Hacker News Reader

Comment by bragr | Hacker News Reader

The legal terms seem pretty evil for what this is. I'll allow that evil may not be the intent. Perhaps you just asked a lawyer for the most bulletproof terms possible, but what you've end up with is a very one sided set of terms. Honestly the more I read, the weirder they get. If I tell a lie to another user, them I'm liable to be banned? I see what you are going for in that section, but as written, any normal, day to day, social lubricant style lie/falsehood could get you banned? On a social network?

Edit: reading further, I suspect these were just taken from somewhere unless in 2025 they've got some Flash code to protect:

>Copy or adapt the Services' software, including but not limited to Flash, PHP, HTML, JavaScript, or other code.

View on HN

Yeah, that is a good point. I might need to tone it down a bit. Not trying to be evil, the intent was to protect myself and the users. I worried about what could go wrong like chatrooms turning into toxic places or the service being used for nefarious purposes. I wanted set some rules. I am a student though and I don't have money for lawyers so I just copied a boilerplate legal contract from a service and didn't change much.

I'm trying to keep in mind this isn't something you approached as a product to release or anything, and you're a student. I feel like I'm coming off pretty harshly here, but... you should be more worried about the "nefarious purposes" part than anything else, right now. I feel like offering this sort of service publicly - particularly in 2025 - requires some legal counsel.

One other concern about the implementation: it sounds like Hub administrators - who is just the first person to create a Hub in a particular area - are given a lot of power. No more Hubs are able to be created in an area? So if a Hub admin abuses their power that area is screwed, unless of course you (or whoever would be handling such cases, if indeed that would happen) agreed that they've overstepped, which may or may not be the case, particularly with a vague TOS

Anyway I think the idea is intriguing, and like new ways of exploring social media/communities.

It is evil to not allow lies?

That does not seem to be so evil .. but I did not found the legal terms on a first glance, so maybe there is more?

I think it's evil - by a small stretch of the word - to think that it's appropriate to forbid lying in general on a social chat platform, particularly as a bannable offence. It's also foolish to think that such terms could be reasonably enforced.

"It's also foolish to think that such terms could be reasonably enforced."

It would be a good legal base though, to be able to enforce it if needed.

What is your credit card info? Don't lie.

I don't want to tell you

is a truth and a perfectly safe answer

That doesn't answer my question though :D You can either lie outwardly or by omission. xD

It did answer your question. One can also refuse a answer - that is not lying, neither by omission or anything else.

Ok so it was tongue-in-cheek if not obvious but thanks whoever for the downvote. Then a bit more serious... There might be even better examples but let's consider that someone is part of a community that can use what is considered a slur, depending on context, or a term of endearment, depending on context and who uses it etc... If someone else uses it but fails to disclose their appartenance to said group. When asked, they can refuse to disclose it.

Is it fair to get them banned from the community? Can we consider that they might be lying by omission? After all they didn't answer and they might pass themselves as part of a community.

There are also colloquial considerations in online interactions that might be taken into account.

This is not really what I was veering toward initially but simply as a way to bring some more nuance since humor doesn't work here apparently.

This is the sort of things we see on twitter/X etc. You can't force people to speak differently, you can't force people to disclose information they would not want to disclose, but you may want to have some sort of policy to rule these kind of issues.

"When asked, they can refuse to disclose it."

Yes and that is still not a lie. Your comment above seems to imply otherwise and it was not humor to me, but arguing in bad faith.

"Is it fair to get them banned from the community?"

If the rules say no lying, then yes.

"You can't force people to speak differently"

Of course you can. Why do you think I am around here and not on reddit or alike? There are clear rules around discourse and they are enforced.

It is a lie if they use it as if they were a full-fledged member of a community while not actually being a true member of said community.

If I disguise myself as a man, that does not mean that I can go the male restrooms. If I am asked for proof that I am actually female for some reason, can I decline showing such proof?

And regarding arguing in bad faith, I was not arguing. Maybe you are not aware of the expression 'lying by omission'? But the smileys I used were supposed to make obvious that it was a joke/tongue-in-cheek. Even the initial question was tongue-in-cheek. Do you sincerely believe that I expect to receive some credit card info?!!!

Ack that this example might not be best since the lie in the first place is the disguise. But, not everything is ruled by law, especially online. Which is also the point of the question.

"It is a lie if they use it as if they were a full-fledged member of a community while not actually being a true member of said community."

That would be a lie, yes. (I found your example above not clearly written and still am not quite sure what you meant exactly)

"And regarding arguing in bad faith, I was not arguing. Maybe you are not aware of the expression 'lying by omission'? But the smileys I used were supposed to make obvious that it was a joke/tongue-in-cheek. Even the initial question was tongue-in-cheek. Do you sincerely believe that I expect to receive some credit card info?!!!"

Asking for information and someone declining that information has nothing to do with lying by ommision. That you try to make a connection here is what makes me believe you are not debating (or talking about or whatever) in good faith.

"But, not everything is ruled by law, especially online. Which is also the point of the question."

But this is about a concrete community, where my point is, they can very much rule certain things by their law.

And to me by default, lying is evil. And not banning those who lie (which was the starting point here).

So on an online forum, do you really think that you can force people to choose a profile picture that represents them accurately? Or is it a lie and it is a bannable offense? How do you enforce the truth?

> Asking for information and someone declining that information has nothing to do with lying by omission.

You may want to look up the definition of 'lying by omission'. Within the context of asking for profile information, it might well be. My point is that you need to be more measured. Even lying can be for protection at times. Sometimes it is not. It is not as straightforward as you make it seem.

An interesting thesis if you have time: https://theses.hal.science/tel-02170022/file/Icard-2019-Thes...

"Even lying can be for protection at times."

Oh for sure. But the idea (to me) is, if you have am honest online community with lots of trust build up, you don't need to.

"do you really think that you can force people to choose a profile picture that represents them accurately"

Of course you can. But that does not mean it is a must. That depends on the specific rules.

"You may want to look up the definition of 'lying by omission'. Within the context of asking for profile information, it might well be"

But not with the examples you gave.

I will check out the paper later, but I doubt I will learn much new. It is not a new topic to me.

One of these statements is a lie:

I live in America

I have red hair

I like bluebirds

Do you think it is good and just and fair to ban someone for one of these falsehoods?

Depends what your intentions are. If I want a authentic community, I would not want people to participate who lie where they live.

Otherwise there is the concept of making a prank which is fine by me.

But intentionally spreading lies for political propaganda or scam is very much a reason to ban someone like this for me.

So you agree with me then? I'm confused.

You edited your post, so not sure what your point is.

Either way, I would not agree that banning liers is evil.

How did you even find a TOS? The link to both that and the privacy policy on the Sign Up modal don't work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com