools and standards are. The current trend seems to be that XML is 'old technology' and all the cool kids use JSON, and it bugs me. You can't possibly sincerely say JSON is 'just like XML but less verbose' unless you simply don't really know much about XML at all.

<comment><USER14> I must be one of the few who thought that XSL was a great way to build visual interfaces to data, in browsers that support XSLT (this was an area where IE had an very early advantage over other browsers, not sure what the state of things is today). Sorting, filtering, drilling down... all trivially easy and declarative with XSLT, once you groked xpath. Yeah it was verbose, but otherwise great.

There are some similar approaches for JSON data now, I think... but none are standards-based AFAIK, meaning they are mostly single-vendor or project solutions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> XML can do the same trick with indirect objects as COS, using ID and IDREF type attributes. A number of years ago I was dealing with the archival and retrieval/display of enormous medical textbooks in XML, and I couldn't efficiently pull out arbitrary elements (chapters, sections, paragraphs, etc) because of the hierarchical nature of the XML document structure. I had to parse the whole thing to use an XPATH to get the element I needed, and that took too long. (My parser could handle 3MB/sec, and some of these books were over 100+MB.)

The solution I came up with was a program that transformed the documents by flattening them into a relatively small hierarchical structure that represented the volume/chapter/section headings of the book, and a flat list of elements that were small enough to parse quickly. I inserted ID and IDREF elements to link these two parts together, and created an external index of the file offsets and lengths of each element in the flattened list. That let me use simple file I/O to access any element by ID, pull it out of the larger file, and only then start the parsing engine.

It was like the article mentions: my XML file, together with the external index (in a simple Unix DBFile file) was a miniature NoSQL database of the textbook.

BTW, this predated the "NoSQL" label, and was developed after testing of Oracle and the XML databases of the day completely failed to meet performance and scalability requirements. My solution has an infinite capacity to scale; its performance is not impacted by the number of books in the system nor their size. The retrieval and display time of a single chapter or any subelement is a constant proportional only to the size of that chapter, and is not affected by the overall size of the collection. All of the other solutions we looked at got slower as the number of books increased and as the size of the books increased. (I mention this only to head-off any comments about reinventing the wheel.)

<comment><USER16> ID/IDREF isn't exactly the same as indirect objects in COS. When you're parsing an XML document, ID/IDREF are just attributes like any other that get added to the DOM, and then application code can dereference them later if it wants. In COS, indirect objects are part of the serialisation format and the parser _needs_ to understand them and dereference them in order to be able to parse the file.

For example, the COS "stream" object type is serialised as a settings dictionary, followed by the 'stream' keyword, the stream data, and the 'endstream' keyword. But what happens when the stream happens to contain the bytes 'endstream'? Well, the settings dictionary has a "Length" key that tells you how long the stream is, without you having to scan for the 'endstream' keyword. However, because most streams are compressed and compression makes it difficult to guess in advance exactly what the compressed size willl be, COS allows you to make the Length key an indirect reference to an integer defined _later_ in the file. Like so:

        <<
        % Here, the value associated with the Length key is
        % indirect object 42 revision 0.
        /Length 42 0 R
        /Filter /FlateDecode
        >>
        stream
        ...compressed data goes here...
        endstream
        % And now we define object 42 revision 0
        42 0 obj
        12345
        endobj

So, the parser needs to know the length of the compressed stream in order to parse it, but it needs to have parsed the compressed stream in order to get to the length data. The way out of this catch-22 is the object index at the end of the file, which gives you the index and location of each indirect object. A COS parser needs to start at the end of the file and load all the indirect objects, cache them, then go back to the beginning and stitch them into the deserialised object graph as they're referenced.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> How is COS separate from PostScript? It looks like a straight PS dictionary.

<comment><USER16> Well, PostScript probably doesn't have the indirect-object-reference index at the end, but I don't really know much about PostScript so I couldn't say for sure.

I wonder if PostScript is to COS as JavaScript is to JSON.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> And here I thought everyone hated XML...

<comment><USER19> I don't hate XML, I just think it tends to be misused.

I (still) think XML is fine for configuration files and things like markup of UI/UX components (See: Flex, WPF, Android layouts, etc). In this context, where you may be modelling the relationship between many parents with many children nested fairly deeply, I find XML _much_ more readable and easy to edit and reason about than JSON.

Where XML makes little sense is as an over-the-wire network protocol format or in any context where its "human readable"/"human editable" properties aren't as important. In those contexts, I think JSON is far better suited though neither is completely ideal.

<comment><USER15> I don't think XML is good at all for config files or UI/UX component markup, but for me that's mostly because of the end tags. Other formats, such as YAML, are able to describe hierarchical data without the verbosity of end tags, and I think that makes the files much more readable.

In fact, I think it's fair to say that WPF and all of Microsoft's config and resource file formats inherit their use of XML from mimicry of the Java ecosystem when C# and .NET were being developed as an alternative stack to Java. Android's inheritance is more direct, since it's based on the Java ecosystem. And as we all know, the crazy hype phase that XML went through was hand-in-hand with the crazy hype phase that Java went through. If Java hadn't happened, XML probably still would have as an improvement over SGML, but it probably would have remained the simple document markup language that it's pretty good for rather than becoming the "XML Everywhere" beast.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> [http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Devtools/parable-of-the- languages....](http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Devtools/parable-of-the- languages.html)

<comment><USER2> I love how some technologies cause some folks to get hostile ... HTML and XML are very close cousins in the same markup family.

On the basis of correct usage (e.g. not insane application of XML to corner cases) I don't fully understand the logic of people who profess love for HTML and hatred of XML, they are in the same family. The only difference is that HTML (now)is a controlled vocabulary, eventually folks will want to add markup of their own design w/o committee discussing the merits.

Perhaps next decade ;)</comment></comment>


Meet the People (and Robots) Who Pack Your Online Orders - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/12/meet-the-people-and-robots-who-pack-your-online-orders/383536/?single_page=true

<comment><USER2> The writer went for a little too much pathos, in my opinion, and missed the bigger story: DCs are the modern equivalent to the pyramids. An amazing amount of coordinated and precisely measured work goes on there.

There is a great human story here, no doubt, but there's also a great story for hackers. Would have loved to read that one.

<comment><USER3> I like to think hackers are equally interested in the human story.

I certainly think we could use more interest in the human stories, because a lack of interest is the primary reason for the growing anti-tech backlash.</comment></comment>


Facebook Discovers Fake AI-Generated Profiles - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/business/facebook-ai-generated-profiles.html <comment><USER2> It's ironic that as we move into a world where anyone can be a "journalist" and anyone can have a voice, we need professional journalists more than ever.

Now a journalist will not only need training in writing well, conveying a story with facts, and investigating, but they will also need to become experts in identifying fake source material.

In a world where anyone can make a video or photo of anyone doing anything, we'll need to rely on reputable journalists to vet that material for us.

Saw a video on YouTube of the President saying something bad? No idea if it's real anymore.

Sure, a lot of this technology has existed for a while, but it was usually in the fringes (see The National Enquirer). Now it's going mainstream.

And the worst part is, there are a whole group of people who will not trust a professional journalist (sometimes with good reason) but will trust anyone online who happens to provide evidence that boosters their existing opinions.

<comment><USER3> One of the scariest quotes for me was Facebook's Little Red Book in 2012 (a book handed out to every employee) that had this quote:

> "When everyone has a printing press [i.e., Facebook], the ones with the best > ideas are the ones people listen to."

In retrospect, it gives a ton of insight into the flawed beliefs within the company.

[https://twitter.com/nemild/status/1006533287378968576](https://twitter.com/nemild/status/1006533287378968576)

[https://www.businessinsider.com/inside-facebooks-little- red-...](https://www.businessinsider.com/inside-facebooks-little-red- book-2015-5)

<comment><USER4> > "When everyone has a printing press [i.e., Facebook], the ones with the best > ideas are the ones people listen to."

Should be:

"When everyone has a printing press, the most persuasive ones are the ones people listen to"

<comment><USER5> That's a tautology!

<comment><USER6> A good tautology can be helpful in revealing errors in reasoning. Like here, the sentence "ones with the best ideas are the ones people listen to" sounds reasonable; the equivalent statement "best reasoning is the most persuasive" is clearly wrong.

<comment><USER7> "Stating tautologies is sometimes necessary in the presence of those who believe self-contradictions" - paraphrased from weird sun twitter

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Reported by Snopes for months now, not "discovered" by Facebook [https://www.snopes.com/news/2019/10/11/pro-trump-outlet- link...](https://www.snopes.com/news/2019/10/11/pro-trump-outlet-linked-epoch- times/)

<comment><USER9> Would anybody expect the truth from FB? No way they wouldn't spin this to their best possible advantage.

<comment><USER8> I would expect the NYT to do some proper reporting though instead of copy/pasting Facebook's press releases.

<comment><USER10> What leads you to expect that?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> And so it appears that the inevitable has 'finally happened'.

Mark Zuckerberg's website is now a place not to be trusted as a source of news, finding friends and meeting others if there's a possibility of AI generated profiles being proliferated on the website.

I've heard that meeting real humans outdoors makes it less likely to be deceived. Their authenticity is vouched via word of mouth and experience by other humans, rather than robots on the internet.

<comment><USER12> Require manual profile validation for new Facebook accounts?

Probably would get downvoted if I said SSN + a credit check.

Phone number required + needs to be validated + can not be reused + can not be Twilio.

Prove your address? Prove your ISP cable bill? I don't know. Everything I guess, people here are going to tell me it's an invasion of privacy and they don't trust Facebook to do it.

But they'll let CreditKarma have every bit of financial information related to them possible.

People will apply for a credit card online (employer, address, social, income)... make a universal login process for that.

Maybe like blue Twitter verified checkmarks next to all profile names. "Verified human"

<comment><USER13> or simply charge a few bucks for account creation.

<comment><USER14> You then run the risk of excluding developing economies. Unless you adjust the payment to be region specific, in which case you'd just get foreign powers (be that corporations or state sponsored) using their wealth to fund hordes of new registrations from said developing economies; thus negating the benefit of a sign up fee.

<comment><USER15> As someone who grew up in a developing economy, I find this view extremely patronizing. Usually, what happens is that a local company fills that demand gap.

Also, I think it is good for all parties concerned, because most developing economies will have a big problem becoming developed economies if their people are under constant surveillance from entities who may benefit from their continuation as developing economies.

Case in point: the US dollar is a horrible currency if looked at in isolation - after all, why the heck should the rest of the world pay American kids lots of money to have a great time at college and then turn around and default on their debt? Student loan forgiveness is almost a certainty over the next few years. But people still flock to the US dollar because it is _far better_ than the other places money could go. There may be a hint of conspiracy theory in this, for sure, but it does not require a wild stretch of imagination to expect that the country where Facebook/WhatsApp/Instagram is headquartered actually has a real incentive to foment violence in other countries and make their own economy and thus currency look better in comparison.

<comment><USER14> > _As someone who grew up in a developing economy, I find this view extremely > patronizing. Usually, what happens is that a local company fills that demand > gap._

...which means if a western subscription services wants to compete with a cheaper local equivalent, they need to charge a comparable local rate. That's not patronising, this literally how all businesses work when having to compete with regional price differences.

As for the rest of your post: it sounds like you have a proverbial axe to grind. I'd be the first to agree that there are some serious issues with some of America's domestic and foreign policies but none of your points are even remotely relevant to the conversation (and some weren't even remotely based on reality)

<comment><USER15> >>...which means if a western subscription services wants to compete with a cheaper local equivalent

Interesting comparison. Let us discuss that a little further.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar- facebo...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook- genocide.html)

So Facebook provided free internet to Myanmar, and it was better than the "cheaper local equivalent" because it was actually free. Soon all the ISPs in Myanmar were out of business. Facebook was now synonymous with the internet in Myanmar, and suddenly it became a lot easier to influence people into doing pogroms. Now clearly a "western subscription service" successfully competed, and unfortunately, the pogrom did not affect the "western subscription service" in any way while millions of real humans became refugees.

Generally, people's answer to this is something like "yeah, it is too bad the people were such idiots to be provoked into such violence" or in some way blaming the naivete of the local population. But imagine if Facebook was actually asked to pay compensation for every affected person, or to stop business operations in Myanmar altogether. See, you can _actually_ do that with a local company because they have some real skin in the game.

To complete my point, I don't actually give a damn if a "western subscription service" can compete for my business unless I have a way to drag Zuckerberg (figuratively speaking of course, a minion of Zuckerberg will do) to my country for trial and then send him to the local prison if found guilty of some local law. Think of it as "terms of providing service".

>>it sounds like you have a proverbial axe to grind

Indeed I do. It is called "stop patronizing the people of my country".

>>none of your points are even remotely relevant to the conversation

If you feel so, that's OK, although I would obviously like to see a more specific refutation.

<comment><USER14> Facebook is an edge case because that's a problem in every country and frankly that whole "free internet" mission was clearly a bullshit move from the outset (even people in the west weren't the slightest bit convinced by Zuckerburgs motives). However that still doesn't prove your claim that every western company exists in developing counties specifically to further your economic strife (which is the accusation you're levelling against the west).

If you want to argue that American corporate culture is a toxic breed of short-sighted greed or that developing economies are better served with local businesses then at least try to do so without all the conspiracy theories and personal attacks. It's not exactly a hard topic to argue rationally after all.

> _Indeed I do. It is called "stop patronizing the people of my country"._

It's not "patronising" to say that companies need to offer regional rates to compete in regional economies.

You might argue that its unfair to put local companies out of business or that western corporations deserve no claim in developing nations; but that's categorically not what "patronising" means (and also a very different point to the one I was making).

Don't just take my word for it though, look the word up in any of the numerous online dictionaries :)

>> _none of your points are even remotely relevant to the conversation._

> _If you feel so, that 's OK, although I would obviously like to see a more > specific refutation._

I wasn't trying to refute your claims (mainly because most of them were far fetched - even by your own admission). I was saying they're a complete tangent to the topic of conversation.

Look, if you want to bleat on about the evils of western influence on developing economies then fine. But at least acknowledge it's a largely unrelated rant to the conversation that precedes it.....and also don't make accusations about other HN posters when you don't understand the terms you're accusing them of.

<comment><USER15> >>Don't just take my word for it though, look the word up in any of the numerous online dictionaries :)

>>You then run the risk of excluding developing economies

"Patronizing: apparently kind or helpful but betraying a feeling of superiority; condescending"

I see. So, let us back up a little to your first statement. Why is the risk of excluding developing economies a problem (for the developing economy), again? I will be very happy to take back my assumption about what you implied there, provided you can give me an explanation for why it is a "risk" and who actually bears the risk.

>>Facebook is an edge case because that's a problem in every country

It is not an edge case if it leads to making assumptions which are clearly bad for our future. Because Facebook isn't getting any real punishment, people are only going to say "Nothing happened to Facebook. Why should the other companies worry about lying to governments/ lying to customers/ privacy issues/ data collection / retargeting / lookalike audience" etc.

>>However that still doesn't prove your claim that every western company exists in developing counties specifically to further your economic strife (which is the accusation you're levelling against the west)

I am not sure why you feel that way. Specifically, what I am saying is that I don't like people starting off with statements such as "you then run the risk of excluding developing economies" as if that is automatically a bad thing for the developing economies.

<comment><USER14> > _I see. So, let us back up a little to your first statement. Why is the risk > of excluding developing economies a problem (for the developing economy), > again?_

This is the question you should have opened with :)

I never said it was a problem for the developing country. I was talking purely about the economics of Facebook. If _they_ (Facebook) want to expend their demographic then they would need be affordable in each economic environment. Whether _you_ (the respective county) want them there or not is another matter entirely.

Frankly I'd be happier if Facebook failed in my own country rather than expanded their global presence into yours as well; but that wasn't the topic being discussed at that time.

> _It is not an edge case if it leads to making assumptions which are clearly > bad for our future._

Technically it still would be when using the correct definition of edge case ;)

> _Because Facebook isn 't getting any real punishment, people are only going > to say "Nothing happened to Facebook. Why should the other companies worry > about lying to governments/ lying to customers/ privacy issues/ data > collection / retargeting / lookalike audience" etc._

I agree that's a problem but, once again, you're arguing a completely different topic.

> _I am not sure why you feel that way._

Frankly put: because I'm not biased. You feel like you've had an injustice so you're lashing out at everyone. I totally get that. I've been really privileged to grow up in the U.K. but I've also spent a lot of time in developing countries so I've seen both sides of the argument.

> _Specifically, what I am saying is that I don 't like people starting off > with statements such as "you then run the risk of excluding developing > economies" as if that is automatically a bad thing for the developing > economies._

That literally wasn't what was said though. The context was never about what was good or bad for those counties; economically, socially, not by any other metric. The context of my original post and the entire chain of conversation that preceded it was a theoretic one about how Facebook might counter abuse on its platform. The context was always about Facebook specifically. This is why I have repeatedly said you've gone waaaaaay off topic.

If you want to change the conversation to the evils of western corporations then please bare in mind that HN is ostensibly a tech and business forum so people will often talk about things from the perspective of tech giants even if they don't actually support the operations of those corporations. Thus it would benefit everyone if you didn't jump to conclusions, making personal accusations about the opinions of HN posters on entirely different subject matters just because they happen to make an impartial point on a company you have a personal vendetta against.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The cynic in me thinks Facebook let this slide to hide the anemic "growth" of their userbase and activity. Bot accounts will still click on ads, like pages, and fake interactions that generate revenue for Facebook.

<comment><USER17> Aka the usual problem these social media services have; bad behaviour from bots and users likely looks great on the stats spreadsheet, even if it's at the expense of the quality of the site/community.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Why take them down? That's someone's free speech right? This is what we're told about false information and political ads with outright lies in them, aren't we? Why would this be any different?

Rather predictable that the "line" for taking something down suddenly appears when you're lying to Facebook. Lie to other users and it's fine... as long as you are a real commodity, ahem, I mean "person."

Cease to lie in a way that allows Facebook to make money (not much point serving ads to bots, is there?), and all of the sudden you're taken down. Funny that.

<comment><USER19> Facebook is a private enterprise. Free speech doesn't apply. Compliance with government/social pressure is what applies (for better or worse).

That's the thing that so many people don't get.. Facebook is not a public space. You have no inherent rights there, and they can do whatever they want with your acccount/content/etc (or at least whatever their TOS says)..

<comment><USER20> No. The _First Amendment_ doesn't apply. The concept of free speech can be applied anywhere.

<comment><USER19> That's extremely pedantic and doesn't really add to the discussion.

My point was that these private companies police their content based on the impact it has on their bottom line and any laws they have to respect, and that's it.

They don't do it to protect any kind of speech, groups or individuals, and no one has any _rights_ (related to speech - yes AODA and other such legal rights apply), in the civic sense, when using Facebook or other social media platforms.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> "Discovers"

People have been talking about this group for months and Facebook hemmed and hawed and delayed and delayed

<comment><USER13> it's actually hard to overstate how significant the effort of the epoch times is. they gathered _billions_ of views on facebook, more than any other news organisation.

 _" In April, at the height of its ad spending, videos from the Epoch Media Group, which includes The Epoch Times and digital video outlet New Tang Dynasty, or NTD, combined for around 3 billion views on Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, ranking 11th among all video creators across platforms and outranking every other traditional news publisher, according to data from the social media analytics company Tubular."_

[https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trump-qanon- impending...](https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trump-qanon-impending- judgment-day-behind-facebook-fueled-rise-epoch-n1044121)

<comment><USER22> but were those views REAL?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> [http://archive.md/abR53](http://archive.md/abR53)

</comment><comment><USER24> FYI, I actually just published a guide on how you can help ensure that ("deepfake") tools that you make are less likely to end up misused like this: [https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614912/ethical- deepfake-t](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614912/ethical-deepfake-t) ...

(Also at /newest; 3rd page now, and the other submission. Ideally those topics at least would be merged?)

Summary of mitigations:

# Limiting users or use cases

\- _User Vetting_ : Carefully vet those who can use a tool (Example: Synthesia only working with vetted enterprise clients.)

\- _Usage Constraints_ : Limit the synthesis possibilities. (Example: Humen is providing only a limited set of movements for generated videos.)

# Discouraging malicious use of flexible and public tools

\- _Clear disclosure_ : Ensuring and requiring that manipulated outputs are clearly labeled (including via metadata).

\- _Consent protection_ : Requiring the consent of those being impersonated.

\- _Detection friendliness_ : Supporting those working on detection and not seeking to fool detection systems.

\- _Hidden watermarks_ : Embedding data through robust watermarks.

\- _Usage logs_ : Storing information about usage and media outputs.

\- _Use restrictions_ : Enforcing contracts that prohibit forms of violative or malicious use.

Not all apply to every system of course. The article has more detail!

<comment><USER25> Good article, but for the sake of argument: Don't you think any technical "solutions" to this issue will also eliminate the possibility to use these tools for ethical goals (let's say the roles were reversed or whatever) – in addition to all the other gray-area, and inevitable arms-race of detection/avoidance?

<comment><USER24> Definitely.

I mean I think e.g. you could have incredible art projects and experiences created out e.g. of giant undetectable fake crowds. There are real tradeoffs in terms of what we value or need in a society.

<comment><USER26> I think technical limitations like this are the worst possible solution. The genie can't be put back in the bottle with any particular technology, and the lack of widespread access and awareness means the damage from any particular deepfake that _does_ get released can be that much higher. There is zero chance this tech won't be in the hands of every government-sponsored group on the planet, not to mention all the other independent bad guys out there online.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I just leave this here [https://www.thispersondoesnotexist.com/](https://www.thispersondoesnotexist.com/) Probably the source of these images.

<comment><USER28> This other article linked here, discusses it:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21847583](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21847583)

Interesting that the eyes on every TPDNE image have a specific position that could (for now) be used to detect them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I have said for a while now that the future is their AI vs our AI and nobody can turn the AI off because then we'd lose.

</comment><comment><USER30> For many use cases it would be great to have a real/verified oauth service. Dutch government does something like that with digid. Imagine how much fraud could be prevented if there was something like that in the US.

<comment><USER31> Estonia's long been ahead of the game here.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_identity_card#Cryptog...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_identity_card#Cryptographic_use)

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Why doesn't Facebook have an identity verification process? They literally allow anyone to sign up as any person. There is a show on MTV called Catfish that is dedicated to people who create fake profiles to trick people into relationships.

<comment><USER33> Because they're incentivized to show continuously growing subscriber numbers?

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Recently I played around with the newest iPhone filters. The pictures had weird shadows and distorted backgrounds.

Are distorted backgrounds really an indicator for fake profiles? Smartphones do all kind of weird stuff to "real" images.

<comment><USER35> GANs tend to leave a very distinctive kind of artifact which is hard to describe but I think anyone who goes through a lot of GAN imagery knows what I am talking about. It's a particular kind of distortion which is a liquidy psychedelic weirdness, that you don't really see in other media fakery.

If you are interested, media forensics is an entire field about this sort of thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This gives me flights of fancy. Imagine (something like) FB (re-)built as a fake AI-generated company (with fake AI-generated users). It would feel like a circle being closed, something reaching its ultimate consequence.

</comment><comment><USER36> People are faking their profile pictures for sometime using filters or AI cameras, bamby eyes. Already a digital ego fairytale now deepfakers would open new positions as 'ghost busters'

</comment><comment><USER37> You better believe black hat SEOs are using AI for spam like this.

</comment><comment><USER38> > Facebook Discovers Fake AI-Generated Profiles

I think the profiles are human generated. I see no evidence otherwise.

If they have a GAN why did they repeat the photo?

I'd think they got the photo from some open GAN project.

[edit] Researchers actual say they might be from thispersondoesnotexist.com [3.14] But I guess that spoils a good HN story.

[3.14] [https://graphika.com/uploads/Graphika%20Report%20-%20Operati...](https://graphika.com/uploads/Graphika%20Report%20-%20OperationFFS_Fake_Face_Storm.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER39> It makes me reconsider the early RealID efforts in social media. Perhaps perhaps.

</comment><comment><USER40> Seriously is it what nytimes is now?

[https://gfycat.com/maturefarflunghagfish](https://gfycat.com/maturefarflunghagfish)

</comment><comment><USER41> Cool. Now it needs to work on algorithms which detect whether a journalist is working for the CIA.

That'd be progress.

</comment><comment><USER42> Ironic, since Facebook itself uses a sort of AI to create fake shadow profiles.

<comment><USER43> Source?

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> "Discovers"

</comment><comment><USER45> Keep calm. It is false positive. It was only Facebook customer service bots

</comment><comment><USER46> "Discovers", yeah sure.

</comment><comment><USER47> I look forward to this block of fake accounts registering to vote and voting by mail. Will any accounts go rogue and defy their creators? How does a candidate appeal to this influential group?

</comment><comment><USER48> There's been fake generated profiles on Facebook for over a decade. I know this because I had some, I was targeted by some, and I had "security friends" who generated some. Over the years I've seen several campaigns of groups of fake profiles trying to collect access (by "friending into" friend circles).

At university my security club had a member who gave a presentation on algorithms for detecting and generating fake profile posts for Facebook, through which he created sock puppets and also found a ton of others belonging to "who knows which group". That was around 10 years ago.

</comment><comment><USER49> A fascinating thought on this for me is the basic American belief that "bigger is better". What I mean here is that the companies generating these fake ids will generate lots of the fake ids, under the belief that the more they have the more influence they have. At some point, the fake ids will reach a tipping point and outnumber the real ids thus making Facebook itself irrelevant. Sort of a "DOS" using fake ids, in this case a denial of relevance. There are some interesting paths that this could take, but I don't see any incentive in Facebook really doing much about this because their power actually lies in also "Bigger is better". So, generation of fake ids could be a blessing by overloading Facebook and making it irrelevant.

</comment><comment><USER50> The most fascinating thing to watch is the democratization of propaganda. Now you no longer need the printing press. You can speak with a million voices without being a Getty or Rockefeller.

The NYT no longer has a monopoly on convincing lies.

These are interesting times. I think we're close to the emergence of trustworthy celebrity journalists.

<comment><USER51> Scuttlebutt is Randolph Hearst bragged about getting the US into the Spanish American War.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> This is just using GANs to generate fake profiles. It does scale better than making up fake people by hand, but to what end? I'm not sure if there's a direct relationship between the ease of creating fake accounts and their cultural influence. And it seems like facebook doesn't have trouble detecting them.

Convince me that this isn't just "add AI to the headline" clickbait</comment>


The Next Big Deal - <AUTHOR> https://mastermind.atavist.com/the-next-big-deal <comment><USER2> Dear Moderators, Can we add a subtitle here? I think folks want to know that this is the last installment of the series about the encryption programmer Paul Le Roux. I suggest: The Next Big Deal: The encryption programmer Paul Le Roux and his revelation about Iranian weapons

<comment><USER3> The Mastermind Part Seven: The Next Big Deal

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Fantastic stuff! I cannot wait to read this. This has single handily become my Thursday obsession for the last few weeks.

<comment><USER5> Mine too!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I love everything about this publication.</comment>


Earth-observing companies push for more-advanced science satellites - <AUTHOR> http://www.nature.com/news/earth-observing-companies-push-for-more-advanced-science-satellites-1.22034 <comment><AUTHOR> Congratulations to Juan Vuletich!

[http://cuis-smalltalk.org/pipermail/cuis-dev_cuis-smalltalk....](http://cuis- smalltalk.org/pipermail/cuis-dev_cuis-smalltalk.org/2017-May/001319.html)

Hi Folks,

Satellogic was featured today at Nature News! [http://www.nature.com/news/earth-observing-companies-push- fo...](http://www.nature.com/news/earth-observing-companies-push-for-more- advanced-science-satellites-1.22034)

I helped design and build the hyperspectral cameras in our satellites Fresco and Batata. And I wrote the geometric and spectral processing software for that image. This is not completely off topic, though: The geometric software (image rectification and correction), the most complex part of the processing, was written by me in Cuis Smalltalk, and runs in a Cuis Smalltalk + OpenCL application.

Please share my joy today!

\-- Juan Vuletich www.cuis-smalltalk.org [https://github.com/Cuis- Smalltalk/Cuis-Smalltalk-Dev](https://github.com/Cuis-Smalltalk/Cuis- Smalltalk-Dev) @JuanVuletich</comment>


Algorithm for sorting of comments on hacker news - <AUTHOR>

How does the algorithm for sorting the comments in a given thread on hacker news work? I get the feeling that new comments that come in late don't stand much of a chance to stay at the top relative to old comments that got voted up. Doesn't it need to be weighted based on how high it got rated up relative to the time it was posted and how many other ratings took place during the time it was up? <comment><USER2> From the FAQ at <http://ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html>

        How are stories ranked?

        On the front page, by points divided by a power
        of the time since they were submitted. Comments
        in comment threads are ranked the same way.

There are many tweaks that have been suggested, and some have been tried. It's certainly true that bad timing can lead to submissions and comments sinking without trace, but in general the feeling is that the existing system works well enough and with few surprises.

</comment><comment><USER3> I prefer a simple "add new comments to the end of the page" system - if the comments are worth reading in the first place, then I like to check new comments off and on for a while, and these changeable order systems makes it hard and time-wasting to check up. (I do like nesting, because it helps understanding of comments more than it costs in updating).</comment>


Edward Snowden Explains How to Reclaim Privacy - <AUTHOR> https://theintercept.com/2015/11/12/edward-snowden-explains-how-to-reclaim-your-privacy/ <comment><USER2> "Edward Snowden Explains How to Fix the Internet"

Much love for Snowden. He is a personal hero of mine. I think he should be a personal hero of yours. I think we should have statues of the guy.

Just as Snowden didn't want the story to be about him, to be a personality piece, when he released the trove of information which shook the privacy world to its core, I think he'd agree that any response to this new information should not be focused on or directed toward what he personally endorses by virtue of him as a 'personality'.

Unfortunately, the conversation has largely focused on the technical/technology dimension, while the policy and political dimensions have not seen the same engagement by their respective members. In fact, Snowden has been used by political parties as a proxy piece in disagreements regarding East-West relations. And if technology is the answer, then the general public, almost by definition, does not have a place in the discussion.

<comment><USER3> > I think we should have statues of the guy.

We sort of had at least one, but then the New York Parks Department covered it up, and later removed it altogether.

There's a certain irony in the picture of it happening, wherein the state worker steps on the eagle statue to put a muzzle over the Snowden statue.

[http://brokelyn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ed-snowden- st...](http://brokelyn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ed-snowden-statue.jpg)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Wholeheartedly agree with this section:

" _Lee: Do you think people should use adblock software?

Snowden: Yes.

Everybody should be running adblock software, if only from a safety perspective … We've seen internet providers like Comcast, AT&T, or whoever it is, insert their own ads into your plaintext http connections. … As long as service providers are serving ads with active content that require the use of Javascript to display, that have some kind of active content like Flash embedded in it, anything that can be a vector for attack in your web browser — you should be actively trying to block these. Because if the service provider is not working to protect the sanctity of the relationship between reader and publisher, you have not just a right but a duty to take every effort to protect yourself in response._"

Not even just ads being injected by ISPs, but even ads as they're being used by the website owners themselves (in general) are a vector for malware, as has been shown time and time again¹.

――――――

¹ — [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10517932](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10517932)

</comment><comment><USER5> What I don't get about Tor is that if your adversary can see all Internet packets, all the time, wouldn't it be trivial for them to find the real source and destination of a Tor packet using it's meta-data (size,timestamp,etc...)? For example, a packet of size X was sent from host 1 to host 2 and immediately after, a similarly sized packet was sent from host 2 to host 3, etc... I think of Tor more like a tool to avoid a specific server from finding who you are, and not the government.

<comment><USER6> There is always a trade-off between usability / efficiency and security, and this trade-off has to take into account the attacker model.

Tor is a low-latency network by design, so right from the start it gives up some security to be more usable instead. That probably still works against many attackers, including some state agencies, although not the most powerful.

We should also keep the bigger picture in mind. Sure, if the NSA really wants to know everything about you, it's going to keep a record of your outgoing packets, and match it with packets from exit nodes to have all your metadata. But how much is it going to cost? How does it scale? I think we can assume that if everyone were to use Tor, mass surveillance would be at least far more costly. Each new user adds noise in the correlation measures.

I can also argue that if you use Tor from your home or any location that is associated to you in any way, you're not really trying to avoid target surveillance by your government.

<comment><USER7> It's everyone's civic duty to contribute to the noise and to increase the expense to all state actors.

<comment><USER8> Is it also our civic duty to pay the taxes to these state actors? Asking because this tactic seems a bit like striking at the branches, rather than the root.

<comment><USER9> > rather than the root

So run for office. I would certainly vote for someone who was against this crap.

> It's everyone's civic duty to contribute to the noise

That's a tactic. While it may be useful, a _strategy_ that works to gain political influence is better in the long-run.

<comment><USER8> > So run for office.

No thanks. In my experience, participation inside the political machinery is a waste of time, about as useful as joining the KKK to influence its members to stop lynchings. I think non-violent direct action is a more effective strategy.

<comment><USER9> I agree that direct action is almost certainly necessary (and likely to be more effective). That's no reason not to pursue all options; working within the system is can be done in parallel.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Summary of key discussions:

</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>==

If you're just an average user concerned about your privacy

1) Use Tor when browsing.You don't have to use Tor all the time (it does slow things down considerably and some sites will also block Tor traffic). But if you are looking at or for something that you feel is sensitive, then either set up your browser to work with Tor or use the Tor browser.

2) Use an ad-blocker. Says Snowden: "As long as service providers are serving ads with active content that require the use of Javascript to display, that have some kind of active content like Flash embedded in it, anything that can be a vector for attack in your web browser – you should be actively trying to block these."

3) Use a password manager. It doesn't matter how many surveys and reports come out that tell people to use different passwords and complex passwords, a huge percentage of us maintain borderline idiotic approaches. The simple answer is: get a password manager. It will protect you.

4) Use two-factor authentication. Many services such as Gmail, Twitter, Dropbox, Hotmail, and Facebook offer this now for no charge. So even if your password does get exposed, you still have a backup such as a text message to your phone to secure your information.

5) Use apps that protect your information. Snowden suggests the smartphone app Signal, which encrypts both your phone calls and texts. It's free and easy to use. Although of course, following a high-profile argument with the FBI, it would appear that Apple's messaging service is also pretty secure (although Snowden would probably have doubts).

6) Use the HTTPS Everywhere browser plug-in. This comes from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and will try to force all browser communication to be encrypted.

7) Encrypt your hard drive. This is comparatively easy these days but you have to be careful to do two things: one, have a longish phrase to make it worthwhile; and two, make damn sure you remember that phrase. There will be a slowdown in performance but nothing too bad if you have a modern machine.

8) Be smart with your security questions. Stop using your mother's maiden name for everything. Likewise your first school. The key is to mix things up as much as possible so if someone does get into one of your accounts, they can't use the same information to get in everywhere else.</comment>


Alexander von Humboldt - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_von_Humboldt <comment><AUTHOR> Today marks 250 years since the birth of Alexander von Humboldt.

From my understanding Europe is known for celebrating this day along with other cities/groups in the environmental space.</comment>


Data storage on DNA can keep it safe for centuries - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/science/data-storage-on-dna-can-keep-it-safe-for-centuries.html <comment><USER2> Does this work because there is massive redundancy in the DNA soup? So if some strands of part of strands are contaminated, there are 100s or 1000s (millions?) of cloned DNA molecules floating around?

Or is a single DNA molecule capable of long term data data storage and retrieval? I realize of course that scientists pull DNA from long dead things all the time, but for example there is of course hundreds of trillions of cells in a large mammal with copies of the DNA.

<comment><USER3> [https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/32029178/Science-2012-Ch...](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/32029178/Science-2012-Church-1628.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's painful to read the NYT write about something you know about:

 _It would also address a glaring Achilles' heel at the heart of microelectronic data storage systems: Magnetic disks, tape and even optical storage systems safely store information at most for only a handful of decades._

It's really not a glaring Achilles heel. This is a solved (for the most part) problem - see [http://www.mdisc.com/](http://www.mdisc.com/) for a product which can archive your data a reasonable cost for centuries, and _much_ more conveniently than trying to store/recall from DNA.

Here are some of the endurance tests they put the mdic through - [http://www.esystor.com/images/China_Lake_Full_Report.pdf](http://www.esystor.com/images/China_Lake_Full_Report.pdf). I would be interested in seeing how DNA storage stood up to that sort of testing.

The ability to store data in DNA is cool, and it's neat that the teams are making progress - but it's important to put the progress into context right now.

<comment><USER5> Data integrity is not inherent to optical media, but it apparently is with DNA. While special archival grade writable DVDs and BluRays exist, people are cheap, and for the most part will not pay $2+ per disc.

> a product which can archive your data a reasonable cost for centuries, and > much more conveniently than trying to store/recall from DNA.

If you're going to store media that long, you will also need the equipment to read data off it in _n_ years/decades/centuries. DNA has been around for a very long time compared to optical media. The need to read DNA will last much longer than optical media. In that time, optical drives are likely to become obsolete and scarce (see the last 5 years), and DNA readers might be extremely cheap by comparison.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Why DNA out of interest, could one imagine any other polymer being chosen for the purpose? Is the reason:

\- Stability?

\- The dynamics and specificity of ligation between complementary sequences?

\- Alphabet size -- is 4 a good choice?

\- Enzymes exist that can carry out a lot of the necessary operations?

\- Humans have developed a lot of expertise in manipulating DNA?

<comment><USER7> All of the above! Dna is very stable (compared to, say, many proteins).. it is essentially the cell's harddrive, while mRNA is more like the memory. DNA is able to express complex information through sequences of a small number of states, is replicated and maintained through a highly conserved set of molecular machinery throughout life, and the human experience in manipulating it is approaching that of pushing electrons across silicon boards. The similarities are quite startling!

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I wonder what the failsafe mechanisms are in regard to infection of the storage medium with fungi/bacteria that might alter the stored information. In my humble opinion that might a problem that should be considered when it comes the actual application of the concept.

<comment><USER7> Well, the danger of contamination would be in any host vectors used to clone the DNA. Its conceivable that a virus could infect the host vector and introduce its own chromosome into the host chromosome, but this probably wouldn't be a major problem. Any interuption in the encoded data should be easily detectable, highly unlikely in the first place, and there would be many copies of the dna. But the actual storage would be dna outside of a cellular context, in which case ot wouldn't be 'active'. The only dangers in that state would be water, heat, etc.</comment></comment>


Why everyone hates Go - <AUTHOR> http://npf.io/2014/10/why-everyone-hates-go/

<comment><USER2> Ah, yet another "I hate Go and everyone else should too" post.

<comment><USER3> It seems you didn't read the post..

<comment><USER2> Whoops, looks like I did misread that! My bad, it was late.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I don't know what the purpose of such a post is. Well, I have a suspicion, which that it's just an attempt at discrediting these people by dismissing their stance as being born from whatever emotions that are considered petty. No, it isn't framed as a _rebuttal_ of whatever stance they have, so it can't really be judged on that merit. It's just a statement, not something that is masqueraded as an argument. But the tactic feels dishonest, in the same way that blurting out "I think you have a father issues" in the middle of a debate seems dishonest. No, the statement is not an argument, so it can't be said to be a ad hominem in the informal fallacy sense. But it is clearly a tactic that is used to discredit the other party.

In a similar way to the father issues-comment, the motivation for finding out whatever emotional distress these people are suffering from is not motivated properly. Instead, the article comes off as just wanting to shift the focus from whatever Go does or does not have, to what is _wrong_ with the people that say that Go is _" wrong"_. Again, without any seeming sign or evidence that that might be a salient point, other than that the opinion is popular in some circles. I mean, maybe there would perhaps be some obviously bad, and emotionally motivated arguments that would make someone believe that these people were under some duress (more than argumentative people in general on the Internet, anyway). But all I seem to see are technical points - like what Go does or does not have - and one elitist argument about blue collar workers, which can just be attributed to elitism and not any particular emotional state.

Lastly, _you 're_ Eureka moment seem to be more about putting two ideas together, than to intelligently apply it to some actual case. Sure, the overall profile might very well match these "haters". But there is no compelling argument for why _this_ particular emotion and sentiment would fit _these_ people, since any evidence or anectdote about any such specific sentiment seems absent. I can perfectly well imagine, say, a handful other psychological profiles that could be made about this crowd, which would seem equally plausible.

So, I don't see how this is anything other than an attempt to stirr shit. Too bad that it didn't seem to succeed, though (around these parts), as language wars can be quite popcorn-worthy at times.</comment>


Ask HN: If GDPR compliance was optional, how much would you pay for it? - <AUTHOR> How much value do end users place on GDPR, or in as much as GDPR provides it, strong privacy controls?
The major parts[1]: consent, data access, rectification of errors, records of data processing, transfers to other processors, erasure.
So, imagine that "GDPR Compliance" was an optional line item that each consumer could decide whether to purchase. What's a service that you're currently paying for (out of your own pocket, not for a business), and how much extra would you pay for a GDPR compliant version of that service?
Another way to think of it, for those using Gmail for personal email: inexpensive email services exist that are already far more privacy-conscious, like FastMail at $30-$50/year. How little would privacy need to cost in order to make it a good value for you?
There's no right answers here, only a hint whether GDPR (or even "privacy" - GDPR is as close to a definition as exists) provides more value to end users than the cost to comply with/deliver it.
[1]: Full text: https://gdpr-info.eu/ <comment><USER2> > If GDPR compliance was optional, how much would you pay for it?

Another way to think about it: if non-toxic food was optional, how much would you pay for it? And how much would you pay for an access to a judical system?

It's not something that you want to have as an _option_.

<comment><USER3> Food and justice are not optional. Using Facebook is optional.

<comment><USER2> Using _services in general_ is de facto mandatory in our society. It's like saying that you don't need a bank account. In theory it could fly, but you'd be excluded from so many things that it's practically impossible.

It's even less optional if you are required to use this or that service by your employer (e.g. company-wide Gmail).

Going back to the analogy, you don't need to eat in this particular place, but how do you know any one you'd choose does not poison their food? By empty promises alone?</comment></comment></comment>