Hacker News Reader

Comment by barbazoo | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

It's interesting, when I first got a cell phone (probably 1998) it took me years to figure out that if you received an unwanted call you could just ignore the call. This wasn't really possible back in the landline days, (most people did not have caller ID) and so it wasn't really a scenario you were trained for.

Obviously this is only a metaphorical comparison, but I do wonder if people are going to figure this out with regard to social media. A lot of people are talking about how to "fix" social media, but almost no one is saying "maybe I'll delete it and just read a book or go for a walk or something."

It all reminds me of the Blaise Pascal quote: "All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone."

> "All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone."

In this situation, who's the person unable to sit quietly in a room—the person who is receiving unsolicited artificial videos of her dead father, or the people who are generating artificial videos of a dead man and sending them to his daughter?

In this situation the person sending unsolicited videos more aptly fits, but I think you could argue it's both. Being connected to social media in some sense is a refusal to just sit alone in your room. And when bad things happen to you on social media -- even when blame should strictly be assigned to the people actually taking the action -- there's a sense in which you have failed to "sit quietly in a room alone."

People definitely read the parent comment as blaming Williams' daughter for the actions of others. I agree that the blame rests with the people actually sending the videos, but I think there's another reading of the parent comment: why do we subject ourselves to this? Why don't we just walk away, when it would be very easy to do so? I'm never going to be able to stop the flood of assholes online, and no one commenting on this thread will ever be able to stop it either. What's in my control is whether or not I engage in that system.

I installed a landline in my house, and today my wife told me it was scary. Why?

Because it was ringing. I suggested she pick it up to find out why it was ringing, but apparently that’s not something you do in the age of mobile phones.

Making phone calls is turning in to extinction at this point. I'm waiting for the day Android/Apple remove the actual dailer app.

Maybe she likes social media? Why would your first response be for her to quit doing something she enjoys to avoid accidental harassment?

How a block list with robust and easilly accessible ways of extending it is not a first thing that gets implemented for any social app is beyond me.

Oh sure, side with the harassers of a grieving person. Being harassed? Well you could just go away! Just stop using this service the rest of society uses! Too bad your dad died and people are harassing you about it!

A ghoulish take. Victim blaming. A compassionate person would delete it.

Well, he’s right. Entering the public square means exposure not only to what someone chooses to see but also to what others choose to share with them. That isn’t harassment, despite the victim mentality you’re promoting. If she doesn’t like it, she’s free to leave social media, simple as that. The same principle applies here on Hacker News: we all have to read posts from people who dislike AI. I believe those people will eventually be left behind, I don't care if they are left behind, and I have no interest in reading anti-AI arguments in 2025. After all, where were they when AI algorithms were being developed back in the 50s and 60s?

> That isn’t harassment, despite the victim mentality you’re promoting.

Are you stating that this isn't harassment, or that you are incapable of being harassed on social media?

> Entering the public square means exposure not only to what someone chooses to see but also to what others choose to share with them.

This isnt a public square, let alone even a physical one. Even in the physical space, I am not beholden to look at what others share. I am under no obligation to take the flyer as I pass by. I am under no obligation to stop and listen as they prance around and try to get into my face.

These companies could provide a set level of tools for its users to be able to appropriately weed their own gardens, but they mostly chose not too. If she could set her app to not show her any video links from parties she didn't follow that pinged her, this probably wouldnt be an issue. There could easily be an middle ground between accept all harassment, and not visit the social club.

If I compile the voice recordings of my dead father and create a ai replica that you could call and speak to him, and then I sent it to my extended family, that's not harassment if they choose to believe that they don't like it.

Suppose I (a stranger who never met your father) do it, the AI replica I make is obviously fake and wrong, but it becomes popular nad people send you versions of it 10 times a day?

Harassment or not, it would be very cruel.

> After all, where were they when AI algorithms were being developed back in the 50s and 60s?

...living in a world where AI wasn't an enabler for abuse? What a bafflingly weird take - "you didn't object to <thing> when it was first thought of, so now it's being used badly you can't object to it"

I have no interest in reading anti-AI arguments in 2025. After all, where were they when AI algorithms were being developed back in the 50s and 60s?

They were in the library. Philip K Dick among others wrote extensively on likely downsides of such technology during the period you mention. Even were this not the case, you're basically arguing that nobody under the age of 60 has any right to complain because they weren't around when the concepts were first articulated. This is asinine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com