Hacker News Reader

Comment by 999900000999 | Hacker News Reader

This would suggest the only winning move is not to play.

Aside from this, I haven't used Social Media/ Online Dating in about 5 years.

For example, if someone posts something like "Where can I find an apartment in LA , my income is only 35k a year".

And I respond with " Your not going to make it here, you should move somewhere cheaper."

That can be interupted as an insult. On the other end of the spectrum, back when I used social media heavily I'd get called slurs all the time. Never been called a slur in real life.

It was very bad for me emotionally. I'm much happier, and meet great people, social media free.

I'd rather place restrictions on social media companies, many of which encourage negativity vs passing the blame to end users.

View on HN

> And I respond with "Your not going to make it here, you should move somewhere cheaper." That can be interupted as an insult.

People interpret this as an insult because statement contains an implicit negative value judgement about the person’s competence - i.e. “you are not going to make it here”.

Contrast that with something like, “It will be very difficult to find an apartment in LA that will be affordable on a $35k salary,” which is conveys the same information without making it personal.

But I agree with you point that social media and online discussion can suppress the better angels of our nature and be mentally unhealthy.

I do not know that the answer is putting restrictions on social media companies by force of law. That seems like it would end up as a total disaster. I think a better approach would be to demolish the moray / expectations that social media ought to be “the public square” where few speech prevails - which is a platitude to justify sacrificing quality for scale and ad revenue. My experience (since the days of BBSs) has been that the tone of the board and quality of discussion has always been dictated by the sysop and their willingness to use the ban hammer. But that won’t get you massive reach and those sweet sweet ad dollars.

I wouldn't say I'm making a negative judgement about the person.

I'm just saying LA isn't a good place for anyone making 35k a year. Then I offer actionable advice.

Likewise, I've even applied for YC before. I would of loved to get some feedback like "You aren't going to make it into YC without a business plan". That's better than getting ignored

I prefer real life socializing where something I said 6 or 7 years ago isn't used against me. I would hope most people are more mature at 25 than 19.

> I wouldn't say I'm making a negative judgement about the person.

Of course not, but we tend to be judged by our words and actions, not our intentions. Understand that people may experience the world very differently from you. They will instinctively pattern match the negative value judgement I pointed out; and to them it seems “obvious” that one should reword the statement. So obvious for them, that they can’t understand how someone with a different experience of the world might not recognize it.

> I prefer real life socializing where something I said 6 or 7 years ago isn't used against me. I would hope most people are more mature at 25 than 19.

Hear hear. This is a horrible side effect of social media. People need to be allowed to make mistakes. There can be no growth without mistakes.

At this point I think people would be well advised to consider their social media profile to be like a resume or personal brand advertisement. Anything but an authentic record of their private lives or thoughts.

>At this point I think people would be well advised to consider their social media profile to be like a resume or personal brand advertisement. Anything but an authentic record of their private lives or thoughts.

Amen.

I will say I'm very optimistic in 10 years or so social media will be seen as another addiction to treat. You have a right to binge drink every night. Likewise you can binge social media.

Nether is particularly healthy.

IMO if you say X in real life and a judge says you to to jail then why would it be different if you said X on the internet or on the phone? Seems reasonable that your free speech has consequences if you cause harm even if your speech was on the TV,internet or a news paper. Regular laws should apply for all speech.

It's not exactly documented if someone insults me at a bar.

"Cause harm" is a heavily subjective term.

If I say you're wasting your time learning Haskell since you'll never find a job, and this triggers a mental breakdowns in you, can you sue me ?

I'd argue the nature of social media actually encourages people to be meaner. If I'm a jerk at my local bar I can be easily banned.

If I'm a jerk on Facebook or a scammer on Tinder I can create a new account in 20 seconds.

The thing is not if I can sue you because I can, the thing is what a judge will do, will he laugh at me or he will punish you if you said something harmful that caused damage.

My point is why a judge should give different verdicts depending on the medium? Some accusation you made on Facebook with some photos hoped image could make more damage then same accusation made drunk at a bar, the judge should consider the damages not if you used FB, a phone or your mouth.

Agreed, let the platforms face fines and regulation, not jail the end users. Although some online bullying is much more blatant than your example.

I guess the devil is in the details, but on a cursory glance this sounds more akin to American libel laws than "no insults ever"

> Insult charges apply when an individual insults another in public to damage their social reputation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com