Hacker News Reader

Comment by alex_g | Hacker News Reader

Yeah but if the goal of the room is to foment hatred and target harassment at an individual who isn't in the room, that's still abuse.

View on HN

Does this apply to a phone call? To a zoom call with five people in it? Should trying to stop someone from doing something, even if abhorrent, in private, really be a priority? I can only see this ending badly. If there is a link to real world crimes, sure, intercepting a discussion is one method available to detect / deter / deny / disrupt, just like a wiretap. But (and maybe I misunderstand your comment) beginning with the idea that we should try and prevent conversations we find abhorrent from happening is, well, abhorrent.

No, and that's not what I said.

Clubhouse is not just private phone calls. It's a social network.

What is a social network? Fundamental its a graph structure of human relationships. Humans are the actors/nodes and edges are the interactions.

Two people chatting fits this criteria. You can have a private chat on Clubhouse between two people.

> Clubhouse is not just private phone calls.

Yes, you can have a private chat on Clubhouse. You can also have a private chat on Facebook or Twitter. They are all social networks.

I don't think trying to find edge cases for what constitutes a social network is helpful to this conversation.

Versatility is not an edge case. By your standard, conference calls can't be considered phone calls because few people ever used the feature.

I feel like I shouldn’t need to explain why a conference call and a social network are different.

Moderating private discussions (e.g. most Zoom calls) are very different from moderating public discussions.

Where's the distinction? It's like saying a phone call is functionally different from a conference call. Both Zoom and Clubhouse use private infrastructure, thus all discussions are private even if many people are involved in them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com