Hacker News Reader

Comment by maxehmookau | Hacker News Reader

I agree, the safety aspects of this are shocking and the 'be free of phones' puritanism is a bit dull.

A _very_ strict code of conduct for attendees is something that can (and does) work.

Jazz pianist, Keith Jarrett has been known to stop his 4-hour long improvisation sessions in some of the world's most prestigous venues mid-flow to dress down an attendee trying to film him. People don't make that mistake twice. https://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2007/aug/09/keit...

Unrelated, but I'd be way more on board with this if the DVD of the show wasn't £30 afterwards.

View on HN

My goodness, all those people who went to concerts before cell phones must have been so hardcore, taking risks like that.

My guess is that if you put your phone away you're less likely to hurt from, you know, other people doing the stupid stuff they do at concerts.

I understand that people want video, so they can post it, and get their dopa-soc on Facebook, or wherever, but seriously, musical artists (especially the ones who don't lipsync their concerts) feed off the audience's vibe. Its a two-way, not a one-way. Jack White isn't feeling the energy and is doing something about it.

I say, Jack should just take out his phone and sit there recording the audience, until the get the hint.

Yep, I don't get why "the safety aspects of this are shocking". Shocking?

It's one thing to say that I like to be reachable by children, babysitter, aged mother, etc. if there's an issue. And OK, I get it. Norms and expectations have shifted with respect to how contactable people should be under many circumstances.

But some of the comments here that make it sound like going out with no way for anyone to reach you was an invitation to mortal peril akin to jumping off a cliff in a wingsuit make me want to either laugh or cry.

> "an invitation to mortal peril"

There have always been people with (physical and mental) health concerns or disabilities who need to be able to get hold of a caregiver on short notice.

In the age of cell phones, it's much safer for them to go someplace crowded with their caregiver even if there's risk of being separated.

> My goodness, all those people who went to concerts before cell phones must have been so hardcore, taking risks like that.

I get the point you're trying to make, but to me this just reads like gatekeeping.

Cell phones are useful and they can make people safer. In a world with cell phones not having timely access to one is riskier. In a world without cell phones it's a moot point.

The more interesting issue -- which others in this thread are discussing -- is whether the benefits of having a cell phone outweigh the harms people can cause with them, and whether policy can help strike an appropriate balance.

I'd argue it's more comfort that you can be reached or reach someone than actual safety. But I don't really disagree with your broader point. This system doesn't seem very practical for a whole range of issues.

Plenty of other live events have policies against recording and cell phone use and don't seem to have any serious problems enforcing those policies (or, indeed, need to do much "enforcement" at all). Perhaps rock concerts are different because of the type of crowd.

What type of information would you receive on your phone during a concert that would make you safer? I'm honestly curious.

"Hey throwaway43532, [PERSON] just found out you're at [PLACE] and is on their way with a weapon. I contacted the authorities, but you need to get out of there now!" might be a severe example.

There are many situations where a cell phone can allow you to send or receive information that could tip the scales in your favor.

The possibility of me ever getting a message remotely like that is so remote that the very idea could power the infinite improbability drive and take me to the restaurant at the end of the universe.

If you live inside a Hollywood action movie, yes.

"hey the dangerous stalker you have had since 5 years found out you are going to this concert."

Does it still sound like hollywood?

Yes it does.

Is the audience one person?

Translation: I'm unwilling to put down my phone, and I will conjure any number of nightmare scenarios to justify my addiction.

Or, perhaps, some people are truly terrified to be away from their smartphones. That is itself a scary thought.

If a person's smartphone is removed from the picture for some reason, how would they be able to function? If the cell network went down, would the crowd descend into mindless chaos? There are no more pay phones, no more cozy landlines, so how would people manage if there were an emergency?

I was being curmudgeonly.

Sure, cell phones can contribute to personal safety; whether it actually does in a standing-room-only rock concert given the distribution of risks one is likely to encounter in that context is another matter. I have a hard time imagining one, except a medical emergency, maybe? Except that having people find security might truly be more expedient.

Besides, I cam imagine real harm. Everyone simultaneously receiving a false alarm that a ballistic missile is headed there way might actually cause Widespread Panic to come out and play an encore.

Having a phone makes people feel safe. Whether it makes them actually safer, I don't think so.

> "I have a hard time imagining one"

Someone mentioned above that, in the event of a fire alarm and being separated from your group, being able to reconnect with them is important. Particularly for vulnerable people (whether due to age, health reasons, or being someone who might be targeted for violence or harassment), being separated from your group for a long time can be a safety issue.

  being able to reconnect with them is important

Wouldn't you all be meeting at the place where you reclaim your phones anyway?

in the context of having to leave the building due to a fire alarm, no, you're not meeting them back inside the building at the phone re-collection point (or in this case one of the phone unlock mechanisms). At least not immediately.

As I mentioned in another comment, it's possible you've never taken someone with a disability or social dysfunction to their first-ever concert, knowing that it's partly enabled by the fact that you can easily reconnect if you get separated (by the crowd, bathroom lines, a fire alarm, etc.) Take away that extra measure of safety and security, and the majority of people can "just deal with it", but people with certain disabilities or vulnerabilities are going to have to opt out.

Personally, I'd rather work to be inclusive. Use social norms, not technological lockouts, to get people to put their phones away.

Do you think maybe the security guards and other personnel at the venue might have access to phones? Do you think that you in particular are going to be the last resort that manages to reach 911 when nobody else can? It's a weird train of thought to me. Venues are required to have their ducks in a row - emergency plans in place, etc. You not having your phone during the show is not a safety concern.

If a fire breaks out and I have to evacuate a venue, there is a _distinct_ difference in the effect on me if I have to have had my phone locked up.

In one case, I leave the facility, get to safety, and then _go home_ (eventually), at which point I have my phone.

In the other case, I leave the facility, get to safety, but my phone is either destroyed, or in a pile with 900 other concert-goers' phones, and I need to either wait around (in a place where emergency services probably don't want extra people), or _replace my destroyed phone_.

No thanks, I'll keep my phone in my pocket or backpack, and have it with me when I leave with no extra effort. If necessary, this will mean skipping any concerts or similar where that's an issue.

> In the other case, I leave the facility, get to safety, but my phone is either destroyed, or in a pile with 900 other concert-goers' phones, and I need to either wait around (in a place where emergency services probably don't want extra people), or _replace my destroyed phone_.

You should check out how Yondr works: https://www.overyondr.com/howitworks/

The phone stays with you.

Wow, this looks super neat. How does it work in practice?

Perhaps you should have read the article. The phone is locked up in a pouch your pocket.

Sarcasm is one of the things which makes comment sections toxic. It's rude, dismissive, and, worst of all, leads to people retroactively claiming a comment which didn't go down well was sarcastic and that everyone who called them out for it was too stupid to notice.

Really? I find the opposite.

What makes comment sections toxic TO ME is people on their soapbox scolding others and distracting from the topic at hand.

Subjective experience and all that.

Sarcasm has existed in human discourse for centuries.

Gonna need more than your take on it to accept it's as damaging as you claim.

Sarcasm is an ok thing in mediums where there are side channel cues that the user is being sarcastic. Unfortunately, it doesn't carry well in writing, unless you're extremely clear about it.

I don't think it adds anything to an online comments board / discussion. And in some cases, it detracts. It often just comes across as hostility.

>but seriously, musical artists (especially the ones who don't lipsync their concerts) feed off the audience's vibe. Its a two-way, not a one-way.

Which is why Janis Joplin would famously yell at the audience that they better get up and dance in the aisles, or so I've been told by people old enough to be there.

Here in Japan, most concerts have a strict no-photos policy. In smaller venues, I've seen this enforced by guards shining bright focused flashlights at you if you try to take a photo/video. Seems to work well. Some artists stop to do a "ok let's all take a photo together now" bit near the end for those who want a memory.

What I really loved about phone use (or better: not use) in Japan is the rules on trains.

While eating some lovely fermented fish dish out of a bento box is completely acceptable using your phone to make calls is definitely not.

My understanding was (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that in the Shinkansen you can move out of the car to make a call, in local public transport it's an absolute no!no! (well, probably the bento box is also not that hot an idea in public transport).

With very, very few exceptions (mostly by foreigners) I've experienced this rule as respected.

I had a hard time adapting back in Europe with all the noise and chatter going on permanently.

Look at the Manchester Arena bombing last year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Arena_bombing

Thousands of unaccompanied teenagers subjected to a bomb attack. Without access to their phones, this could've been so much worse.

How worse and for what reasons? I don't understand how phones mitigate bomb attacks

They allow children to get hold of their parents, order transport home, etc. If they've run away from the venue without first unlocking their phone, they end up wandering around outside, at night, alone after a significant event such as this.

When I was a child, I managed to go events largely unsupervised and without a phone. I would already be told what to do in the event of getting separated in an emergency, such as having pre-arranged rendezvous points unique to my group.

> If they've run away from the venue without first unlocking their phone, they end up wandering around outside, at night, alone after a significant event such as this.

Only if their responsible adults don't take reasonable precautions. What happens when a child loses a phone or has one stolen? They should have a plan before going, whether phones are restricted or not.

I've seen the code of conduct thing work even before smartphones were ubiquitous -- even the open mic night at Eddie's Attic in Georgia was an event where the manager made it very clear that the venue was a Listening Room, not a place for talking over the performance, and if you wanted to use your phone in any noticeable way, you needed to step outside. And I saw him dress down and kick out a customer that decided to ignore the rule.

It's harder with larger crowds, but I think a policy with clear expectations that can result in you losing your privilege of attending is a better choice than asking people to check valuable (and useful) property at the door.

Father John Misty performs some songs in a giant iPhone looking picture frame. The meta-irony is pretty delicious.

http://futureisfiction.com/blog/father-john-misty-at-hardly-...

Agreed. This should be a policy and etiquette issue not a forcible restriction of human communication.

Imagine your teenage child attends a concert and needs to call you to escape a dangerous situation. There are so many situations of nuance that a blanket ban disrupts in a negative way.

This is a very shallow way to deal with a complicated issue.

needs to call you to escape a dangerous situation

Can you describe a scenario for me? Because I'm having a very hard time imagining one where the teenager is immediate peril (otherwise they could just unlock the phone in the next room) yet the best person to help them is not in the building. Maybe it's unfair, but it just sounds like helicopter parenting to me.

Let's imagine that my child is at a party or other social engagement and they want deniable reason to escape. [0] There may be excessive peer pressure, illegal activity, or any other pre-arranged reason they may need to bail on something without incurring the loss of face that could be socially devastating.

If I have my phone, they can text me with some pre-arranged message ("x"), and I will feign an emergency and get them out of the situation ASAP (or arrange for a friend to do similarly).

Sure, they could just leave (or get a taxi?), but having a GTFO script lets them exit a situation without the social losses of having been perceived as "too scared" to cave to peer pressure. They can say, "My dad just called and said something major just came up, and he's on his way to get me. Yeah, I know, parents, right? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯"

If their phone is locked up (or mine) there's a lot more friction to that interaction.

0: https://bertfulks.com/2017/02/23/x-plan-giving-your-kids-a-w...

So, during those times when you're "on call" and need to be responsive to such events, you have to make the decision not to go on camping trips or flights or no-phone events like this one. Right?

With kids you are always "on call".

So your position is that with kids at home, you can't be doing things that cause you to be unavailable/unreachable for durations of time longer than some threshold. Nothing wrong with that. The kinds of recreational events that conflict with that restriction are generally easy to spot ahead of time, and no one's compelling you to participate in them.

> "Let's imagine that my child is at a party or other social engagement and they want deniable reason to escape. [0] There may be excessive peer pressure, illegal activity, or any other pre-arranged reason they may need to bail on something without incurring the loss of face that could be socially devastating."

In that case, I would imagine the child's parents failed in teaching the values of both honesty and courage. Lying is often easier in the short term, but it leads to worse outcomes over time in all but the rarest of situations (e.g. you're hiding Anne Frank and soldiers knock at the door).

Having a great excuse is useful today, but having a spine is useful for all one's days.

"(...) None of us could live with an habitual truth-teller; but thank goodness none of us has to. An habitual truth-teller is simply an impossible creature; he does not exist; he never has existed. Of course there are people who think they never lie, but it is not so—and this ignorance is one of the very things that shame our so-called civilization. Everybody lies—every day; every hour; awake; asleep; in his dreams; in his joy; in his mourning; if he keeps his tongue still, his hands, his feet, his eyes, his attitude, will convey deception—and purposely. (...)"

Mark Twain, On the Decay of the Art of Lying (http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/2572/pg2572.html)

I prefer Kant.

Doesn't Kant go against your example of Anne Frank? ("To be truthful (honest) in all declarations is therefore a sacred command of reason prescribing unconditionally, one not to be restricted by any conveniences"). Surely a teenager telling white lies to pushy peers is preferable.

Yes, Kant does. I'm not an absolute Kantian by any means, but I do prefer Kant to Twain. This isn't to say I dislike Twain, though.

> Surely a teenager telling white lies to pushy peers is preferable.

That's not sure by any means. In fact, the habit of telling "white lies" is almost certainly harmful in the long run. The same is true for caving to pushy peers.

I don't get the perspective of people who want to have kids and ask the world to accommodate them so that they don't have to make any sacrifices along the way.

Going to an event where you won't have access to your phone is maybe something you can't do while having kids of a certain age. But they'll grow up and then you can again.

It's kind of selfish to ask that no musician have this policy because you want to be able to attend any concert you wish while having young children.

Why even let them leave the house if the world is such a horrible and dangerous place.

Seems like bad parenting if you're knowingly putting in situations where such horrors exist that they'd need to escape them.

Maybe the market should decide. No one is forcing you to buy a ticket to the show and separate you from your phone.

If the policy is clearly stated during the purchase process, sure.

If it's something that's just announced at the door, after you've bought the (generally non-refundable) tickets, no.

Sure, I agree with that. I want this policy made known to me before I decide whether to attend or not.

Nobody forces you or “your teenage child” to attend such a concert.

I don't think Jarrett is generally considered the voice of reason. In fact, some promoters have gotten so tired of his histrionics that they've ruled out ever booking him again.

And before it was cell phones, he berated people for coughing.

Why do the musician has to do vigilante work interrupting what everybody came there for? Tell off idiots in the audience instead of playing his gig?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com