Hacker News Reader

Comment by dylan604 | Hacker News Reader

Yes, you are a crank, but you are not alone. Either way, we should at least acknowledge the crankiness.

Not everyone owns headphones. Some people might have received the speaker as a gift or decided on the speaker instead of headphones. How people spend their time outdoors is not up to you or I to decide. If they want to listen to music from a bluetooth speaker, that's what they want to do. There's a lot more outdoors for you to use as well so rather that stewing, just find more outdoors. Especially on trails. Just keep going. Or wait until they have kept going. I've never seen a bluetooth speaker that's big enough for someone to be on a trail with that doesn't "go away" after a minute or so.

I have discussed the speaker on trails issue with friends, and we've noticed that the louder one's speaker is the shittier the music it is playing.

View on HN

> How people spend their time outdoors is not up to you or I to decide. If they want to listen to music from a bluetooth speaker, that's what they want to do.

What if it interferes with my desire to NOT listen to their music on their bluetooth speaker?

> There's a lot more outdoors for you to use as well so rather that stewing

There are also many deep caves in which you can listen to music on speakers. Why aren't you going to these caves?

The societal contract is that your freedom stops where your neighbours freedom starts. This also applies to the noise you produce.

Often when I encounter a person loudly listening to music or videos on their phone in a cafe, it's because they are completely unaware of how loud they are or they obviously have some challenging psychological issues ( I live in SF ).

I have a lot of wired headphones I got off of Temu, I just give them a pair.

What % of the time does it work?

Any adverse experiences (e.g. punch in the face)?

I am the local headphone guy. They are usually shocked anyone would give them anything ever. No face punches yet.

How people spend their time outdoors is not up to you or I to decide.

If they're blasting music in a normally quiet place, they are deciding for me. You're literally giving priority to whoever chooses to be less considerate of others.

> Not everyone owns headphones. Some people might have received the speaker as a gift or decided on the speaker instead of headphones. How people spend their time outdoors is not up to you or I to decide. If they want to listen to music from a bluetooth speaker, that's what they want to do. There's a lot more outdoors for you to use as well so rather that stewing, just find more outdoors. Especially on trails. Just keep going. Or wait until they have kept going. I've never seen a bluetooth speaker that's big enough for someone to be on a trail with that doesn't "go away" after a minute or so.

I am very open to the argument of "you do you", which is pretty much my philosophy also. But I do think there are /some/ limits to this, because some behaviors are inherently anti-social. My philosophy is more than "you do you" should apply to policy and regulation, meaning that we should not criminalize or directly punish anti-social behaviors that don't cause direct and immediate harm. But that definitely does not mean that we should not shame people for acting in completely inappropriate ways, or directly inform them that their behavior is unwelcome, or otherwise seek to ensure that we act to exist in spaces devoid of anti-social behavior.

I've had this same exact scenario happen, and I simply spoke to the person and told them to lower the volume, use headphones, or stop altogether because they were scaring away the wildlife that I was there to see and photograph. They apologized, lowered the volume, and we both went back to doing our own thing. Most people are reasonable, and act in anti-social ways due to lack of awareness not malice. We are both sharing the trail, and we are both there to experience nature, and that very well might include many different modalities (including accompanying music), but if someone is acting in a way that completely prevents me from enjoying nature I definitely have the right to say something, to complain about it, and to complain about it after the fact, and "you do you" is not a valid argument in response to that.

It's simple. You do you, but don't bother other people. That's all there is to it.

I've been on both ends of this. One of the local parks allowed for permits to use amplified sound which we took advantage of about once a month weather permitting. Lots of complaints to the point I often interacted with police. We showed them the permit, we'd show dB readings from a meter, the police would leave, we'd keep going. It's a public place being used in a way allowed by those that be. There's no bluetooth speaker today that can compare to our use of amplified sound.

We all have rights to be in public parks/trails/etc. Cities have ordinances about nuisance things like loud anything. If you're on a trail and someone comes along with a speaker you don't like, just let them pass. They aren't hurting anyone/thing, you're just annoyed. If you've plopped down in the park or at the beach when someone else comes along, you can talk to them about, but they again have rights to do it.

You are free to talk to your local representatives to change ordinances if that's how you feel. Good luck with that if that's what you so choose.

A public park and a trail have very different meanings in my mind. When I say that I have encountered this on a trail, I'm specifically referring to trails in places which are designated wilderness areas, which are not subject to any ordinance. The US has a lot of national parks, national wilderness, and BLM land that is completely open to the public. That's a wonderful thing, but it also does not make sense to call for a park ranger to get involved in what is fundamentally a discontent at someone else's anti-social behavior, when I can simply have a conversation with them.

Behavior, and the response to behavior, exist on a spectrum. The fact you responded to me pointing out that "you do you" has philosophical limits, but that those limits should not involve criminalizing behavior, by suggesting I should campaign to enact an ordinance seems extremely obtuse. There is no need to change the law to criminalize making noise in a natural area, but similarly it's perfectly appropriate to tell someone to stop doing it.

> The US has a lot of national parks, national wilderness, and BLM land that is completely open to the public.

Many concerts, shooting ranges, and other loud activities occur in two of the three categories you mention above. All a lot louder than multiple hikers with Bluetooth speakers.

I won't even get into ATVs.

(Not disagreeing with your intent - merely pointing out to other readers of the various socially acceptable uses in these lands).

Local parks are quite different from hiking trails.

I think you're confusing the issue here. You were in a public place that explicitly allowed loud music with a permit. You obtained that permit, and you did what you were explicitly allowed to do. Great; you did the right thing.

But on hiking trails (and in many parks), there isn't that sort of thing. While some will prohibit loud noise, many don't say anything about loud noise. In those cases, in the absence of guidance, we should do the thing that is courteous and considerate of others: not play loud music.

> Most people are reasonable, and act in anti-social ways due to lack of awareness not malice.

Sometimes. I’m pretty sure that very often it’s because they simply do not care that they are being rude/inconsiderate/whatever. But even the willfully rude will likely lower the volume if you ask them nicely because not caring about being rude is not the same as wanting confrontation.

This is probably the most perfect illustration of toxic empathy I have ever read.

> How people spend their time outdoors is not up to you or I to decide.

Hiking trails and parks are public spaces, and we absolutely do get to decide how people spend their time there. I've seen parks and trails where the sign at the entrance/trailhead says no amplified music (among other restrictions). Selfish people of course ignore these signs and damage the experience for everyone around them.

> How people spend their time outdoors is not up to you or I to decide.

Oh no, it absolutely is. Societies have laws, and even just social norms, that don't stop applying "outdoors". Unless you're in the ocean, I suppose.

Pack out what you pack in. Stay on the trail. No loudspeakers. Very simple.

100%

I'd argue that unspoken rules apply even more strongly in actual outdoors setting, because a good number of those norms actually have serious consequences when violated. Anybody seriously hiking or offroading gets to save a non-zero number of behinds of people who ignored those rules, every single year.

And they also know they need to rely on those rules, because they might get them out of trouble too. The outdoors is not always friendly.

The "No speakers" thing is just the "let's try not be an ass to the same person who might need to pull me out of a ravine next" part of the rules.

I can assure you some of them also very much apply in the ocean.

Of the three you mention, only one is the law in every public land place I've hiked.[1]

Staying on the trail is mostly a suggestion for your safety (and to preserve the area) - definitely not a law.

Ditto for loudspeakers. People often go into nature and throw concerts.

[1] OK - trails in state parks and perhaps some national parks likely have more rules. But trails in general public lands (BLM, forest, etc)? Not many.

This is willful misreading. They specifically also said “social norms”.

This “it’s not technically illegal so it’s not a problem” sentiment is unhealthy for civil societies. I for one would like basic social norms to be respected without law-enforcement being involved.

I was pointing out the pointlessness of invoking "laws" in this scenario. I'm not the one that brought it into the conversation.

As for social norms, one only has to read the comments to understand that there clearly isn't consensus on this point. People go to nature for many reasons - not all related to enjoying the sounds of nature. What dylan604 is pointing out is to be mindful of that.

There are a lot of people who are loud about not wanting to follow social norms (which is expected when we're talking about people rudely being loud, I guess). It seems to be a point of pride. I don't get it but I've definitely seen it.

> People go to nature for many reasons - not all related to enjoying the sounds of nature.

The issue that you seem to be (willfully?) ignoring is that in a shared space, there are actions that you can take that force others to "enjoy" the space in a way that's different than they'd like.

Someone wants to enjoy the space with music. Ok, they play music, so they're enjoying the space in the way they want. Great for them.

Someone else wants to enjoy the space more quietly, able to hear the sounds of nature around them. But the person above has decided for them that they are not permitted to enjoy the space that way.

This is the difference between "freedom to" and "freedom from". Unfortunately when you have the "freedom to" do whatever you want, you infringe on the "freedom from" of others. It's a balance, and I'm sad to see that it seems people are swinging that balance toward "freedom to" at the expense of others. When I was growing up, we used to call this "common courtesy", which seems to be much less common these days.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com