Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | robgibbons's commentslogin

I'm assuming the same until informed otherwise.


Thanks for this. I've thought about building this exact thing ever since this vicious trend began.


My pleasure! It was fun to build and didn't take too much time to do the individual platforms. So, if it breaks for one then patching it up should be pretty quick. Please leave a review if it's helpful to you.


As an American who appreciates a strictly literal interpretation of the first amendment, it's very funny to me that a German not only takes pride in their government hunting down and suppressing inconvenient speech, but wants the rest of the world to fall in line.


The power of brainwashing. The results are somewhat unreal. Britons want Ukrainians to fight more than Ukrainians themselves. The explanation is Britons don't see hundreds of thousands deaths. Their media reprints reports from Zelinkiy office which state just a few thousands. This is called 'Support Ukraine' and they are proud of it. Till the last Ukrainian. Some politicians are more open and clearly say it's a cheap way to kill Russians. They want the war to continue. This is called 'strong position' or 'position of power'.


We are kind of in the middle of a speech war right now. The speech doesn't directly cause harm - but susceptible individuals cause harm via non-speech actions on the basis of that speech.

It's fine if your opinion on the best way to fight a war is to not fight, but that's just your opinion and not necessarily a good one.


I’m an American. I saw it on 60 Minutes last night. Any reason why you prefer the strictly literal interpretation? The difference between a personal insult and a criticism of something someone has done seems pretty clear cut to me. We could use more constructive discourse especially in the US.


Every amendment should be taken literally. How else should your rights be interpreted? Figuratively?

I agree with you that people are much better off using constructive dialogue, and communities like HN are much better off because of moderation, but the idea of some government agency tracking down and fining trolls is to me a laughable suggestion.


Stretching and bending can go long way. Did you know there are zillons of sexes now? It's not the brain, it's the wrong body. For each psychological disorder.


Yeah they’re real Nazis about it.


You know the first amendment was written by people who would shoot you for running your mouth, right?


you mean this one: “I wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend to the death your right to say...


I am referring to the history of dueling in this country, but I’m not seeing a whole lot of people engaged with reality here.


duels happened everywhere, that was normal. you can't judge ancestors by modern standards.


This is the platform that led to the proliferation of newspeak terms like "unalive" to circumvent content restrictions. Such speech restrictions were never a thing on FB, IG, X, or YT, yet this form of self-censorship has spread to those platforms anyway, because TikTok users have become so used to it.


While there aren't direct speech restrictions in platforms like YouTube, you're leaving out the crucial detail that mentioning words like "suicide" gets your video demonetized, which directly causes similar self-censorship.


YouTube pays creators based on advertising deals making some topics far more valuable, while other topics have become very sensitive to advertisers. That’s related, but different from censorship.

Creators are still free to use YouTube as a platform to discuss sensitive topics with a very large audience without paying per viewer, unlike say advertising or standing at a street corner talking to passersby. As such YouTube is still supporting the discussion and distribution of said content.


Sure! Yet creators choose to censor themselves in similar ways to keep ad revenue coming in.


SSI's were my first foray into "backend," if you can even call it that, sometime around the year 2000. Some benevolent commenter on Slashdot gave me the tipoff, and my growing frustration with copy-pasting HTML snippets between pages was henceforth a thing of the past. Then came PHP, Python, et cetera, and the rest is history.

Amazing how such a simple mechanism can remain useful even decades later.


Most 3D printed parts have a telltale texture resulting from the layer-by-layer deposit of material. The same goes for many milled/CNCed parts bearing evidence of tool marks. Once you've seen and held enough, it's relatively easy to identify whether a given part was printed, cast, milled, lathed, etc.

I say most because there are finishing methods which can largely obscure these details and make it less obvious as to which method produced a given part.


It's commonly referred to as a deflationary spiral because the falling prices lead to people (perhaps counterintuitively) holding off from large purchases, anticipating a continued drop in prices. Sort of a "buy the bottom" mentality.

The lack of spending then further contributes to falling prices, job cuts, businesses closing, etc. It's really not a situation any economy _wants_.

That said, I empathize with your sentiment.


That is obviously wrong to the point where I am confused why someone always makes the claim. I'm looking forward to running in to someone who can actually follow up with some sort of defence of the position. Extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence style.

Consider the computer industry. Prices have been falling pretty much across my entire life. Supply-demand suggests that people will keep buying new computers as the price drops and that is exactly what is happening. Demand for compute has never been higher. There is no waiting for improvements, if anything there is a mad rush to buy hardware that everyone knows is about to be obsoleted. It isn't even an irrational rush, the people buying that obsolete hardware often make good money (eg, bitcoin miners in the heyday).

Basic supply demand says as price drops demand increases. Basic life experience says as prices drop I can afford more and better stuff. Observation of real industries suggests - as we would intuit - that industries with regular price drops are actually healthy and great to be in for consumers in the small and the large. Theory suggests that everyone ignores nominal price fluctuations and focuses on real changes so systemic deflation is irrelevant. None of this supports the idea that deflation is bad.

Pretty sure the anti-deflation crowd are just wrong. They have no evidence or argument [0] as far as I can tell, and all the theory is stacked against them. China surely has problems. Deflation is not a problem. It is just a metric.

[0] EDIT Well I suppose they do have an argument, but it involves people randomly going crazy and choosing to live in poverty and discomfort because it gets easier to buy goods. Which is not an argument I really take seriously.


Deflation is a problem, but not for the reason mentioned there. The reason deflation is an issue is because it makes holding cash into an investment strategy. If the price of goods is dropping, the value of money is rising, so the more cash I hold the richer I get. This obviously dissuades people with cash from investing their cash into actual productive work, which means fewer jobs. There was a small deflationary bump in American history around the 1930s that helps to illustrate what can happen in a deflationary spiral.


Like interest on a bank account? Holding cash is already an investment strategy. Bonds are a thing. People have options to hold cash and not lose purchasing power. One of the traditional ways people tackle inflation is they demand interest from the banks sufficient to cover it plus a little more to account for time value of money.

It is rather unlikely that giving people an option that they already have is going to cause a problem. One major benefit of money is that people can hoard it and there is no cost in the real economy because all the resources are still there and prices can just adjust to the amount of cash in circulation.

> here was a small deflationary bump in American history around the 1930s that helps to illustrate what can happen in a deflationary spiral.

The US came out of the 1930s with an economy that was capable of overcoming almost literally the entire world. Again, the evidence that deflation was some sort of major problem is questionable, it seems to have been associated with the creation of one of the most dynamic economies in the history of history.

And the idea that we have this one clear lesson from one instance back in the 30s is just weird and unbelievable. That isn't how history or complex systems work.


I have never understood the concept of the deflationary spiral: no matter how much people want to save their cash for later, there are simply things they can't do without.

Food, energy, transportation, education, etc.

How long are you going to delay getting a new car simply because cars are getting cheaper and better? Once you probe the theory beyond the surface, it collapses. Yes, a deflationary economy will see less cash velocity than a ZIRP economy with cheap cash sloshing around. But, at the end of the day, humans MUST spend resources today to live to see their savings worth more.


You're missing the debt equation. We live in debt based economy. True across the board deflation (not just some things get cheaper cause of tech etc) means debt is harder and harder to service as wages and earnings fall. As the asset backing the debt goes underwater the debt holders have no choice but to walk away. All banks stop lending and ultimately the entire economy grinds to a halt. That's the main cause of the spiral.

One man's debt is another mans income.

The reason we narrowly avoided full blown deflation in 2008 is because they bailed out the banks. If they didn't we would have had 1929 style depression these last 15 years.


Yeah people only spending money when they should be spending it is bad for the economy. Misallocation because of inflation is great. Good thing is that this system is close to collapse.


In both cases (cookie vs localStorage) you're really just storing your data as a string value, not truly a JSON object, so whether you use a cookie or localStorage is more dependent on the use case.

If you only ever need the stored data on the client, localStorage is your pick. If you need to pass it back to the server with each request, cookies.


JSON is explicitly a string serialization format.


Right, I meant it's not a JavaScript object. It's serialized into a string in any case, no matter which API you're stuffing it into. So it's a bit of a non-sequitur for the parent to suggest that it's somehow weird to store JSON in a cookie, but not in localStorage. It's all just strings.


I find it weird too. I’ve always considered cookies like very stupid key value stores.

It would never occur to me to put something more than a simple token in a cookie. A username, and email address, some opaque thing.

The idea of trying to use it for arbitrary strings just seems weird to my intuition, but I don’t really know why. Maybe just because when I was learning about them long ago I don’t remember seeing that in any of the examples.


My point is that there really is no such thing as "truly a JSON object".


Combine local storage with service worker, so you pass the data to the server if needed. Completely without setting cookies.


And if I don't want any javascript to see my values, ever? Or how do you handle CSRF?


Httponly cookie is the way, but then you just don't use json as cookie value that is send on every request.

Csrf is no problem as the data from service worker is only active on the site itself. If you speak about csrf with a website where you can't trust js, you're site is broken as xhr/fetch use the same httponly cookies and is affected as well.


Since when can you trust js?


Big websites use js and if they leak most of the time it's not a js issue.

I think the distrust of js is a personal issue.


I mean, anyone can open devtools and change the code to do whatever ... or install an extension that does it. So, since when can you guarantee that a browser client will actually do what you program it to do? In my experience, you can't guarantee anything on the client -- since forever. I was asking when/if that changed. I don't see why you would make that a personal attack?


But that a general problem, having a html only page with a form is the same problem. Only transfer what the user should see.

You need server verification for data that's important. Native programs can be changed with over programs or hex editor.

The talk was about data that is stored into cookies as json and csrf. (Cookies can be changed with devtools or extension)

Csrf is always an attack from third party against the user, if the user extract the data itself that's no csrf problem.

Because of this I thought you distrust js that can get attacked from third party, but yes js is as easy to change like .net or java programs.


A counter point to this adage in modern times is that censorship seems to spread as a result of users sharing content across platforms with varying levels of moderation. I've seen many examples of "shorts" being shared on FB or Instagram which originated from TikTok and which feature heavy use of either euphemism (eg. "unalived" instead of "murdered") or even explicitly silenced language.

Platforms which do not heavily moderate content will nonetheless still have heavily self-censored content as a result of users being conditioned by other platforms into self-censorship.


I can confirm that content censored to suit restrictive platforms finds it's way to less restrictive platforms (e.g. a screenshot of a Tumblr post censored for Meta may find it's way to Imgur)

I have noticed that some users on Imgur will make an effort to de-censor content though (e.g. re-adding the censored text in a screenshot)


A simple title attribute would be an easy addition.


Exactly, this is what I was expecting upon hovering over it.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: