A few weeks ago there was a conversation [1] regarding the utility of signals like this, with a common opinion that they are useless. I'm very happy to see that it worked!
The description doesn't say that at all; it only discusses domestic violence and, if you see the signal, 'check in' with the person signaling. Presumably, if they were talking about kidnapping or hostage situations, they would suggest calling the police.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/27/us/florida-woman-escape-n...
I think the bigger news is that the common opinion is that TikTok is useless, and this provides a rare counterexample. :)
> Police say the teenager told investigators that she traveled with the man through North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky and Ohio. Authorities allege she had been attempting to get motorists’ attention to call 911.
Apparently it didn't work very fast.
> The Signal for Help was introduced by the Canadian Women's Foundation on April 14, 2020.
Behavior change & language development take time.
ASL for “help me” would cross the TikTok culture gap.
Unfortunately, typical for HN - a bit odd for a community built around innovative startups. Look at the top comment for almost every discussion, a smarter-than-thou takedown of whatever the OP says. I wish the mods would automatically move that comment to the bottom.
Rationality is achieved when one merely makes rational arguments following some axiom or assumption. But it says nothing about the reasonableness of the axiom or assumption per se. It would seem that some folks employ faulty assumptions in supposedly rational discussions, assuming that they are winning the debate (whether it is a debate or not) without considering their blind spots.
We might accept some assumptions for the sake of argument, but that doesn't take them off the table for unpicking once the main argument is made.
They almost never seem like it to me. A suggestion: Look for whether they provide evidence, not just claims that anyone can type.
It would be really great if HN provided multiple different moderation systems, so everyone could select a moderation algorithm that suited them better.
To be effective they must be widely understood and conspicuous. If they are well understood and conspicuous, then the attacker will punish the victim for attempting to make them.
Attackers will surely see articles like this and will prevent victims from putting their hands anywhere near the glass in future.
It worked this time because we're in a local optimum of sorts where enough community members understand the signals to help and enough attackers don't know about the signal to prevent it from being made. However, as community consciousness of these signals grows (through articles such as this) attackers will get wise to the practice. Hence, they're self-defeating.
I'm sure in a restricted set of circumstance this may help people (as it did in this story), but I sincerely doubt it'd lead to a material increase in kidnapped people being liberated.
It'd certainly be less effective than other interventions such as cracking down on people trafficking networks or poverty reduction programmes.
The expressiveness of hand gestures (in general) is quite limited and any gesture used for covert communication must make a tradeoff between conspicuousness to the public and conspicuousness to the attacker. This limitation restricts the situations in which they can be made and results in gestures that could be easily dismissed or otherwise misunderstood and thus limit their utility.
Clearly you've not met many sign language speakers. Or Italians.
This is a perfectly cromulent covert hand gesture. It has high coding entropy - I've literally never once seen someone make this gesture (outside of videos demonstrating it). Fingerspelling is not remotely similar since it's a sequence of codes in rapid succession.
Sure was material to this chick
* kidnapper distracted by other things
* kidnapper distracted by having been on the road long enough to be spending all their energy on "not falling asleep" and "paying attention to the road ahead"
* victim in back seat, partially hidden
* kidnapper has temporarily left victim alone in a place they feel confident flight is unlikely
If it starts to become too popular then once stories start spreading of victims who managed to escape despite their kidnapper noticing them using this sign, then new signs will be suggested and circulated. Asking a bartender/waitress if they can make a particular (nonexistant) drink. Blinking in a certain cadence. Crossing your arms and tapping your upper arm five times. Whatever. Language evolves.
I've been in the women's bathroom in bars and seen signs posted out of view from outside that say "if you need help escaping from the person you are with, say this innocuous but specific phrase to the staff". This was long before TikTok existed, and maybe before this gesture existed - I dunno, maybe I just never got shown it.
With regards to the bar examples, they may work in a constrained context where the victim is familiar with the venue. They wouldn't work in the case of victim being transported around under the control of their attacker.
There is a sweet spot between "enough people know what this signal means for it to be worth using" and "so many people know this that my adversary knows it too". The signal this kid used may be about to cross the upper threshold soon, but it worked for her.
Surreptitious and obscured communication channels have been being created and getting detected for most of human history. Look at the continuing cycle of teenage subcultures creating slang to perform the dual function of marking a member of the group and obscuring one's plans from one's parents; look at Thieves' Cant; look at histories and manuals of spycraft. And those spycraft books will probably have suggestions on what to do if you're in a situation where signals just aren't viable, too; signals are one tool.
Yes, the attacker can strip-search the victim for smartphones and GPS trackers and then tie them down in the trunk, but the game is getting harder for kidnappers.
These hand signals only make sense in cases where the attacker already has physical (though not mental) control over the victim and the crime is not immediately obvious to witnesses.
I think this case would actually be one of the easiest for the attacker to prevent with prior knowledge of the hand signal. Most people hardly ever look at the occupants of passing cars and only subset of them would have the knowledge and presence of mind to interpret the signal and not dismiss it anyway. So, a victim would have to have their fist pressed up against the glass for an extended period of time. The attacker, sitting right next to the victim, would catch that in their peripheral vision pretty quickly.
I also take offence to OP's suggestion that reasoned arguments critiquing the practice be 'automatically' moved to the bottom of the thread. As though such arguments can never be made in good faith.
Yes, there are clearly some situations where it has worked in the past, which is a good thing. But, we shouldn't start a massive public awareness campaign and create courses on it in schools because its aggregate effect would likely be small relative to other possible interventions.
Now, you may argue that you never suggested such a thing and that'd be a fair retort. However, then what is the potential aggregate impact such a programme? I'd argue very small for the reasons I've outlined previously. So, it be better to raise awareness and lobby for interventions to kidnapping and human trafficking with proven efficacy.
If you are at the point where you cannot even get your hands near where other people can see them, your signal bandwidth to the outside world is likely already severely curtailed. As in, you are probably locked in a basement. I don't think this is meant to address that severe of a human trafficking/abuse situation.
It's true that attackers can take precautions against this, but that also makes their attack harder to carry out.
Careful with that. [1]
Then, you could test that opinion by writing a respectful comment to the top comment. :)
"In the studio today we have someone who has been studying this topic at a reputable institution for decades. And to argue a different side we have someone who only learned about this topic ten minutes ago but nonetheless can be relied upon to have strong contrary opinions, no matter the subject."
Of course the reputable person could be wrong but listening to the guy spouting BS is not going to help discern the truth, which is almost certainly not anywhere in whatever "middle" was conjured up by the BS.
It certainly helps for some deep technical articles, but when it comes to broader topics, HN has become grumpy and old.
It's cool to hate.
To write something constructive takes thought and creativity (as in, to 'create' something).
("Agreeing to something while acknowledging its flaws" isn't the alternative.)
Orchestration? "Just use some bash/perl, no need for this k8s craziness"
On a thread about Micro - a new cli text editor? "Just use vim."
And of course, the OG: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224
I treat those comments as reality check that lets me question my own stance and views. Afterall we all have different opinions, and mine might not be right.
Unfortunately, this comment here, and the fact that it was pinned to the top of the subthread, is sort of a variant of the same thing. I'll mark it off topic now.
- repeating that signal - looking quite distressed
and it might be useful.
When does anyone make that hand motion? I never have in my life.
This particular signal was also created during Covid lockdowns and was intended to be something you do to a camera, because you don't have any opportunity to see people in person and ask for help. So you raise your palm towards the camera and then close it into a fist.
you could make this signal with your hand down by your side while being "walked" to a location while in public. it would be much less noticable by the one doing the taking than trying to get people to do it in an "upright" position.
I think you're right that this hand signal is not ideal for "I am currently being kidnapped by the person right next to me", despite this success story.
> yes, thanks. i understand the signal. however, if you've ever made a "wrong" fist, you've made this signal.
You still don't seem to understand the signal. It is not simply a wrong fist.
The silent signal part is only needed if you're in need of assistance. You can use your words in most other situations.