HackerTrans
TopNewTrendsCommentsPastAskShowJobs

elastolin

no profile record

comments

elastolin
·5 years ago·discuss
That YouTube doesn't support freedom of expresion, and it's extremely biased towards one end of the political spectrum.
elastolin
·5 years ago·discuss
I agree, but masks don't work and IT IS just like the flu. That's an objectively true statement.
elastolin
·5 years ago·discuss
The fact that this post is downvoted to oblivion just shows you that HN is astroturfed as hell.
elastolin
·5 years ago·discuss
Please elaborate.
elastolin
·5 years ago·discuss
You don't understand how hard is for a messaging app to gain traction. Telegram has been growing for years and years, and it offers some significant advantages over WhatsApp. Even with all this marketing and effort, I'd say only about 10% of my WhatsApp contacts are on Telegram. Now you want to get people to move to yet another app? For what? Why would they? Because no ads?

If a new app ever manages to become big (as in, Telegram-level big, let alone WhatsApp), it would take years of raising money and marketing. And how would they pay for that exactly? You think people pay a mensual/anual fee for a messaging apps when there are free alternatives? No, the answer is, again, ads. That or selling user data, which is much worse.

You're too focused on the tech, but you have no understanding of how business works.
elastolin
·5 years ago·discuss
Agreed, it makes zero sense. And AOC is symbol of the decline of the United States.
elastolin
·5 years ago·discuss
You are in my blacklist.
elastolin
·5 years ago·discuss
> Obviously many of these people will go with me once I find a better alternative.

People will go only if there's another service that's good enough and has enough user density. You may find the best privacy-oriented, ad-free messaging app, but if it's empty or if it's hard to use, it's essentially useless.

By this point, it's hard to compete with the behemoths like WhatsApp or Telegram and people will not care about this nearly as much as you do. So, no, it's not 'obvious' at all.
elastolin
·5 years ago·discuss
This is actually a great idea, and it shouldn't be too hard to implement.
elastolin
·5 years ago·discuss
> ~1$/month, I don't do anything heavy, text messaging only

Won't work. The vast majority people don't pay for messaging service, and without people, there's no messaging app. Ads are the only way forward.

Will they offer an optional ad-free subscription? Maybe, but I wouldn't count on that, and it's likely to be higher than $1/month.

> So, the day I get ads in Telegram I'm leaving

Nobody cares.
elastolin
·5 years ago·discuss
> I absolutely despise ads of any kind, and go to a decent amount of effort to block them from appearing on any device in my household

No one cares, my man. This position is so off the grid that your anti-ad cruzade will likely have 0 impact in the real world.
elastolin
·5 years ago·discuss
> I'm okay with deplatforming, but only when it suits me

Jesus, just shut the fuck up.
elastolin
·5 years ago·discuss
Sure, as long as it's not legislated (see 'Volksverhetzung').

I mean, my subjective judgement could tell me that you're a fucking faggot and that I should beat the living shit out of you. It would be right for me to have that subjective judgement, but it can't be for monopolies, nor governments.
elastolin
·5 years ago·discuss
> fundamental disagreement about how society should be

We may not agree, but we can't say it's a "fundamental disagreement" if there's so much people rooting for it.

> What does that look like?

1) Disagreeing with people online 2) Opening niche internet forums that are lax on moderation (except for illegal content such as child pornography and direct threats) 3) Investing in hosting/domain registrars/payment processors that don't deplatform because of political stance (e.g., Epik, SkySilk)

I've been doing 1) and 2) for some time now, but I want to do 3) as well. I think it will become very profitable during this decade.
elastolin
·5 years ago·discuss
> Some people should never have power, like nazis.

That's exactly what I'm arguing against. That's just your opinion and you treat it like some universal axiom. Same way you treat 'Holocaust deniers' as some kind of monstrous apparitions. You may not agree, that's all.

It's people like you that inspire me to counteract this trend with full force.
elastolin
·5 years ago·discuss
"everything means nothing yada yada yada"

You know exactly what I mean, cut the bullshit. Point being, deplatforming may be okay for the group who exercises it, but not for the group that is being deplatformed. Who the fuck decides? The government? Some out of touch Big Tech CEOs? Fuck that.

Just take a look at Venezuela's current "Law against Hatred" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_against_Hatred)to get an idea of how dumb this whole approach is.

Now, if I'd be willing to argue that this is a antitrust issue (FB, TW, Google / Amazon AWS, CloudFlare / PayPal, Stripe / Visa, MasterCard) having too much power to the point that they decide whether you live or not, and that there should be way more alternatives.
elastolin
·5 years ago·discuss
No, it doesn't sound rasonable. Even if it's real Nazis. It's an absolutely retarded standpoint.
elastolin
·5 years ago·discuss
True. But it has a more relaxed approach to moderation.
elastolin
·5 years ago·discuss
So, deplatforming (silencing) a group is okay, but doing the same for other group is not okay based on some arbitrary criteria.
elastolin
·5 years ago·discuss
What if we starting deplatforming Jews or reducing Jewish influence to the point of pratical irrelevance? Would that be okay?