Dan Sinker's "The Who Cares Era" describes a pervasive societal apathy fueled by information overload and the relentless churn of the news cycle. Bombarded with crises, both real and manufactured, individuals have retreated into a state of detached indifference. This "who cares" attitude isn't necessarily malicious, but rather a coping mechanism for navigating a world saturated with negativity and a sense of powerlessness. It manifests in disengagement from news and politics, a prioritization of personal well-being, and a focus on smaller, more manageable concerns. Sinker posits that this era presents a unique opportunity for meaningful change driven by localized action and a rejection of grand narratives, allowing individuals to find purpose and connection within their immediate communities.
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.
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 author argues that modern personal computing has become "anti-personnel," designed to exploit users rather than empower them. Software and hardware are increasingly complex, opaque, and controlled by centralized entities, fostering dependency and hindering user agency. This shift is exemplified by the dominance of subscription services, planned obsolescence, pervasive surveillance, and the erosion of user ownership and control over data and devices. The essay calls for a return to the original ethos of personal computing, emphasizing user autonomy, open standards, and the right to repair and modify technology. This involves reclaiming agency through practices like self-hosting, using open-source software, and engaging in critical reflection about our relationship with technology.
HN commenters largely agree with the author's premise that much of modern computing is designed to be adversarial toward users, extracting data and attention at the expense of usability and agency. Several point out the parallels with Shoshana Zuboff's "Surveillance Capitalism." Some offer specific examples like CAPTCHAs, cookie banners, and paywalls as prime examples of "anti-personnel" design. Others discuss the inherent tension between free services and monetization through data collection, suggesting that alternative business models are needed. A few counterpoints argue that the article overstates the case, or that users implicitly consent to these tradeoffs in exchange for free services. A compelling exchange centers on whether the described issues are truly "anti-personnel," or simply the result of poorly designed systems.
The blog post "You Wouldn't Download a Hacker News" argues against the trend of building personal websites as complex web applications. The author contends that static sites, while seemingly less technologically advanced, are superior for personal sites due to their simplicity, speed, security, and ease of maintenance. Building a dynamic web application for a personal site introduces unnecessary complexity and vulnerabilities, akin to illegally downloading a car—it's more trouble than it's worth when simpler, legal alternatives exist. The core message is that personal websites should prioritize content and accessibility over flashy features and complicated architecture.
The Hacker News comments discuss the blog post's analogy of downloading a car (representing building software in-house) versus subscribing to a car service (representing using SaaS). Several commenters find the analogy flawed, arguing that software is more akin to designing and building a custom factory (in-house) versus renting a generic factory space (SaaS). This highlights the flexibility and control offered by building your own software, even if it's more complex. Other commenters point out the hidden costs of SaaS, such as vendor lock-in, data security concerns, and the potential for price hikes. The discussion also touches on the importance of considering the specific needs and resources of a company when deciding between building and buying software, acknowledging that SaaS can be a viable option for certain situations. A few commenters suggest the choice also depends on the stage of a company, with early-stage startups often benefiting from the speed and affordability of SaaS.
Zeynep Tufekci's TED Talk argues that the current internet ecosystem, driven by surveillance capitalism and the pursuit of engagement, is creating a dystopian society. Algorithms, optimized for clicks and ad revenue, prioritize emotionally charged and polarizing content, leading to filter bubbles, echo chambers, and the spread of misinformation. This system erodes trust in institutions, exacerbates social divisions, and manipulates individuals into behaviors that benefit advertisers, not themselves. Tufekci warns that this pursuit of maximizing attention, regardless of its impact on society, is a dangerous path that needs to be corrected through regulatory intervention and a fundamental shift in how we design and interact with technology.
Hacker News users generally agreed with Zeynep Tufekci's premise that the current internet ecosystem, driven by advertising revenue, incentivizes harmful content and dystopian outcomes. Several commenters highlighted the perverse incentives of engagement-based algorithms, noting how outrage and negativity generate more clicks than nuanced or positive content. Some discussed the lack of viable alternatives to the ad-supported model, while others suggested potential solutions like micropayments, subscriptions, or federated social media. A few commenters pointed to the need for stronger regulation and the importance of individual responsibility in curating online experiences. The manipulation of attention through "dark patterns" and the resulting societal polarization were also recurring themes.
Mark Zuckerberg isn't declaring social media dead, but rather arguing its era of dominance is waning. He believes the future of online interaction lies in the metaverse—immersive, persistent virtual worlds where users engage as avatars. Zuckerberg sees this shift not as an abandonment of connection, but an evolution towards a richer, more embodied form of digital interaction, prioritizing presence and experience over passive consumption of feeds. This transition, he posits, will be driven by advancements in augmented and virtual reality technologies, which Meta is heavily investing in.
HN commenters are skeptical of Zuckerberg's pronouncements about the "end of social media," viewing it as a calculated move to push Meta's vision of the metaverse. Many see it as a rebranding effort, not a fundamental shift, with some pointing out the cyclical nature of tech hype and the similarities to previous pivots like "Web 2.0." Several highlight the inherent social aspects of platforms like Horizon Worlds, arguing that it's still social media, just in a different format. Others question the viability and appeal of the metaverse itself, citing its current clunkiness and lack of compelling use cases beyond gaming. A few express cynicism about Zuckerberg's motives, suggesting he's trying to distract from Meta's struggles with declining user engagement and increased competition.
In late April 2025, 4chan experienced a significant data breach nicknamed "Sharty" involving the leak of emails belonging to Hiroyuki Nishimura (moot), the site's founder, and other 4chan janitors (moderators). The leaked emails contained personal information, private discussions, and internal 4chan communications. While the exact extent and impact of the breach remained unclear, it fueled speculation and discussion within the 4chan community and beyond regarding the site's security practices and the privacy of its users. The hack also resulted in various memes and jokes related to the leaked content, particularly targeting moot and the janitors' perceived incompetence.
Hacker News users discuss the plausibility of the "sharty hack" and leaked janitor emails, with skepticism being the dominant sentiment. Several commenters point out inconsistencies and improbabilities within the narrative, like the janitor's unusual email address format and the lack of corroborating evidence. The overall consensus leans towards the story being a fabrication, possibly an elaborate troll or creative writing exercise. Some users express amusement at the absurdity of the situation, while others criticize Know Your Meme for giving attention to such easily debunked stories. A few commenters suggest potential motivations for the hoax, including a desire to generate chaos or simply for entertainment.
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.
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.
Vicki Boykis reflects on 20 years of Y Combinator and Hacker News, observing how their influence has shifted the tech landscape. Initially fostering a scrappy, builder-focused community, YC/HN evolved alongside the industry, becoming increasingly intertwined with venture capital and prioritizing scale and profitability. This shift, driven by the pursuit of ever-larger funding rounds and exits, has led to a decline in the original hacker ethos, with less emphasis on individual projects and more on market dominance. While acknowledging the positive aspects of YC/HN's legacy, Boykis expresses concern about the homogenization of tech culture and the potential stifling of truly innovative, independent projects due to the pervasive focus on VC-backed growth. She concludes by pondering the future of online communities and their ability to maintain their initial spirit in the face of commercial pressures.
Hacker News users discuss Vicki Boykis's blog post reflecting on 20 years of Y Combinator and Hacker News. Several commenters express nostalgia for the earlier days of both, lamenting the perceived shift from a focus on truly disruptive startups to more conventional, less technically innovative ventures. Some discuss the increasing difficulty of getting into YC and the changing landscape of the startup world. The "YC application industrial complex" and the prevalence of AI-focused startups are recurring themes. Some users also critique Boykis's perspective, arguing that her criticisms are overly focused on consumer-facing companies and don't fully appreciate the B2B SaaS landscape. A few point out that YC has always funded a broad range of startups, and the perception of a decline may be due to individual biases.
Pippin Barr's "It is as if you were on your phone" is a web-based art piece that simulates the experience of endlessly scrolling through a smartphone. It presents a vertically scrolling feed of generic, placeholder-like content—images, text snippets, and UI elements—mimicking the addictive, often mindless nature of phone usage. The piece offers no real interaction beyond scrolling, highlighting the passive consumption and fleeting engagement often associated with social media and other phone-based activities. It serves as a commentary on how this behavior can feel both absorbing and empty.
HN commenters largely agree with the author's premise that modern web browsing often feels like using a constrained mobile app, even on desktop. Several point to the increasing prevalence of single-column layouts, large headers, and hamburger menus as key culprits. Some suggest this trend is driven by a mobile-first design philosophy gone too far, while others argue it's a consequence of sites prioritizing content management systems (CMS) ease of use over user experience. A few commenters propose solutions like browser extensions to customize layouts or the adoption of CSS frameworks that prioritize adaptability. One compelling comment highlights the irony of mobile sites sometimes offering more functionality than their desktop counterparts due to this simplification. Another suggests the issue stems from the dominance of JavaScript frameworks that encourage mobile-centric design patterns.
This blog post reminisces about the early days of personal web publishing on GeoCities in 1995. It highlights the excitement and challenges of creating a homepage using basic HTML, with limited access to images and other multimedia. The author describes painstakingly crafting their own backgrounds and navigational elements using rudimentary tools and techniques, emphasizing the stark contrast with today's drag-and-drop website builders. The post evokes a sense of nostalgia for the simpler, more DIY nature of the early web, where personal expression and creativity thrived despite technical limitations. Ultimately, it reflects on the significant impact GeoCities had on democratizing web publishing and fostering online community.
Hacker News users reminisced about GeoCities, expressing nostalgia for its early web design aesthetic and the sense of community it fostered. Several commenters recalled the excitement of creating personal web pages with animated GIFs and under construction signs, and the joy of discovering others' creations. Some discussed the technical limitations of the time, including slow dial-up connections and limited storage space. Others lamented the loss of this era of the web, contrasting it with the current centralized, corporate internet landscape. A few users pointed out the article's historical inaccuracies, while others shared their own GeoCities URLs or memories of specific sites. Overall, the comments reflect a fondness for GeoCities as a symbol of a more creative and personal internet.
Stephanie Yue Duhem's essay argues that the virality of Rupi Kaur's poetry stems from its easily digestible, relatable, and emotionally charged content, rather than its literary merit. Duhem suggests that Kaur's work resonates with a broad audience precisely because it avoids complex language and challenging themes, opting instead for simple, declarative statements about common experiences like heartbreak and trauma. This accessibility, combined with visually appealing formatting on social media, contributes to its widespread appeal. Essentially, Duhem posits that Kaur’s work, and other similar viral poetry, thrives not on its artistic depth, but on its capacity to be readily consumed and shared as easily digestible emotional content.
Hacker News users generally agreed with the article's premise, finding the discussed poem simplistic and lacking depth. Several commenters dissected the poem's flaws, citing its predictable rhyming scheme, cliché imagery, and unoriginal message. Some suggested the virality stems from relatable, easily digestible content that resonates with a broad audience rather than poetic merit. Others discussed the nature of virality itself, suggesting algorithms amplify mediocrity and that the poem's success doesn't necessarily reflect its quality. A few commenters defended the poem, arguing that its simplicity and emotional resonance are valuable, even if it lacks sophisticated poetic techniques. The discussion also touched on the democratization of poetry through social media and the subjective nature of art appreciation.
In a 2014 Dezeen article, Justin McGuirk reflects on William Gibson's observation that burgeoning subcultures are rapidly commodified, losing their subversive potential before they fully form. McGuirk uses the example of a sanitized, commercialized "punk" aesthetic appearing in London shops, devoid of the original movement's anti-establishment ethos. He argues that the internet, with its instant communication and trend-spotting, accelerates this process. Essentially, the very act of identifying and labeling a subculture makes it vulnerable to appropriation by mainstream culture, transforming rebellion into a marketable product.
HN users generally agree with Gibson's observation about the rapid commodification of subcultures. Several commenters attribute this to the internet and social media, allowing trends to spread and be exploited much faster than in the past. Some argue that genuine subcultures still exist, but are more fragmented and harder to find. One commenter suggests commodification might not always be negative, as it can provide access to niche interests while another points out the cyclical nature of trends, with mainstream adoption often leading to subcultures moving underground and reinventing themselves. A few lament the loss of authenticity this process creates.
Jonathan Crary's "Superbloom" argues that the relentless pursuit of seamless technological connection, exemplified by platforms like Zoom and social media, has paradoxically fragmented our experience of reality. Crary posits that these technologies, promising increased interaction, instead foster alienation by reducing human experience to quantifiable data points and encouraging a constant state of distraction. This constant connectivity degrades our capacity for focused attention, critical thinking, and genuine engagement with the world, ultimately hindering the development of individual subjectivity and shared social realities. The book urges a critical reassessment of our relationship with these technologies and advocates for reclaiming our agency in shaping a more meaningful and less atomized future.
HN commenters largely disagree with the premise of the review and the book it covers ("Superbloom"). Several argue the reviewer misrepresents or misunderstands the book's arguments, especially regarding technology's role in societal fragmentation. Some suggest the reviewer's nostalgia for pre-internet community blinds them to the downsides of those times, like geographic limitations and social conformity. Others point out that "technologies of connection" are tools, and blaming them for societal issues is like blaming hammers for violence. A few commenters mention the irony of discussing connection and disconnection on a platform designed for connection, highlighting the complexity of the issue. The most compelling comments offer alternative perspectives on how technology impacts community, emphasizing individual agency and the potential for both positive and negative consequences depending on usage.
Cory Doctorow's "It's Not a Crime If We Do It With an App" argues that enclosing formerly analog activities within proprietary apps often transforms acceptable behaviors into exploitable data points. Companies use the guise of convenience and added features to justify these apps, gathering vast amounts of user data that is then monetized or weaponized through surveillance. This creates a system where everyday actions, previously unregulated, become subject to corporate control and potential abuse, ultimately diminishing user autonomy and creating new vectors for discrimination and exploitation. The post uses the satirical example of a potato-tracking app to illustrate how seemingly innocuous data collection can lead to intrusive monitoring and manipulation.
HN commenters generally agree with Doctorow's premise that large corporations use "regulatory capture" to avoid legal consequences for harmful actions, citing examples like Facebook and Purdue Pharma. Some questioned the framing of the potato tracking scenario as overly simplistic, arguing that real-world supply chains are vastly more complex. A few commenters discussed the practicality of Doctorow's proposed solutions, debating the efficacy of co-ops and decentralized systems in combating corporate power. There was some skepticism about the feasibility of truly anonymized data collection and the potential for abuse even in decentralized systems. Several pointed out the inherent tension between the convenience offered by these technologies and the potential for exploitation.
Paul Graham's 2009 post argues that Twitter's significance stems not from its seeming triviality, but from its unique blend of messaging and public broadcast. It's a new kind of medium, distinct from email or IM, offering a low-friction way to share thoughts and information publicly. This public nature fosters a sense of ambient awareness, keeping users connected to a wider circle than traditional communication methods. Its brevity and immediacy contribute to a feeling of being "present," allowing participation in real-time events and fostering a sense of shared experience. While seemingly inconsequential updates create this presence, they also pave the way for sharing genuinely valuable information within the established network.
HN commenters discuss Paul Graham's 2009 essay on Twitter's significance. Several highlight the prescience of his observations about its future potential, particularly regarding real-time news and conversation. Some contrast Twitter's early simplicity with its current complexity, lamenting feature bloat and the rise of performative posting. Others note how Graham correctly predicted the platform's role as a powerful distribution channel, even envisioning its use for customer support. A few express skepticism about its long-term value, echoing early criticisms about the triviality of its content. Overall, the comments reflect a mix of admiration for Graham's foresight and a wistful look back at a simpler era of social media.
The New York Times article explores the hypothetical scenario of TikTok disappearing and the possibility that its absence might not be deeply felt. It suggests that while TikTok filled a specific niche in short-form, algorithm-driven entertainment, its core function—connecting creators and consumers—is easily replicable. The piece argues that competing platforms like Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts are already adept at providing similar content and could readily absorb TikTok's user base and creators. Ultimately, the article posits that the internet's dynamic nature makes any platform, even a seemingly dominant one, potentially expendable and easily replaced.
HN commenters largely agree with the NYT article's premise that TikTok's potential ban wouldn't be as impactful as some believe. Several point out that previous "essential" platforms like MySpace and Vine faded without significant societal disruption, suggesting TikTok could follow the same path. Some discuss potential replacements already filling niche interests, like short-form video apps focused on specific hobbies or communities. Others highlight the addictive nature of TikTok's algorithm and express hope that a ban or decline would free up time and mental energy. A few dissenting opinions suggest TikTok's unique cultural influence, particularly on music and trends, will be missed, while others note the platform's utility for small businesses.
Summary of Comments ( 295 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44115620
Hacker News users largely agreed with the premise of Dan Sinker's "Who Cares" article, discussing the increasing apathy and learned helplessness around societal problems. Several commenters pointed to the overwhelming nature of global issues like climate change and political dysfunction, leading to a sense of powerlessness. Some suggested this apathy is a defense mechanism, while others viewed it as a symptom of a broken system. The discussion also touched on the role of social media in amplifying negativity and the potential for local action as a more effective approach than focusing on large-scale problems. A few disagreed, arguing that caring is still present, just expressed differently or directed towards more immediate concerns.
The Hacker News post "The Who Cares Era" has generated a substantial discussion with a variety of perspectives on the author's central thesis – that we're entering an era where the lines between reality and fiction are blurring, impacting our ability to care about what's real.
Several commenters echo and expand upon this idea. One user suggests the proliferation of easily generated, yet often meaningless content contributes to a collective apathy. They point to the sheer volume of information as overwhelming and leading to a sense of detachment. Another commenter builds on this by highlighting the increasing difficulty in discerning truth from falsehood, arguing this erosion of trust further exacerbates the "who cares" mentality. They suggest the constant barrage of misinformation makes it easier to simply disengage rather than expend the effort to determine what's real.
Some commenters offer alternative explanations for the perceived apathy. One argues that the current socio-economic climate, marked by increasing inequality and precarity, has led to a sense of powerlessness. They propose that when people feel unable to influence the world around them, it becomes harder to care about larger societal issues. Another commenter posits that the perceived decline in caring may actually be a shift in focus. They suggest that people are still deeply invested in their immediate communities and personal relationships, but less engaged with abstract or distant concerns.
A few commenters push back against the premise altogether. One argues that throughout history, humans have always been selectively attentive, prioritizing certain issues over others. They suggest the current moment isn't unique, but rather a continuation of this pattern. Another commenter challenges the idea that apathy is necessarily negative. They posit that a degree of emotional detachment can be a healthy coping mechanism in a complex and often overwhelming world.
A recurring theme throughout the comments is the role of technology in shaping our attention spans and emotional responses. Some argue that the constant stimulation of the digital age has contributed to a shortening of attention spans and a decreased capacity for deep engagement. Others suggest that social media platforms, in particular, exacerbate the problem by fostering a culture of performative caring, where public expressions of outrage or concern often lack genuine depth.
Finally, some commenters offer practical solutions. One suggests that fostering critical thinking skills is crucial in navigating the current information landscape. Another emphasizes the importance of building strong communities and fostering genuine connection to combat the isolating effects of technology. Several commenters also highlight the need for better media literacy and the development of tools to identify and combat misinformation. Overall, the comments section reveals a complex and nuanced conversation about the nature of attention, engagement, and the challenges of caring in the digital age.