Doctorow's "Against Transparency" argues that calls for increased transparency are often a wolf in sheep's clothing. While superficially appealing, transparency initiatives frequently empower bad actors more than they help the public. The powerful already possess extensive information about individuals, and forced transparency from the less powerful merely provides them with more ammunition for exploitation, harassment, and manipulation, without offering reciprocal accountability. This creates an uneven playing field, furthering existing power imbalances and solidifying the advantages of those at the top. Genuine accountability, Doctorow suggests, requires not just seeing through systems, but also into them – understanding the power dynamics and decision-making processes obscured by superficial transparency.
An ADHD body double is a person who provides a supportive, non-judgmental presence for someone with ADHD while they work on tasks. Their mere presence can help improve focus, motivation, and accountability, making it easier to start and complete tasks that might otherwise feel overwhelming. The body double doesn't actively participate in the task itself but acts as a silent, grounding influence, minimizing distractions and helping maintain focus. This technique can be helpful for various activities, from chores and work projects to creative endeavors, offering a simple yet effective strategy to manage ADHD-related challenges.
HN commenters generally agree that body doubling is a helpful technique, not just for those with ADHD. Many share their own experiences with informal body doubling, such as working in coffee shops or libraries, or using online tools like Focusmate. Some highlight the accountability and reduced procrastination it provides, while others emphasize the social aspect and feeling of shared purpose. A few express skepticism, questioning whether it's a genuine solution or just a temporary crutch, and suggest addressing underlying issues instead. There's also discussion about the importance of finding the right body double, as personality and work style compatibility can significantly impact effectiveness. Finally, several commenters offer alternative strategies for focus and productivity, like the Pomodoro Technique and binaural beats.
Belgian artist Dries Depoorter created "The Flemish Scrollers," an art project using AI to detect and publicly shame Belgian politicians caught using their phones during parliamentary livestreams. The project automatically clips videos of these instances and posts them to a Twitter bot account, tagging the politicians involved. Depoorter aims to highlight politicians' potential inattentiveness during official proceedings.
HN commenters largely criticized the project for being creepy and invasive, raising privacy concerns about publicly shaming politicians for normal behavior. Some questioned the legality and ethics of facial recognition used in this manner, particularly without consent. Several pointed out the potential for misuse and the chilling effect on free speech. A few commenters found the project amusing or a clever use of technology, but these were in the minority. The practicality and effectiveness of the project were also questioned, with some suggesting politicians could easily circumvent it. There was a brief discussion about the difference between privacy expectations in public vs. private settings, but the overall sentiment was strongly against the project.
Micah Lee's blog post investigates leaked data purportedly from a Ukrainian paramilitary group. He analyzes the authenticity of the leak, noting corroboration with open-source information and the inclusion of sensitive operational details that make a forgery less likely. Lee focuses on the technical aspects of the leak, examining the file metadata and directory structure, which suggests an internal compromise rather than a hack. He concludes that while definitive attribution is difficult, the leak appears genuine and offers a rare glimpse into the group's inner workings, including training materials, equipment lists, and personal information of members.
Hacker News users discussed the implications of easily accessible paramilitary manuals and the potential for misuse. Some commenters debated the actual usefulness of such manuals, arguing that real-world training and experience are far more valuable than theoretical knowledge gleaned from a PDF. Others expressed concern about the ease with which extremist groups could access these resources and potentially use them for nefarious purposes. The ethical implications of hosting such information were also raised, with some suggesting that platforms have a responsibility to prevent the spread of potentially harmful content, while others argued for the importance of open access to information. A few users highlighted the historical precedent of similar manuals being distributed, pointing out that they've been available for decades, predating the internet.
Body doubling utilizes the presence of another person, either virtually or in-person, to enhance focus and productivity, particularly for tasks that individuals find challenging to initiate or complete independently. This technique leverages accountability and shared work sessions to combat procrastination and maintain motivation, particularly beneficial for those with ADHD, autism, or other conditions impacting executive function. The website, BodyDoubling.com, offers resources and a platform to connect with others for body doubling sessions, highlighting its effectiveness in overcoming procrastination and fostering a sense of shared purpose while working towards individual goals.
Hacker News users discussed the effectiveness of body doubling, with many sharing personal anecdotes of its benefits for focus and productivity, especially for those with ADHD. Some highlighted the accountability and subtle social pressure as key drivers, while others emphasized the reduction of procrastination and feeling less alone in tackling tasks. A few skeptical commenters questioned the long-term viability and potential for dependency, suggesting it might be a crutch rather than a solution. The discussion also touched upon virtual body doubling tools and the importance of finding a compatible partner, along with the potential for it to evolve into co-working. Some users drew parallels to other productivity techniques like the Pomodoro method, and there was a brief debate about the distinction between body doubling and simply working in the same space.
An Oregon woman discovered her private nude photos had been widely shared in her small town, tracing the source back to the local district attorney, Marco Bocci, and a sheriff's deputy. The photos were taken from her phone while it was in police custody as evidence. Despite the woman's distress and the clear breach of privacy, both Bocci and the deputy are shielded from liability by qualified immunity (QI), preventing her from pursuing legal action against them. The woman, who had reported a stalking incident, now feels further victimized by law enforcement. An independent investigation confirmed the photo sharing but resulted in no disciplinary action.
HN commenters largely discuss qualified immunity (QI), expressing frustration with the legal doctrine that shields government officials from liability. Some argue that QI protects bad actors and prevents accountability for misconduct, particularly in cases like this where the alleged actions seem clearly inappropriate. A few commenters question the factual accuracy of the article or suggest alternative explanations for how the photos were disseminated, but the dominant sentiment is critical of QI and its potential to obstruct justice in this specific instance and more broadly. Several also highlight the power imbalance between citizens and law enforcement, noting the difficulty individuals face when challenging authority.
Simon Willison argues that computers cannot be held accountable because accountability requires subjective experience, including understanding consequences and feeling remorse or guilt. Computers, as deterministic systems following instructions, lack these crucial components of consciousness. While we can and should hold humans accountable for the design, deployment, and outcomes of computer systems, ascribing accountability to the machines themselves is a category error, akin to blaming a hammer for hitting a thumb. This doesn't absolve us from addressing the harms caused by AI and algorithms, but requires focusing responsibility on the human actors involved.
HN users largely agree with the premise that computers, lacking sentience and agency, cannot be held accountable. The discussion centers around the implications of this, particularly regarding the legal and ethical responsibilities of the humans behind AI systems. Several compelling comments highlight the need for clear lines of accountability for the creators, deployers, and users of AI, emphasizing that focusing on punishing the "computer" is a distraction. One user points out that inanimate objects like cars are already subject to regulations and their human operators held responsible for accidents. Others suggest the concept of "accountability" for AI needs rethinking, perhaps focusing on verifiable safety standards and rigorous testing, rather than retribution. The potential for individuals to hide behind AI as a scapegoat is also raised as a major concern.
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.
Summary of Comments ( 0 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43736718
Hacker News users discussing Cory Doctorow's "Against Transparency" post largely agree with his premise that forced transparency often benefits powerful entities more than individuals. Several commenters point out how regulatory capture allows corporations to manipulate transparency requirements to their advantage, burying individuals in legalese while extracting valuable data for their own use. The discussion highlights examples like California's Prop 65, which is criticized for its overbroad warnings that ultimately desensitize consumers. Some users express skepticism about Doctorow's proposed solutions, while others offer alternative perspectives, emphasizing the importance of transparency in specific areas like government spending and open-source software. The potential for AI to exacerbate these issues is also touched upon, with concerns raised about the use of personal data for exploitative purposes. Overall, the comments paint a picture of nuanced agreement with Doctorow's central argument, tempered by practical concerns and a recognition of the complex role transparency plays in different contexts.
The Hacker News post titled "Against Transparency" links to Cory Doctorow's "Pluralistic" blog post about California's Proposition 65 warning labels. The discussion generated a significant number of comments, revolving around the effectiveness and unintended consequences of such broad warning labels.
Several commenters argue that the ubiquity of Prop 65 warnings has diluted their impact, leading to a "boy who cried wolf" effect where people become desensitized and ignore them entirely. They suggest that this renders the warnings useless for their intended purpose of informing consumers about actual risks. One commenter highlights the absurdity of seeing warnings on things like Disneyland parking garages, arguing that it diminishes the credibility of warnings on genuinely hazardous products.
Another line of discussion centers on the legal and economic motivations behind the warnings. Some commenters posit that the system incentivizes lawsuits rather than actual safety improvements, as businesses are more likely to settle and display the warning than fight costly litigation. This, they claim, benefits lawyers more than consumers.
The potential for "regulatory capture" is also raised, with commenters suggesting that large corporations can more easily absorb the cost of compliance, putting smaller businesses at a disadvantage. This could lead to market consolidation and stifle innovation.
Some commenters express skepticism about the scientific basis for many of the warnings, pointing out that the threshold for listing a chemical under Prop 65 is very low. They argue that the law conflates hazard with risk, failing to account for the level of exposure required to pose a genuine health threat.
A few commenters offer alternative approaches to risk communication, such as providing more specific information about the level of risk associated with a particular product or using a tiered warning system to differentiate between minor and significant hazards.
There's also a discussion about the broader implications of mandatory disclosure laws, with some arguing that they can be a powerful tool for consumer protection, while others express concern about their potential to be misused or overused. The example of nutrition labels is brought up, with some commenters arguing that they are generally effective, while others point to their limitations and potential for misinterpretation.
Finally, a few commenters offer personal anecdotes about their experiences with Prop 65 warnings, ranging from amusement to frustration. One commenter mentions seeing a warning on a bag of coffee, highlighting the perceived absurdity of the situation.
Overall, the comments on the Hacker News post reflect a general skepticism towards the effectiveness of Prop 65 warnings and concern about the unintended consequences of overly broad disclosure requirements. Many commenters believe that the current system is flawed and needs reform, with suggestions ranging from stricter scientific standards for listing chemicals to tiered warning systems that better communicate the level of risk.