Teenagers Hate Facebook, but They're Not Logging Off - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/05/22/teenagers_hate_facebook_a_pew_study_says_that_94_percent_of_teens_use_facebook.html <comment><USER2> Teen here.

I'm firmly in the "hate it but can't stop using it" camp. I've tried G+, and for a brief period a few of my friends tried it as well, but we switched back when it failed to reach critical mass. That's all Facebook has going for it, really, is the people using it; I'm sure most of us would switch to a better network if given the chance, but we won't do it unless a significant majority of our friends come along with us.

I don't like Facebook's approach to privacy, I absolutely hate how many permissions the Facebook app requires on my Android phone, but if I cut myself off of Facebook I'm losing out on a huge, huge percentage of social interaction with people who I know but am not particularly close to (which for most people is at least 80% of their friends list). Plus all the history I've amassed on Facebook since grade 7.

For better or worse, teens are stuck on Facebook for the time being, and unlike the move from MySpace, I don't see switching off of it happening any time soon. Sure, there's Twitter, Instagram, etc. which are also heavily used by my age group, but only as secondary networks - Facebook remains the definition of online social interaction.

EDIT: A few more thoughts:

An important part of it mentioned elsewhere in the thread is the fact that Facebook basically acts as a glorified address book/communications hub - if I want Chris to come to my party or add him to a group conversation about something or share a picture with him, all I need is his name. Not an email, not a phone number, just a name. It's pretty incredible if you think about it. Nothing else comes close.

<comment><USER3> > if I cut myself off of Facebook I'm losing out on a huge, huge percentage of > social interaction

Is it possible to have a Facebook account but just use it as a back-end? For instance, don't use the website or the app. But use Cue to pull events out onto your calendar, and Verbs to get Facebook chat, and so on?

<https://www.cueup.com/>

<http://verbs.im/>

Is there a way to use a constellation of apps that access Facebook info so that you effectively don't have to be on Facebook itself?

<comment><USER4> There was a time (maybe it's still possible) when Facebook Chat used XMPP, which means you could use a client like bitlbee or pdigin to connect.

<comment><USER5> It was never very stable.

<comment><USER6> Define stable. Do you mean it crashes? or that it drops out once in a while? Because I use Facebook over XMPP and I've never actually experienced any problems.

<comment><USER5> It dropped a lot when I tried using it, and the "in browser and Adium and a Pidgin" combination was super unstable -- caused it to crash a lot more. It may have improved, but I couldn't get it to stay connected more than 15 minutes. This was about 2 years ago maybe?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If anyone can leave Facebook it's teens. Their social networks aren't developed/mature enough where they have to depend on other people's social network preferences. Most teens could literally leave on a whim and bring most of their friend with them. I still remember how quick the exodus from ICQ to MSN was (and nobody hated ICQ.. it just kinda happened).

Also when a teen tells you that they hate something because there's too much drama.. it means they fuckin' love it. They CAN leave but they don't want to because Facebook is so effective at stoking their out-of-control hormones. With Instagram in the fold this is especially true. As for why everyone else is on Facebook? Well it's because everyone else is on Facebook. And how else are you going to see pictures from your out-of-the-country relatives or creep on your high-school crush. I think Facebook has reached enough critical mass to not have to worry about becoming irrelevant for quite some time. For the record I don't use Facebook much myself, other than to keep a reminder of when everyone's birthday is.

<comment> k-mcgrady >> "If anyone can leave Facebook it's teens. Their social networks aren't developed/mature enough where they have to depend on other people's social network preferences. Most teens could literally leave on a whim and bring most of their friend with them. I still remember how quick the exodus from ICQ to MSN was (and nobody hated ICQ.. it just kinda happened)."

I think it's completely the opposite. It's not bringing your friends to a new network that's the hard part - it's bringing your data (mainly photos). Getting thousands of photos out of Facebook that are nicely tagged and commented on and into another network is impossible. Getting the photos out is possible but it's a lot of work. Switching IM networks is much easier than switching social networks which have so much data we value stored in them.

Another problem is that teenagers are constantly meeting new people. The default is not to ask for a phone number but for an add on Facebook. If you aren't on it you aren't going to be able to keep in touch with and develop a friendship with this new person you've just met.

<comment><USER8> What's that saying? "It's not you that owns your possessions, it's your possessions that owns you"

s/possessions/data/

<comment> k-mcgrady Photos have too much sentimental value attached to them to think of them as just another 'possession'. They will provide value to you in 10 years, 25 years, and 50 years and can't be easily replaced.

<comment><USER7> I don't want to stereotype teens since I'm sure there are a lot of mature, insightful teenagers, but do you think most teens place a lot of importance on their data? Do they want to keep and treasure all their selfies and random party pics well into their college years?

16-21 is like a personality black hole for most people. It's a time when you're super self-absorbed and you're living from moment to moment, literally changing every day. If I'm totally alone here then please ignore me, but once in a while I will run into a random picture of me when I was 17 or something and I can't help but think "who the fuck is this person".. and immediately want to bury that particular picture. Pictures with family are a different story, those I treasure immensely. But they are so few and far between, and certainly would not have been considered Facebook-worthy in my teens.

<comment> k-mcgrady As a 22 year old I grew up with social networks, and it was also the time when digital cameras where first becoming more prevalent, so there are photos I have of me online stretching back to when I was 14. Every now and then I enjoy looking back on those photos. It's not like my profile is filled with photos of me. It's photos of me with other people. Friends I don't know anymore, ex- girlfriends, and people I still keep in touch with. The great thing about Facebook is that I took probably less than 5% of these photos. Most were taken by friends and I was tagged in them. I think that's the most valuable thing about Facebook for me. I always feel awkward taking photos (like I'm disturbing people or annoying them). The fact that other people I'm with can take the photos and tag me in them and share the album is invaluable. Sure there are always photos that make you cringe but I don't think age has anything to do with it. I'm sure that when I'm 40 and look back at pictures of me in my late 20s/early 30s there will be pictures that make me cringe too.

<comment><USER7> Maybe it's a generational thing then; digitally native millennials vs. gen-y or something. Either way, a decade makes a big difference in how you use the technology around you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I guess facebook has truly become a utility: It's a semi-monopolist users hate, but they find it too hard to cut the cord. Sounds like AT&T, Comcast etc.

<comment><USER10> As a teen who did cut the cord (edit: of Facebook) out of annoyance of rampant reposting and other irritating stuff, I've been fine. I don't want to say I'm popular because I'm not, but if you have a standing within your friend circle you might be able to get them to use _your_ thing. For me, that was my IRC channel.

<comment><USER11> Ok, I'm an adult in my later 20s. I have a mixture of friends and business associates on Facebook.

I have friends who post annoying stuff (blocked from feed) and friends who posted really inappropriate comments on my stuff (unfriended.)

Is there some part to teen usage that discourages blocking a friend's feed or unfriending someone?

<comment><USER10> >Is there some part to teen usage that discourages blocking a friend's feed or unfriending someone?

Possibly, but for me I guess that seemed like losing a valuable news source unless it got really bad, which had happened.. Looking back though, deleting was probably too extreme, and I still use Twitter /and/ Instagram.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> In 2007, danah boyd posited that teens don't get stuck to social networks. The theory was that they didn't need to maintain a giant extended network, because they saw their friends every day anyway. Besides they are shifting friend groups constantly, so rebuilding a profile is like spring cleaning.

[http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2007/01/01/ephemer...](http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2007/01/01/ephemeral_profi.html)

She later argues that Facebook became the network of choice among college- bound kids. Maybe that sort of person does want to maintain an extended network (dkulchenko's example is about internships, for instance).

So was is it true that teens are more able to switch, or not? Was it always wrong? Has it changed as Facebook ate the entire social networking universe? I would appreciate it if younger HN'ers weighed in.

</comment><comment><USER13> "Facebook is the living dead: the most popular, least relevant social network where teenagers and adults alike gather out of fear of missing out on things that don't even make them happy."

Best description of Facebook I've ever read.

<comment><USER14> I agree.

I have looked back only once since quitting Facebook three years ago. That was yesterday, when I met with old-time friends who suggested I should keep a page in order to get in more frequent contact with them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I wonder if there's a market for several smaller "social" networks centered around a single focus?

I was in college when facebook was expanding through universities. It was great, and the experience and content on facebook mirrored college life.

When it expanded beyond college and added the news feed, I found myself using it less. College-me was not the person I was for my grandma. I didn't care about the political views of my parents' friend who I hadn't seen in 10 years.

And it wasn't just me - Every now and then I log in to facebook to see what old classmates have been up to, and a lot of them have become inactive like myself.

The article mentions teens liking instagram more - its has a purpose centered around photos, and that it.

Writing this, I kind of miss old facebook and its limited uses.

<comment> k-mcgrady I hate to be the one to say it but it sounds like you stopped using Facebook because of the people you added. If you want to keep it for college-you don't add your Grandma or parents. I've managed to keep my friends list quite small by not adding people I meet once and never again, and by only adding a few close family members (and then using the privacy controls when sharing to only explicitly share to them when I need to). I've ignored lots of requests for family members and strangers/acquaintances and the quality of my news feed is still as good as it ever was.

Single focus social networks like Instagram are great but most people I know that use them just share that stuff out to Facebook anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Ummm... "hate"?! Give me a break. Sensationalist headline.

According to the article, _one_ 15-year-old girl said she "hated" it. Otherwise, the majority complained about adults, negative interactions and oversharing -- none of which really has anything to do with Facebook, but rather the specific friends they've added, or the concept of a social network in general.

<comment><USER17> As one of the teens they're talking about - and one with friends who feel the same - we really don't like Facebook. For some reason, Facebook thinks its being useful by showing me random band fanpages that I never 'liked' in the first place. They're just adding more noise. The game requests were bad enough, but at least you could easily ban those from showing up.

That doesn't even begin to get into the privacy issues and the other irritating shit.

The only thing I really use facebook for is an address book with chat.

<comment><USER18> The plural of anecdote is not data. Just because you and your circle of friends don't like Facebook doesn't mean much. Especially given that Facebook is a worldwide service and attitudes/behaviours of people differ from country to country.

The facts are that Facebook's user count is growing around 20% year on year with extremely high engagement. So people aren't moving.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Mobile page looks down, but article is still up on main page: [http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/05/22/teenagers_ha...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/05/22/teenagers_hate_facebook_a_pew_study_says_that_94_percent_of_teens_use_facebook.html)

<comment><USER20> Thanks for this link. Frustrated that posters think they are clever by linking to a mobile version of a story, to avoid ads or whatever. I couldn't find the non-mobile story on slate.com for some reason.

I'd rather support the magazine and view their silly ads. Plus, the mobile version stretches paragraphs across the width of the entire browser window, which is unreadable using the window size I normally use, and I'd prefer not to have to resize my window to read an article.

<comment><USER21> I'm going to give the poster the benefit of the doubt here. It's extraordinarily difficult to post a non-mobile link from a mobile device. I've had several instances where I've just given up trying to make a decent post on my iPad and just wait until I'm home to make the post.

<comment><USER19> I still struggle to think of the iPad as a "mobile" device. Tablets, like laptops, are too big for the pockets sewn into most clothing, so we need to either carry them everywhere, or stow them inside a bag, and carry that everywhere. Either way, bringing one requires more than just putting the device in a pocket.

<comment><USER21> Sure - I agree with your sentiment. Try telling that to every web developer out there that is _sure_ you want a special experience for your "crippled" machine (based on user agent obviously).

The problem is many, many sites identify the thing you are using as one of 2 devices: a "Desktop Computer" and a "Mobile/Tablet device".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Next headline. . . "Teens hate parents, but Can't Leave". Give me a break.

<comment><USER23> Um, I think the two might coincide.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I'm always a little confused why hacker news seems to love to hate facebook. Pretty weak posts like this appear and everyone in the comments gets to brag about how they don't have a facebook or facebook is on the way out etc.

<comment><USER25> Posts like yours always show up too. It's cyclic insanity on HN. Any Facebook thread devolves into: "I don't use Facebook." and "Why do people on HN hate Facebook?"

Any PHP post devolves into: "I hate PHP." and "Why do HNers hate PHP?"

Any Google post devolves into "I hate Google." and "Why do HNers hate Google?"

Any Apple post..

On and on and on.

<comment><USER26> I feel like someone should actually go through old threads that no one is updating anymore and just analyze frequency and timing.

<comment><USER27> this is true on reddit, and other social sites.

1st day/time X is (+over the top adjectives) good / bad 2nd day/time X is actually bad / good 3rd day/time Why do people argue about whether is actually bad / good 4th date/time meta post about meta post

repeat the following week/month/year/etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Facebook has no real incentive to reach out to this age group. They won't earn much profit off of teens, and teens are younger than their original demographic (college-aged students).

Also, I thought the line about "everyone says Facebook is dying" was quite telling. The stats say otherwise, but people will believe what they want (or what the media tells them).

<comment><USER29> What about in five years, when the same teens are college students?

<comment><USER30> Exactly, of course you should focus on your most profitable demographic when launching a new product. But once you have a sustainable business it's important to think about where your money will be coming from in the future.

I doubt anyone will say that tobacco companies marketing to teenagers is a bad idea because they can't even buy the product yet. It ensures the long term profitability of the company.

<comment><USER31> If it is not a bad idea, then why don't I see them marketing cigarettes to teens and/or lobbing congress (to get X law passed).

<comment><USER32> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_advertising#Targeting_y...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_advertising#Targeting_youth)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_advertising#Advertiseme...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_advertising#Advertisement_control)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> the link to the report: [http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Teens-Social- Media-A...](http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Teens-Social-Media-And- Privacy.aspx)

</comment><comment><USER34> I'm a senior in high school, and I've found that with college coming up, Facebook is becoming increasingly important to talk with the other kids that are in your college class. There's a group for my class, and I've already befriended a few of them. This sort of community isn't found on places like Twitter.

A large part of my high school class is on Twitter, but I can't stand to follow them. Most of them are blithering idiots, spewing incomplete, barely legible sentences about some stupid thing they've done.

I have tried to get people to use Path, but it hasn't caught. I see it as the replacement for Facebook. However, as other commenters have said, it would be impossible for Path to compete with Facebook because they don't have the sheer numbers of people that Facebook has. If I meet someone and want to continue communicating with them online, Facebook is the place to do that: I know that they're there.

<comment><USER35> This is precisely the problem - all current "social networks" are terrible. Facebook will be killed, but it won't be done by incremental change. Social networking needs another revolution, something to make it relevant and exciting as Facebook was in its first few years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> When people I know (teens) say they "hate" Facebook, they mean they hate the amount of time they waste on Facebook. That's my chief complaint. It's an easy thing to do while mentally idling, and costs no effort, attention, or money. And you're on a variable-ratio schedule for dopamine hits. I quickly developed a habit where I spend dead time mindlessly browsing Facebook instead of doing something productive.

This is the _only_ complaint I hear from my friends. Nobody in my age group has ever mentioned ad targeting, and people with nosy adult "friends" know how to use privacy settings to hide from them. The only reason I've ever been given in person for quitting Facebook is the time-sink.

My point is that we don't want to "leave" to another social network. We want to stop using social networking. But we can't, because spam-free email by real name is powerful, locked in, and occasionally necessary.

</comment><comment><USER37> I absolutely hate these mobile "optimized" sites (Slate) that disable pinch zoom.

</comment><comment><USER38> People "hate" facebook the same way that an older generation "hated" TV. Yeah it's full of shallow, vapid content, but it's entertaining, and as long as it continues to be entertaining people will use it.

</comment><comment><USER39> > "Honestly," one 15-year-old girl told Pew, "I'm on it constantly but I hate > it so much."

Maybe I'm too far from high school but I can't picture a situation where you would have to use FB "constantly" even though you "hate it". It's not really explained in the article either, there's just some superficial quotes about "Drama" and "Adult presence".

I know adult's who say they hate facebook but maintain accounts but this equates to logging in for a couple minutes a couple times a week, liking some photos, maybe posting a few and then getting on with their day.

<comment><USER28> It's probably more along the lines of "I hate that I have to use Facebook, because that's the cool thing to do, but everyone else uses it, so I'd be even more uncool if I didn't use it."

<comment><USER40> No more like:

If I didn't use Facebook I wouldn't know what everyone is talking about. See also: reality TV.

<comment><USER41> It's high school, it's so easy to become ostracized if you don't do the same as all the other kids in class.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Tangentially related: a Facebook app called Social Roulette (which purported to have a 1/6 chance of "helping" a user delete his/her account) was recently deactivated.

<http://fffff.at/when-you-dont-own-yourself/>

Facebook certainly doesn't want to make leaving easy, but really, what else did we expect?

</comment><comment><USER43> I really wish facebook could help me manage the outer reaches of my social sphere—those I contact infrequently, whom I care about, but am not in constant communication. Something that would prod me to send a message or something to an old friend I hadn't remembered to email in the past month or so.

<comment><USER44> facebook as CRM? I wonder if you could could build an app that did that...

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> There is a reason why Facebook remains the most popular social media website. It's ability to link to thousands of different websites and apps gives its an edge up against other social media websites.

</comment><comment><USER46> Seems to me like people are returning to instant messaging in the form of mobile messaging like WhatsApp and Kik. I wonder who will come out as the winner in this race.

</comment><comment><USER47> i don't like facebook, but i think it's the only service that got the social network right, just tell me what are the real competitors to facebook, don't say G+

<comment><USER48> I suspect that no answer will make you happy here, since a social network "getting it right" is where all the people are. You can't be getting it right if a significant number of people aren't there, and you can't be a competitor unless you're getting it right (the threshold for 'significant' seems to mainly depend on which network you personally use ;P).

I'm one of those strange people who is perfectly happy on G+. I was 'friends' with a significantly larger number of people I knew in meatspace when I was on Facebook compared to G+, but they were people I had lost touch with for a reason (regardless if whether that was my fault or theirs). G+ has allowed me to follow and interact with a broader range of interesting people that I don't know personally or event tangentially, and so to me, that makes it a much more useful social network that Facebook ever was.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Teens hate everything. Don't worry, they'll grow out of it.

</comment><comment><USER50> Teens spend 30 seconds per minute hating facebook, right after the 30 seconds they spent loving it

</comment><comment><USER51> Robots have already become our masters, without firing a shot.</comment>


Dark energy confirmed? - <AUTHOR> http://io9.com/5898846/dark-energy-confirmed-how-ancient-sound-waves-shaped-the-entire-universe?utm_campaign=socialflow_io9_twitter&utm_source=io9_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

<comment><USER2> Sounds like theories and observations made by Nikola Tesla over 100 years ago.</comment>


BlackBerry is Bust - <AUTHOR> http://www.solidstategroup.com/page/4736/blackberry-is-bust

<comment><USER2> It hjas email as of this morning.

and official support for a decent amount of android apps. The problem right now is devs aren't willing to support it becase of a lack of users. Users aren't willint to support it because it has poor app support.

If they could get a few of the big apps (netflix, skype, etc...) to come over that would probably help a bit.

</comment><comment><USER3> Not surprising. But it's worth pointing out that Apple's approval process is often just as unhelpful- it's just that people put up with it because the stakes are higher.

Blackberry needs to be better because it needs developers- Apple doesn't.

<comment><AUTHOR> What I find incredible is the error report. How am I expected to fix it?!? You would have thought they would put more effort into helping developers out...</comment></comment>


Who was John Titor, the 'time traveller' who came from 2036? - <AUTHOR> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11945420/Who-was-John-Titor-the-time-traveller-who-came-from-2036-to-warn-us-of-a-nuclear-war.html <comment><USER2> Joe Matheny has admitted to being the person behind the Titor prank: [https://jmatheny.wordpress.com/2015/01/11/episode-138-the- le...](https://jmatheny.wordpress.com/2015/01/11/episode-138-the-legend-of- time-traveler-john-titor-with-joseph-matheny/)

This is, of course, completely reasonable and believable. A certain number of people suspected it in the first place. After all, Matheny was behind the Incunabula / Ong's Hat hoax, and was later brought on to create Majestic, the first commercial ARG. The Titor story has enough in common with both Ong's Hat and Majestic for Matheny to be one of the usual suspects.</comment>


Show HN: HNBuzz – daily/weekly digests, full-text search and mobile awesomeness - <AUTHOR> http://hnbuzz.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Initially I built HNBuzz in order to have a daily digest with the top stories for myself. Then I added some more features and I believe someone else could appreciate it as well. So looking forward to your feedback at firstname.lastname@example.com or in the thread below

Currently HNBuzz has:

\- sections - All, Ask HN, Show HN, Hiring

\- time ranges - daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, any period you want

\- full text search within each section

\- mobile optimised

In the future I have plans to make HNBuzz personalised and categorise the stories. Other ideas?

</comment><comment><USER2> Neat, clean, minimalist and easy to use, providing interesting tech feed from multiple sources in one spot.

</comment><comment><USER3> nice website. I like the full text search for example to find python related articles :)</comment>


We scam the Indian call centre scammers - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcentral.co.za/we-scam-the-indian-call-centre-scammers/50579/ <comment><USER2> The scary part is that some of these scams are sometimes so believable. I wonder how many gullible people were falling into the traps of these scammers. Is there a way by which we could do something to catch these scammers?

</comment><comment><USER3> How did he ascertain the nationality of the scammer to be Indian?

I find it hard to believe that Indian authorities would do nothing and let this scam continue.</comment>


Notice to stakeholders: withdrawal of the UK and EU rules on .eu domain names - <AUTHOR> https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/notice-stakeholders-withdrawal-united-kingdom-and-eu-rules-eu-domain-names_en <comment><USER2> Those who want the UK to remain in the EU will see this as just one damaging consequence of the UK's decision to leave. Conversely, Brexiteers will see this as an example of maladministration by an EU bureaucracy, and another demonstration of why the UK needs to exit. Sadly, there will be no consensus.

Putting aside the politics, this seems like a very poor decision. Historically, I believe most registering authorities have made great efforts to grandfather-in prior domains, for practical reasons apparent to most visitors of this site.

Additionally, shoddy treatment of 10% of current registrees will do nothing to increase the perceived value of an .eu domain. I also note that it appears the EU commission didn't even discuss the policy with the company that manages the .eu domain:

[https://eurid.eu/en/news/ec-releases-communication- concernin...](https://eurid.eu/en/news/ec-releases-communication-concerning- brexit-and-the-eu-tld/)

<comment><USER3> > Additionally, shoddy treatment of 10% of current registrees will do nothing > to increase the perceived value of an .eu domain.

It does for me. Creates the image of an exclusive TLD with only genuine, trustable EU registrees.

<comment><USER2> That's a fair comment. I hadn't considered that perspective.

I'm aware of several TLDs that require evidence of residency/trade within the geographic region for the purpose of registration, but I don't think any of them require it in perpetuity for renewals; it's this that seems problematic to me. In principle, URLs are based on a degree of immutability: saying that a domain name must change when circumstances change seems at odds with the architectural fundamentals of the web, in which case I question the value of establishing a .eu domain at all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Apart from my fury, which is caused by having a .eu as my main domain and living in the UK - reverse DNS, mail, etc, all quite hard to change due to trust databases -, this leaves me with yet another enforcement that we are in desperate need of domains - or something similar - that is yours, yours for life, and can not be taken away.

.onion would be ideal, but Tor itself has been criminalised so well, that vanilla people are and would be frightened to visit them - and they might even be right, given the amount of supervision ISPs have nowadays.

.bit is not a solution, it's just another registrar in it's essence, and a rather complicated one, that needs namecoin.

Is anyone aware of a work-in-progress solution or had nobody thought about this during the re-decentralize haste?

</comment><comment><USER5> It's the registrar rules being enforced exactly like they always have been. The Rules say "EU only". If the UK is no longer in the EU then the simply conclusion is that the domain ownership will be revoked.

<comment><USER6> The rules say: EU, or Iceland, or Norway, or Liechtenstein.

<comment><USER7> The rules say European Economic Area ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area)). Which the UK is, ridiculously, also leaving, but does include Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein as EFTA members.

<comment><USER6> FWIW, the Domain Name Registration Policy ([https://eurid.eu/media/filer_public/76/48/7648e621-0c5d-4c09...](https://eurid.eu/media/filer_public/76/48/7648e621-0c5d-4c09-8bde-e5622cb6b23e/registration_policy_en.pdf) , linked from [https://eurid.eu/en/register-a-eu-domain/rules-for-eu- domain...](https://eurid.eu/en/register-a-eu-domain/rules-for-eu-domains/)) doesn't mention EEA; it spells out the 3 extra countries explicitly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Can a mod change the click-bait title of this submission to the actual title of the linked page?

"Notice to stakeholders: withdrawal of the United Kingdom and EU rules on .eu domain names"

<comment><USER9> Please don't. The page title doesn't make clear the actual impact of this, the "click bait" is much more informative.

I sincerely hope no-one in the UK is running a substantial business on an .EU domain; the damage of this could be significant for them.

<comment><USER8> > Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait. Don't > editorialize.

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

I've seen this rule commonly applied to HN submissions. To me, this title is clearly editorializing and more misleading than the original. There is no mention of "317k .eu domains" in the text. There is even no explicit mention of cancellation. What is mentioned is eligibility for renewals and new registrations.

<comment><USER6> Does anyone know what's the source of this number (317k)?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.eu#Actual_use](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.eu#Actual_use) says that the _number of apparently UK owned .eu domains was 344,584_ , but there's no citation for that claim.

<comment><AUTHOR> After I first read about it I did some light cursory Googling around, and the press coverage that was the most detailed at the time was @ The Register [1]. Although they report the number to be ~317k, they do not disclose a source -- but I chose to go with it anyway.

To be honest I forgot that folks around here can get their panties in a real bunch over the titles of submissions -- and I'm not saying they're wrong, but in my mind the title is far less important than the actual meat of the issue and the discussion/debate that it (hopefully) generates here on HN. However, there are rules for the titles, and it wasn't my intention to break them. It was my mistake.

\---

1: [https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/03/29/eu_dumps_300000_uko...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/03/29/eu_dumps_300000_ukowned_domains_into_brexit_bin/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> At least pro-Brexit campaign group LEAVE.EU will have to find a new domain name. It's not just their domain, it's the name of their organisation as a whole...

<comment><USER11> Strictly, the organisation can be disbanded at that point anyway.

<comment><USER3> I'd be interested to see how they try to turn Brexit's effect into a victory for them, though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I dislike the idea that domain names can be geographically restricted. Additionally this .eu cancellation seems a wanton and bureaucratic attack on the U.K. given Brexit has only recently been triggered.

<comment><USER13> Most domains are restricted in some may - usually geographically. Some have even stricter rules (.cat for example requires you to publish your website in the Catalan language).

After Brexit people living in the UK no longer fulfill the requirements to own a .eu domain. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

<comment><USER14> What about the half of the UK population that want to be in the EU? Can't the EU set a higher, more inclusive standard here?

<comment><USER15> But they are not in the eu. Surely the higher percentage of people from Britain who want to leave the EU would like to be treated like a non-EU country.

<comment><USER14> British is currently in the EU. No one really knows yet whether it will leave in any meaningful way.

I'd like the EU to let UK citizens who want to remain part of the EU do so. That would be rather fun wouldn't it? Trolling the idiots who've seized control here.

<comment><USER3> Sure I want the people who want to remain to be able to, but the decision was made as a country. If they don't split into two it'll be pretty hard and difficult to accept Britons wanting to be in the EU. Maybe if they privately pay membership fees? It's interesting to think about, but would encompass much more than a TLD.

<comment><USER14> I think the problem is that the decision was made by about 8 private wealthy individuals. It was not made as a country.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Someone should probably archive the "leave.eu" site before this happens, for Brexit recriminations.

</comment><comment><USER17> I can't find any reference to a condition that forbids owners from renewing a .eu domain after leaving the EU in more usual circumstances, like emigration. If true it would be a very unreasonable condition which would seriously undermine the value of the domain for would be registrants, so I'm surprised it's not something that's been highlighted before. If it's not the case then clearly brexit exiteers ought to be treated at least as well.

In reality this announcement is likely to be politically motivated posturing on an issue which is to be agreed as part of the brexit negotiations, not something that is going to be decreed unilaterally.

<comment><USER16> You're not looking hard enough, or maybe at all.

[https://eurid.eu/media/filer_public/76/48/7648e621-0c5d-4c09...](https://eurid.eu/media/filer_public/76/48/7648e621-0c5d-4c09-8bde-e5622cb6b23e/registration_policy_en.pdf)

Must be "a natural person resident within the European Union, Norway, Iceland or Liechtenstein"

If the Registrant files a request for a Domain Name registration and is unable to meet, or no longer meets, the above conditions, the Registry is entitled to reject the request or to revoke the Domain Name concerned at any time in accordance with Sections 6 .4 and 8.4 of the Terms and Conditions.

(Why Liechtenstein? Not part of the EU:

"Liechtenstein is a member of the United Nations, European Free Trade Association, and the Council of Europe, and while not being a member of the European Union, the country participates in both the Schengen Area and European Economic Area. It also has a customs union and a monetary union with Switzerland")

> "is to be agreed as part of the brexit negotiations"

They need to get a bloody move on with this. There's a year left and a _huge_ list of things in the same state of needing to be agreed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Instance #945792 of the EU commission coming out with it's usual message:

"Bad voters ! BAD BAD BAD voters !"

"FU"

All the people defending this decision: do you seriously think a majority of Europeans would defend this decision ? Because that's the yardstick a government in a democratic nation should be measured by.

<comment><USER19> Bad voters? The requirements has not been changed

<comment><USER18> Seen any enforcement actions from the commission itself against other classes of the many violators of said requirements ?

This is the very first enforcement action from the commission (they normally come from Eurid)

<comment><USER19> I have not seen any enforcement, the link only says what are the rules

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> So lots of business for EU registrars offering proxy/"private registration" services. Good job EC! /s

<comment><USER21> Proxies are not allowed under the rules. You might fly under the radar, but if the Registry sees that your website company info doesn't match the registration info, you're liable to lose the domain.

<comment><USER20> Was there any cases where .EU domain registrations were lost because a proxy was used?

<comment><USER21> Yes, lensworks.eu. That was before the sunrise period, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Is English going to remain being an official language of the EU?

<comment><USER23> Unknown. There's still Ireland. But Ireland is a much smaller influence than the UK is.

<comment><USER21> There are 24 official EU languages, many of them from countries with less influence than Ireland, so I find it hard to believe English won't be official.

That said, it might not longer be a "procedural" language (status currently only held by English, French and German). But even then, I wouldn't bet on it. English is too ingrained at this point.

<comment><USER23> Fair enough, I was confused with the procedural vs official language.

Languages are such a political thing. The whole recent (century) history of Gaeilge is a reaction to UK influence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The UK's move to leave the EU will probably be the most regretted in history.

The level of pain and expenses that they are and will endure is really something else.

And for what..? Go figure.

<comment><USER16> Blue passports? /s

Really it's the victory of a decades-long press "fake news" campaign. For years papers and politicians alike have misreported EU directives, ECJ decisions, ECHR decisions (not even part of the EU), and UK human rights law decisions. This is the result.

The UK media have also given up on providing an accurate picture of the country outside London, and on any kind of industrial or trade news coverage that isn't entirely driven by press releases. And the 2008 crisis made life worse for a lot of people in ways the government has done nothing to address.

<comment><USER25> It's quite funny because UK media and press workers also live in UK so they are equally responsible for what is going to happen to them and to the whole country.

<comment><USER16> The _owners_ however are generally not domiciled in the UK. It's not as if the workers get a say in the content.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> The EU is always so classy.

Or maybe they just wanted to prove the Brits right in wanting to leave.

<comment><USER27> This is just a reminder that the rules that were already in place for all other "third countries" (non-EU or EEA countries) will apply to the UK if/when they become that. If the negotiations turn out that we stay part of the EEC, then this won't apply as the UK won't be a "third country".

<comment><USER26> I understand not letting people in the UK register new .eu domain names. But by making it impossible (or just hard, more likely) to renew domain names imho they are needlessy hurting people and businesses who had bet on the EU.

<comment><USER21> If they "bet" on the EU, why don't they have any established entity in it? Doesn't seem like betting much to me.

<comment><USER28> Because they have had established entities in it and will continue to do so until March 2019?

After all, establishing an entity in the United Kingdom has, until now, been an equal level of 'betting' as establishing an entity anywhere else in the EU.

<comment><USER21> And if you bet on the top 500 companies in the stock market, and one drops below the 500th place, nobody will redesign the S&P to fit your portfolio either. You have to rebalance your bet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> This is an ridiculous and blatantly hostile move, esp. considering the fact that most EU countries don't even have that policy for their own ccTLD. EU has nothing to win here and this doesn't benefit the .eu domain.

<comment><USER21> This is not a move. This is just an application of the rules that have always applied to .eu domains to the new situation.

The rules of ccTLDs of member countries are completely irrelevant.

<comment><USER29> rules can change, even temporarily. the UK will probably join in some future agreement with the EU. it could even be part of a brexit deal. the EU already offers this exemption to EEA members

<comment><USER21> Sure; if and when the rules change, I'm sure a new update will be issued. But that doesn't change the fact that this is a straightforward application of the existing rules, which were approved long before Brexit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> That title is highly editorialized. The actual effect is just that .eu domains will have to be renewed through a registrar that's established in the EU. Most major registrars probably already fulfill that requirement, and those that don't shouldn't have any problem with founding an EU subsidiary.

EDIT: Missed the part where "Accredited .eu Registrars will not be entitled to process any request for the registration of or for renewing registrations of .eu domain names by those [UK] undertakings, organisations and persons." Still, I bet the vast majority of domains will be transferred to some shell entity in the EU, even if it's just domain owners selling off domains they can't renew anymore.

<comment><USER24> What about the "and natural persons who reside in the United Kingdom" part..?</comment></comment>


Solve Fizz Buzz using curl with buzzcloud.xyz - <AUTHOR> http://buzzcloud.xyz <comment><USER2> Nice work! Have you ensured that the Enterprise service is adequately protected from senior management "buzzkill"?

</comment><comment><USER3> Is there a mega enterprise licence? The enterprise licence with unlimited fizz and buzz is not enough for our needs. It would be nice to have an option where we can contact you for a quote.

<comment><AUTHOR> I am happy to consider it, the Enterprise Plan is currently $999.99 and we have found it capable of supporting all of our current Enterprise customers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Or, solve it with a receipt printer: [http://kck.st/1LRU6Lo](http://kck.st/1LRU6Lo).

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Built as a series of experiments with AWS Lambda, the AWS API Gateway and various other pieces of cloud.

Zero Infrastructure

And a surprising amount of configuration

</comment><comment><USER5> What is your present valuation? Do you have plans to raise any investment?

<comment><AUTHOR> Plan is to bootstrap and leverage synergies with our enterprise partners.</comment></comment>


OSARA: Open Source Accessibility for the REAPER Application - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/nvaccess/osara/ <comment><USER2> Link to the Reaper digital audio workstation: [http://www.reaper.fm/](http://www.reaper.fm/)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Fund this! [https://www.gofundme.com/2nbes8s](https://www.gofundme.com/2nbes8s)</comment>


Why movies look weird at 48fps, and games are better at 60fps - <AUTHOR> http://accidentalscientist.com/2014/12/why-movies-look-weird-at-48fps-and-games-are-better-at-60fps-and-the-uncanny-valley.html

<comment><USER2> Original discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8793346](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8793346)

</comment><comment><USER3> Movies at 48fps look fine to me, great even. There's something to be said for the cinematographic effect low framerate+motion blur, and there's a long history of chemical and digital post-processing techniques that take advantage of motion blur.

However, what works to the favor of _The Grand Budapest Hotel_ doesn't necessarily have a place in _The Hobbit_. Higher framerate is useful for enhancing the visual acuity of battle scenes and for immersion. These are not the primary goals of all movies, though.

As graphics technology improves, I think we'll start to see some games opt to render at _lower_ framerates. Probably not games that require split-second reaction times or any first-person games where the camera moves violently (for instance, Starcraft, Counterstrike). Games aiming for a more artistic impression, such as puzzle games (Portal, The Witness), RPGs (The Elder Scrolls), adventure games (Brothers), however, might choose to initially render at an extremely high framerate, say 240fps, and then use that data to generate true motion blur at something like 30fps.

We might eventually see movies shift to such a system, where they are recorded at very high framerates and arithmetically stitched together into something more traditional. This would stand to benefit remastering efforts 50 years after the initial production when better technology becomes available. But cinema has always been slow to adopt new technology: sound, color, digital, etc.

</comment><comment><USER4> Movies don't look "weird" at 48fps, they just look different from what we're used to.

However watching 24fps movies on a TV with a higher refresh-rate that just duplicate frames, DOES look weird, and that's not a very pleasant experience.

<comment><USER5> I've made that argument in the past too. However, the linked blog post does make an interesting case that there is some reason to believe it _does_ in fact look objectively "weird".

There should be ways to test this. This theory implies that video games should look "better" in an A-B comparison at 60fps if you add certain types of probably-subtle noise to them, probably even through temporary frame rate drops. If so, that would be an awfully cheap way to improve game graphics.

<comment><USER6> I seem to remember that this was the idea in the development process of Lost Planet ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Planet:_Extreme_Condition](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Planet:_Extreme_Condition)). My Google-fu is failing me, I don't see any articles that explain the developer's intent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> While the tremor thing might be a factor, it's by far not the main reasons why games need higher framerate.

Games are fundamentally different from films for a simple fact:

Games show reactions to your input, films are only consumed passively.

This means for games it's not only important how the stuff on the screen looks and moves, but how much time passes between you pressing a button, and a thing moving. At 60 FPS that time is ~16 ms, which is almost unnoticable. At 30 FPS that time is ~32 ms, twice as long, and for people used to 60 FPS extremely noticable as a form of sluggishness on the controls. (Although for some games that have the gameplay with some inbuilt sluggishness that effect disappears, Dark Souls for example.)

</comment><comment><USER8> This is full of interesting bits, but on the whole it's vary wrong. There was a lot of reasons why Toy Story looked fine even @480p.

Motion blur helps make lower frame rates seem more 'real' as does rock steady FPS. Monitors are also all or nothing with when it comes to frame rates. So a 59FPS video game on a 60FPS monitor is basicly jumping between 60FPS and 30FPS when it misses a frame drop below 30 and it get's even worse.

Also, movies tend to avoid things that seem odd, like wheels seeming to move backwords when low frame rates mix with fast rotating objects.

<comment><USER9> Conventional monitors are all or nothing (60fps or 30fps), but that's changing.

[http://www.geforce.com/hardware/technology/g-sync](http://www.geforce.com/hardware/technology/g-sync)

[http://www.amd.com/en-us/innovations/software- technologies/t...](http://www.amd.com/en-us/innovations/software- technologies/technologies-gaming/freesync)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I think it's just a question of habit nothing more.</comment>