Comment by quacked | Hacker News Reader

Comment by quacked | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Few people live in what can reasonably called a "community" any more, so the link between anonymous theft and the erosion of social culture doesn't make sense to everyone.

The most remote, homestead-y places will have unattended "stores" where you leave out goods and people come by and leave money in the basket and take what you have. The least remote, most-managed places have security locks on items over $15. It is impossible to run a friendly, neighborhood-run store when any new customer is a potential thief. When theft goes uncontrolled, owners begin to look at their customers with suspicion. Those who don't like theft leave for more peaceful places and are replaced by owners who will tolerate theft with a big insurance policy and force.

It is continually astonishing to me that so many "community-focused" people don't realize that unilateral actions of harm inside the community (theft, assault, etc.) have ripple effects that harm the entire community. If you grow up in a region where store owners believe you might be a thief unless they personally know you and you have to constantly worry about protecting what's yours, and I grow up in an area where I'm trusted and respected by business owners and I leave my door unlocked when I go to town, how is equity meaningfully achievable between us?

>The least remote, most-managed places have security locks on items over $15. It is impossible to run a friendly, neighborhood-run store when any new customer is a potential thief. When theft goes uncontrolled, owners begin to look at their customers with suspicion. Those who don't like theft leave for more peaceful places and are replaced by owners who will tolerate theft with a big insurance policy and force.

There's a street in northern Baltimore where you don't actually go into any of the shops. Instead, you walk into a foyer-mantrap hybrid made of bulletproof glass. There, the retail employees ask you what you want, you tell them, pay, and then they go get it for you. Experiencing it for the first time was bizarre. Not an area I felt safe parking my car.

A few blocks away from John Hopkins right? I find that city so bizarre, you have mansions, one of the top universities in the country, and a few blocks away it's pure ghetto. People go from being friendly to staring at you as if you are an alien.

Baltimore is so weird, sometimes feels like living in Rio de Janeiro but only the bad part of Rio. None of the music scene, night life or beaches of Rio, but all of the inequality and violence.

Yes, that's the area I'm talking about. Interesting perspective about Rio de Janeiro!

This (minus the bulletproof glass) is how most stores worked in Soviet union. Most of the wares were behind the counter and you asked for what you wanted and the counter person would give it to you. I guess robbery was not a big risk but theft was.

Or e.g. in Seattle in an otherwise-normal store they have alcohol under lock and key and you have to get an employer to give it to you - a hybrid model.

> Few people live in what can reasonably called a "community" any more, so the link between anonymous theft and the erosion of social culture doesn't make sense to everyone.

What do you think about how this relates to communities shifting almost entirely to the internet?

My wild-assed guess is that social media accelerated the underlying long-term trends.

Bowling Alone is a popular book about the decline of "social capital" (community), which is a fair intro to the topic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_Alone

IMHO, technological advances begets social upheaval and accelerating inequity are the root causes for the popular usual suspects (broadcast media, cars and suburbia, social media).

Orthogonally, since Trumpism, I've been more open minded towards explanations rooted in reactionary populism (revanchism) and white racial animus.

I thought about this for a while and I don't have a coherent answer.

I do think it's interesting that the Old Internet was more spontaneous, unorganized, and high-trust than the New Internet. It would be effortless to find counterexamples to this claim (back in the day I got death threats, now we have moderators for that!) but the fact remains that any new prosperous sector of the New Internet is immediately invaded by advertisers, authoritarian moderation teams, and the Eternal September effect, and the way that people present themselves on the New Internet is far more curated than in the past.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com