The article argues that top-posting, the practice of replying above quoted text in emails, has effectively "won" due to its prevalence in modern communication, particularly on mobile devices. The author contends that bottom-posting's advantages in maintaining context are outweighed by the speed and efficiency of top-posting, especially in fast-paced, fragmented exchanges. They suggest that the cognitive overhead of scrolling down, composing a reply, and then scrolling back up to insert it becomes cumbersome, and that the clear attribution provided by quoted text generally suffices for maintaining context. Essentially, the article posits that top-posting's inherent alignment with modern communication habits has made it the de facto standard, regardless of traditional email etiquette.
Researchers have introduced "Discord Unveiled," a massive dataset comprising nearly 20 billion messages from over 6.7 million public Discord servers collected between 2015 and 2024. This dataset offers a unique lens into online communication, capturing a wide range of topics, communities, and evolving language use over nearly a decade. It includes message text, metadata like timestamps and user IDs, and structural information about servers and channels. The researchers provide thorough details about data collection, filtering, and anonymization processes, and highlight the dataset's potential for research in various fields like natural language processing, social computing, and online community analysis. They also release code and tools to facilitate access and analysis, while emphasizing the importance of ethical considerations for researchers using the data.
Hacker News users discussed the potential privacy implications of the Discord Unveiled dataset, expressing concern about the inclusion of usernames and the potential for deanonymization. Some questioned the ethics and legality of collecting and distributing such data, even from public channels. Others highlighted the dataset's value for researching online communities, misinformation, and language models, while also acknowledging the need for careful consideration of privacy risks. The feasibility and effectiveness of anonymization techniques were also debated, with some arguing that true anonymization is practically impossible given the richness of the data. Several users mentioned the chilling effect such datasets could have on online discourse, potentially leading to self-censorship. There was also discussion of the technical challenges of working with such a large dataset.
The blog post details the author's rediscovery of, and fascination with, the Usenet newsgroup alt.anonymous.messages. This group, designed for anonymous posting before the widespread adoption of anonymizing tools like Tor, relied on a server that stripped identifying headers. The author describes the unique culture that emerged within this space, characterized by stream-of-consciousness posts, personal confessions, emotional outpourings, and cryptic, often nonsensical messages, all contributing to an atmosphere of mystery and intrigue. The author highlights the historical significance of this group as a precursor to modern anonymous online communication and expresses a sense of nostalgia for this lost digital world.
HN users discuss the now-defunct alt.anonymous.messages Usenet newsgroup, expressing nostalgia and sharing anecdotes. Several commenters reminisce about its unique culture of anonymity and free expression, contrasting it with the more traceable nature of modern internet forums. Some recall the technical challenges of accessing the newsgroup and the prevalence of spam and noise. Others highlight its role as a precursor to later anonymous online spaces, debating its influence and the eventual reasons for its decline. The overall sentiment is one of remembering a bygone era of the internet, marked by a different kind of anonymity and community interaction. A few commenters also mention the difficulty of archiving Usenet content and express interest in exploring any preserved archives of the group.
The blog post "Let's talk about AI and end-to-end encryption" explores the perceived conflict between the benefits of end-to-end encryption (E2EE) and the potential of AI. While some argue that E2EE hinders AI's ability to analyze data for valuable insights or detect harmful content, the author contends this is a false dichotomy. They highlight that AI can still operate on encrypted data using techniques like homomorphic encryption, federated learning, and secure multi-party computation, albeit with performance trade-offs. The core argument is that preserving E2EE is crucial for privacy and security, and perceived limitations in AI functionality shouldn't compromise this fundamental protection. Instead of weakening encryption, the focus should be on developing privacy-preserving AI techniques that work with E2EE, ensuring both security and the responsible advancement of AI.
Hacker News users discussed the feasibility and implications of client-side scanning for CSAM in end-to-end encrypted systems. Some commenters expressed skepticism about the technical challenges and potential for false positives, highlighting the difficulty of distinguishing between illegal content and legitimate material like educational resources or artwork. Others debated the privacy implications and potential for abuse by governments or malicious actors. The "slippery slope" argument was raised, with concerns that seemingly narrow use cases for client-side scanning could expand to encompass other types of content. The discussion also touched on the limitations of hashing as a detection method and the possibility of adversarial attacks designed to circumvent these systems. Several commenters expressed strong opposition to client-side scanning, arguing that it fundamentally undermines the purpose of end-to-end encryption.
Summary of Comments ( 8 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44088644
HN commenters largely agree with the author that top-posting has "won" due to its efficiency in digital communication, particularly in threaded discussions. Several highlight its benefits for quickly grasping the context of a reply, especially in long email chains or on mobile devices. Some argue that interleaved posting disrupts the flow and requires more effort to reconstruct the original message. A few dissenting voices argue against top-posting in specific scenarios like code review or when providing concise, direct responses, but the general consensus is that its prevalence indicates its usefulness in modern communication. Some commenters point out cultural differences in posting styles and how top-posting aligns better with the fast-paced nature of online discourse. A few also mention the role of email clients and mobile interfaces in promoting top-posting by making it the default or more convenient option.
The Hacker News post "Why Top Posting Has Won" generated a lively discussion with 27 comments exploring the merits and drawbacks of top-posting. Several compelling arguments emerge from the conversation.
A significant number of commenters argue that top-posting improves readability, particularly in threaded conversations and on mobile devices. They find it easier to follow the flow of discussion when the newest information appears first. This contrasts with bottom-posting, which can require scrolling to the end of a long message to understand the context of the reply. One commenter even suggests that top-posting mirrors how we naturally speak, by presenting the main point first before elaborating.
However, others defend bottom-posting, emphasizing its contextual advantages. They point out that by directly responding to specific points within the quoted text, bottom-posting provides clarity and avoids ambiguity. This targeted approach can make it easier to understand the nuances of the conversation, especially when discussing complex technical topics. One comment highlights the importance of interleaving responses with the original text for precision and to avoid misinterpretations.
Several commenters acknowledge that the ideal approach depends on the context. Short replies and simple questions often benefit from top-posting, while more detailed responses and technical discussions might require the precision of bottom-posting. One commenter suggests that a hybrid approach, starting with a top-level summary or response followed by inline replies, can offer the best of both worlds.
A few comments also touch on the cultural aspect of the debate, noting that top-posting has become more prevalent in certain online communities and messaging platforms. This shift is attributed to the rise of mobile communication and the preference for quick, concise replies.
Overall, the discussion reveals a diverse range of opinions on top-posting and bottom-posting, with compelling arguments on both sides. While top-posting seems to have gained popularity for its ease of use in certain contexts, the value of bottom-posting for clarity and precision in complex discussions remains apparent. The ideal approach likely depends on the specific communication situation and individual preferences.