Brad Montague's "Librarians Are Dangerous" argues that librarians, far from being quiet keepers of books, are actually radical agents of change. They empower individuals with access to information, fostering critical thinking and challenging the status quo. By curating diverse perspectives and facilitating open dialogue, librarians equip communities to grapple with complex issues and build a better future. This makes them inherently threatening to those who benefit from ignorance and control, hence the "dangerous" label. Their dedication to intellectual freedom and community growth represents a powerful force for positive social transformation.
Digital archivists play a crucial role in preserving valuable public data, which is increasingly at risk due to the ephemeral nature of digital platforms and storage media. They employ a variety of strategies, including format migration, emulation, and web archiving, to combat issues like link rot, software and hardware obsolescence, and intentional deletion. These professionals face significant challenges, including the sheer volume of data, rapidly evolving technologies, and securing adequate funding and resources. Ultimately, their work ensures the long-term accessibility and usability of vital information for researchers, journalists, and the public, safeguarding historical records and holding power accountable.
Hacker News users discussed the challenges of digital archiving, focusing on format obsolescence and the lack of consistent, long-term funding. Several commenters highlighted the importance of plain text formats and emphasized the need for active maintenance and migration of data, rather than relying on any single "future-proof" solution. The complexities of copyright in a digital world were also mentioned, with concerns about orphan works and the chilling effect restrictive licenses might have on preservation efforts. Some users suggested decentralized, community-driven approaches to archiving, while others expressed skepticism about long-term digital preservation altogether, pointing to the inevitable decay of storage media and the constant evolution of technology. The difficulty of predicting future needs and the potential for valuable data to be lost due to seemingly insignificant choices made today were recurring themes. A few commenters shared personal experiences with data loss and stressed the need for robust, accessible backups.
Internet shutdowns across Africa reached a record high in 2024, with 26 documented incidents, primarily during elections or periods of civil unrest. Governments increasingly weaponized internet access, disrupting communication and suppressing dissent. These shutdowns, often targeting mobile data and social media platforms, caused significant economic damage and hampered human rights monitoring. Ethiopia and Senegal were among the countries experiencing the longest and most disruptive outages. The trend raises concerns about democratic backsliding and the erosion of digital rights across the continent.
HN commenters discuss the increasing use of internet shutdowns in Africa, particularly during elections and protests. Some point out that this tactic isn't unique to Africa, with similar actions seen in India and Myanmar. Others highlight the economic damage these shutdowns inflict, impacting businesses and individuals relying on digital connectivity. The discussion also touches upon the chilling effect on free speech and access to information, with concerns raised about governments controlling narratives. Several commenters suggest that decentralized technologies like mesh networks and satellite internet could offer potential solutions to bypass these shutdowns, although practical limitations are acknowledged. The role of Western tech companies in facilitating these shutdowns is also questioned, with some advocating for stronger stances against government censorship.
The author recounts their experience in an Illinois court fighting for access to public records pertaining to the state's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request portal. They discovered and reported a SQL injection vulnerability in the portal, which the state acknowledged but failed to fix promptly. After repeated denials of their FOIA requests related to the vulnerability's remediation, they sued. The judge ultimately ruled in their favor, compelling the state to fulfill the request and highlighting the absurdity of the situation: having to sue to get information about how the government plans to fix a security flaw in a system designed for accessing information. The author concludes by advocating for stronger Illinois FOIA laws to prevent similar situations in the future.
HN commenters generally praise the author's persistence and ingenuity in using SQL injection to expose flaws in the Illinois FOIA request system. Some express concern about the legality and ethics of his actions, even if unintentional. Several commenters with legal backgrounds offer perspectives on the potential ramifications, pointing out the complexities of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and the potential for prosecution despite claimed good intentions. A few question the author's technical competence, suggesting alternative methods he could have used to achieve the same results without resorting to SQL injection. Others discuss the larger implications for government transparency and the need for robust security practices in public-facing systems. The most compelling comments revolve around the balance between responsible disclosure and the legal risks associated with security research, highlighting the gray area the author occupies.
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.
Summary of Comments ( 19 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43736791
HN commenters largely disagreed with the article's premise. Several pointed out that the author's examples, like librarians helping patrons access government information or fighting censorship, are core tenets of the profession and beneficial to society. Some argued that the author mischaracterized librarians' roles and motivations, painting them as radical activists rather than information professionals. Others noted the irony of complaining about "censorship" while advocating for restricting access to certain materials. A few commenters questioned the author's understanding of library systems and how collection development actually works, highlighting the collaborative and community-driven nature of these processes. Some saw the article as simply clickbait or a misunderstanding of the library profession.
The Hacker News post "Librarians Are Dangerous" (linking to a Brad Montague Substack article) has generated a significant number of comments, many of which express skepticism and disagreement with the premise of the linked article. While the article itself isn't being summarized here, the comments generally revolve around the idea presented in the title, that librarians are somehow dangerous.
Several commenters interpret the article's title as clickbait and hyperbolic. They suggest that the author is using a provocative title to attract attention, and that the content is likely less extreme than the title suggests. Some speculate that the article is likely arguing against censorship or restrictions on access to information, using "dangerous" in a positive, rebellious sense. One commenter sarcastically agrees with the title by claiming librarians are dangerous "to ignorance and oppression," highlighting the traditional role of librarians in providing free access to knowledge.
A recurring theme in the comments is the vital role librarians play in communities. Many commenters share personal anecdotes about positive experiences with librarians, emphasizing their helpfulness, dedication to their profession, and commitment to providing access to information for everyone. Some highlight librarians' work with marginalized communities, helping those with limited access to technology or resources.
Some comments critique the idea of framing librarians as "dangerous" in the current political climate. They express concern that this kind of rhetoric could be used to justify further attacks on public institutions and the principles of intellectual freedom. This ties into broader discussions about censorship and the importance of access to information, with some commenters arguing that labeling librarians as "dangerous" undermines their crucial role in a democratic society.
Several commenters point out the need for more context and clarification on what the article actually means by "dangerous." They suggest that without reading the article itself, it's difficult to engage meaningfully with the premise. This underscores a general cautiousness in the comments to avoid drawing definitive conclusions based solely on the provocative title.
Finally, a few commenters offer more nuanced perspectives, suggesting that the article might be exploring the potential for librarians to unintentionally contribute to filter bubbles or echo chambers by curating information. These comments are less frequent than the outright rebuttals and defenses of librarians, but they represent a more measured attempt to engage with the potential complexities of the topic.