The blog post "What if we made advertising illegal?" explores the potential societal benefits of a world without advertising. It argues that advertising manipulates consumers, fuels overconsumption and unsustainable growth, promotes harmful products, and pollutes public spaces and our minds. By eliminating advertising, the author suggests we could reclaim public space, reduce consumption and waste, foster more meaningful cultural production, and encourage healthier lifestyles. This shift would necessitate new funding models for media and cultural institutions, potentially leading to more diverse and democratic forms of content creation.
University of Chicago president Paul Alivisatos argues against the rising tide of intellectual cowardice on college campuses. He believes universities should be havens for difficult conversations and the pursuit of truth, even when uncomfortable or unpopular. Alivisatos contends that avoiding controversial topics or shielding students from challenging viewpoints hinders their intellectual growth and their preparation for a complex world. He champions the Chicago Principles, which emphasize free expression and open discourse, as a crucial foundation for genuine learning and progress. Ultimately, Alivisatos calls for universities to actively cultivate intellectual courage, enabling students to grapple with diverse perspectives and form their own informed opinions.
Hacker News users generally agreed with the sentiment of the article, praising the university president's stance against intellectual cowardice. Several commenters highlighted the increasing pressure on universities to avoid controversial topics, particularly those related to race, gender, and politics. Some shared anecdotes of self-censorship within academia and the broader societal trend of avoiding difficult conversations. A few questioned the practicality of the president's idealism, wondering how such principles could be applied in the real world given the complexities of university governance and the potential for backlash. The most compelling comments centered around the importance of free speech on campuses, the detrimental effects of chilling discourse, and the necessity of engaging with uncomfortable ideas for the sake of intellectual growth. While there wasn't overt disagreement with the article's premise, some commenters offered a pragmatic counterpoint, suggesting that strategic silence could sometimes be necessary for survival in certain environments.
EFF warns that age verification laws, ostensibly designed to restrict access to adult content, pose a serious threat to online privacy. While initially targeting pornography sites, these laws are expanding to encompass broader online activities, such as accessing skincare products, potentially requiring users to upload government IDs to third-party verification services. This creates a massive database of sensitive personal information vulnerable to breaches, government surveillance, and misuse by private companies, effectively turning age verification into a backdoor for widespread online monitoring. The EFF argues that these laws are overbroad, ineffective at their stated goals, and disproportionately harm marginalized communities.
HN commenters express concerns about the slippery slope of age verification laws, starting with porn and potentially expanding to other online content and even everyday purchases. They argue that these laws normalize widespread surveillance and data collection, creating honeypots for hackers and potentially enabling government abuse. Several highlight the ineffectiveness of age gates, pointing to easy bypass methods and the likelihood of children accessing restricted content through other means. The chilling effect on free speech and the potential for discriminatory enforcement are also raised, with some commenters drawing parallels to authoritarian regimes. Some suggest focusing on better education and parental controls rather than restrictive legislation. The technical feasibility and privacy implications of various verification methods are debated, with skepticism towards relying on government IDs or private companies.
DigiCert, a Certificate Authority (CA), issued a DMCA takedown notice against a Mozilla Bugzilla post detailing a vulnerability in their certificate issuance process. This vulnerability allowed the fraudulent issuance of certificates for *.mozilla.org, a significant security risk. While DigiCert later claimed the takedown was accidental and retracted it, the initial action sparked concern within the Mozilla community regarding potential censorship and the chilling effect such legal threats could have on open security research and vulnerability disclosure. The incident highlights the tension between responsible disclosure and legal protection, particularly when vulnerabilities involve prominent organizations.
HN commenters largely express outrage at DigiCert's legal threat against Mozilla for publicly disclosing a vulnerability in their software via Bugzilla, viewing it as an attempt to stifle legitimate security research and responsible disclosure. Several highlight the chilling effect such actions can have on vulnerability reporting, potentially leading to more undisclosed vulnerabilities being exploited. Some question the legality and ethics of DigiCert's response, especially given the public nature of the Bugzilla entry. A few commenters sympathize with DigiCert's frustration with the delayed disclosure but still condemn their approach. The overall sentiment is strongly against DigiCert's handling of the situation.
A Brazilian Supreme Court justice ordered internet providers to block access to the video platform Rumble within 72 hours. The platform is accused of failing to remove content promoting January 8th riots in Brasília and spreading disinformation about the Brazilian electoral system. Rumble was given a deadline to comply with removal orders, which it missed, leading to the ban. Justice Alexandre de Moraes argued that the platform's actions posed a risk to public order and democratic institutions.
Hacker News users discuss the implications of Brazil's ban on Rumble, questioning the justification and long-term effectiveness. Some argue that the ban is an overreach of power and sets a dangerous precedent for censorship, potentially emboldening other countries to follow suit. Others point out the technical challenges of enforcing such a ban, suggesting that determined users will likely find workarounds through VPNs. The decision's impact on Rumble's user base and revenue is also debated, with some predicting minimal impact while others foresee significant consequences, particularly if other countries adopt similar measures. A few commenters draw parallels to previous bans of platforms like Telegram, noting the limited success and potential for unintended consequences like driving users to less desirable platforms. The overall sentiment expresses concern over censorship and the slippery slope towards further restrictions on online content.
The Substack post details how DeepSeek, a video search engine with content filtering, can be circumvented by encoding potentially censored keywords as hexadecimal strings. Because DeepSeek decodes hex before applying its filters, a search for "0x736578" (hex for "sex") will return results that a direct search for "sex" might block. The post argues this reveals a flaw in DeepSeek's censorship implementation, demonstrating that filtering based purely on keyword matching is easily bypassed with simple encoding techniques. This highlights the limitations of automated content moderation and the potential for unintended consequences when relying on simplistic filtering methods.
Hacker News users discuss potential censorship evasion techniques, prompted by an article detailing how DeepSeek, a coder-focused search engine, appears to suppress results related to specific topics. Several commenters explore the idea of encoding sensitive queries in hexadecimal format as a workaround. However, skepticism arises regarding the long-term effectiveness of such a tactic, predicting that DeepSeek would likely adapt and detect such encoding methods. The discussion also touches upon the broader implications of censorship in code search engines, with some arguing that DeepSeek's approach might hinder access to valuable information while others emphasize the platform's right to curate its content. The efficacy and ethics of censorship are debated, with no clear consensus emerging. A few comments delve into alternative evasion strategies and the general limitations of censorship in a determined community.
Former tech CEO and founder of online invitation company Evite, Al Lieb, is suing to have records of his 2016 domestic violence arrest expunged from the internet. Despite charges being dropped and the case dismissed, Lieb argues that the persistent online presence of his arrest record unfairly damages his reputation and career prospects. He's targeting websites like Mugshots.com that publish arrest information, claiming they profit from this information and refuse to remove it even after legal proceedings conclude. Lieb believes individuals have a right to privacy and to move on from past mistakes when charges are dropped.
Hacker News commenters largely discuss the legal and ethical implications of attempting to remove public arrest records from the internet. Several express skepticism about the plaintiff's chances of success, citing the importance of public access to such information and the established difficulty of removing content once it's online (the Streisand effect is mentioned). Some debate the merits of his arguments regarding potential harm to his reputation and career, while others suggest alternative strategies like focusing on SEO to bury the negative information. A few comments highlight the tension between individual privacy rights and the public's right to know, with some arguing that the nature of the alleged crime should influence the decision of whether to unseal or remove the record. There's also discussion about the potential for abuse if such removals become commonplace, with concerns about powerful individuals manipulating public perception. A common thread is the acknowledgment that the internet has fundamentally changed the landscape of information accessibility and permanence.
The Supreme Court upheld a lower court's ruling to ban TikTok in the United States, citing national security concerns. However, former President Trump, who initially pushed for the ban, has suggested he might offer TikTok a reprieve if certain conditions are met. This potential lifeline could involve an American company taking over TikTok's U.S. operations. The situation remains uncertain, with TikTok's future in the U.S. hanging in the balance.
Hacker News commenters discuss the potential political motivations and ramifications of the Supreme Court upholding a TikTok ban, with some skeptical of Trump's supposed "lifeline" offer. Several express concern over the precedent set by banning a popular app based on national security concerns without clear evidence of wrongdoing, fearing it could pave the way for future restrictions on other platforms. Others highlight the complexities of separating TikTok from its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, and the technical challenges of enforcing a ban. Some commenters question the effectiveness of the ban in achieving its stated goals and debate whether alternative social media platforms pose similar data privacy risks. A few point out the irony of Trump's potential involvement in a deal to keep TikTok operational, given his previous stance on the app. The overall sentiment reflects a mixture of apprehension about the implications for free speech and national security, and cynicism about the political maneuvering surrounding the ban.
Summary of Comments ( 1042 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43595269
HN users generally support the idea of banning or heavily regulating advertising, citing its manipulative nature, negative impact on mental health, contribution to consumerism, and distortion of media. Some propose alternative funding models for media and other services, such as subscriptions, micropayments, or public funding. Several commenters acknowledge the difficulty of implementing such a ban, particularly given the entrenched power of the advertising industry and the potential for black markets. A few dissenting voices argue that advertising plays a vital role in informing consumers and supporting free services, and that a ban would be overly restrictive and harmful to the economy. Several discuss the potential unintended consequences of such a drastic measure.
The Hacker News post "What if we made advertising illegal?" generated a lively discussion with a variety of perspectives on the potential impacts of such a ban. Several commenters explored the practical implications and unintended consequences.
One compelling line of discussion revolved around the definition of "advertising" and the difficulty of drawing a clear line. Commenters debated whether things like movie trailers, book reviews, or even open-source project announcements would be considered advertising under a hypothetical ban. This led to concerns about censorship and restrictions on free speech. Some suggested that a ban might be too broad and could stifle innovation and the spread of information. Others proposed narrower definitions focused on manipulative or misleading advertising practices.
Another key theme was the potential impact on the funding of free services. Many commenters pointed out that advertising revenue supports many websites, apps, and other services that people rely on. They questioned how these services would be funded in the absence of advertising, with suggestions ranging from subscriptions and donations to government funding. Some expressed skepticism about the viability of these alternatives, particularly for smaller or niche platforms.
Several commenters discussed the potential benefits of an ad-free world, such as reduced consumerism, less cluttered online experiences, and decreased exposure to potentially harmful or misleading information. However, others argued that advertising plays a valuable role in informing consumers about products and services and driving competition.
Some commenters also explored historical examples of advertising bans or restrictions, such as the ban on tobacco advertising. They debated the effectiveness of these measures and their relevance to a broader advertising ban.
A few comments touched on the potential for black markets and other unintended consequences, such as the rise of influencer marketing or other forms of disguised advertising.
Overall, the comments on Hacker News reflect a complex and nuanced understanding of the role of advertising in society. While some expressed support for a ban, many others raised concerns about its feasibility and potential negative consequences. The discussion highlighted the need for careful consideration of the definition of advertising and the potential impacts on various stakeholders, including consumers, businesses, and the media.