In general, Dillo follows the Unix philosophy. You use separate programmes to handle things that Dillo can't itself, like watching videos.

I don't care about any of that, I just want to have fun on the internet. By that metric, most of the criticisms in this thread are irrelevant. It doesn't need to make money, it doesn't need to be used by more than a few nerds, and it doesn't need a zillion bells and whistles. Whether rdg (the author of the blog post) shares this goal, I don't know.

In the browser? The map viewer could just be a separate programme entirely, like a PDF viewer, etc. I remember watching rdg (the current main Dillo developer) demonstrating this with a separate map programme.

Most of your post seems to assume this "everything must be in the browser" approach, which is actively not what Dillo is about. (I would know, I use Dillo regularly.) It adheres to the Unix philosophy.

EDIT: Looking at it closely, did I just respond to an LLM post?

Also, there are no em dashes.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47687498

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

I still have a basic assumption that if something I'm reading doesn't make much sense to me, I probably just don't understand it. Over the last few years I've had to get used to the new assumption that it's because I'm reading LLM output.

What should we put there, anyway?

I suppose it depends on how effective these types of measures actually are, and also on how many adults refuse to identify themselves. I would assume governments are more interested in spying on adults than under-16s, so the adults are probably more relevant here.

I hope you're right, though. Maybe there'll be a renaissance of smaller platforms. Probably not, but I can hope.

> It’s not Orwellian. If it were, then not allowing kids to vote or drink before they become adults would be Orwellian.

To be clear: What do you think you're refuting? I don't think children should be on modern social media. I don't think anyone should be, but especially not children. There are plenty of ways of going about this. This is why I said:

> A lot of the arguments I see in this thread are about whether modern mainstream social media are bad for young people. When the debate becomes about that, it's very easy to defend these types of Orwellian laws. It becomes "This is a problem, therefore the solution is good", without questioning the solution itself.

You then claim that the tech industry, and by extension "tech circles", don't like this because it means they make less money. I'm not sure how forcing companies whose business model is based on surveillance capitalism to do even more surveillance would hurt them, but if it does, it's still not my concern anyway. And conflating random hackers like me with "big tech" seems to have become increasingly common recently.

https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/01/davos-2025-special-a...

The first part of that article is an absolutely scathing, on-point criticism of mainstream social media. I find myself agreeing with everything said, and then, suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, the article pivots to "therefore we need completely 24/7 mass surveillance of everyone at all times and we need to eradicate freedom of speech". That article is like a perfect microcosm of this entire international shift in internet privacy.

People and their governments seem to agree that modern social media is a problem. The difference is why. The people think it's a problem because it harms people; governments think it's a problem because they don't control it.

I think that the root cause of this shift to mass surveillance is that people in democratic countries still have a 20th-century concept of what authoritarianism looks like. Mass surveillance is like a novel disease that democracies don't yet have any immunity to; that's why you see all these "it's just like buying alcohol" style false equivalences, because an alarming number of people genuinely don't understand the difference between normal surveillance and mass surveillance.

With the steam engine, though, consumers made a trade-off: You pay less, and get (in most cases, I presume) a worse product. With LLMs and other machine learning technologies, maybe if you're paying for the software there's a trade-off (if the software is actually cheaper anyway), but otherwise it doesn't exist. It costs the same amount of money for you to read an LLM-generated article as to read a real one; your internet bill doesn't go down. Likewise for gratis software. It's just worse, with no benefit.

Hacker News is full of producers, in this sense, who often benefit from cutting corners, and LLMs allow them to cut corners, so obviously there are plenty of evangelists here. I saw someone else in this comment section mention that gamers who are not in the tech industry don't like "AI". That's to be expected; they're not the producers, so they're not the ones who benefit.

No we didn't. That was 2023, and it went into effect in multiple phases, the last of which I believe was July 25th this year.

Also, I can't help but wonder what young people now will think of these laws years later, as adults. In the UK, the OSA tries to prevent 17 year olds from watching porn, even though the age of consent here is 16. How will they remember contradictions like that?

From TFA: "Write your auto-updater code very carefully. Actually, write any code that has the potential to generate costs carefully." So the focus is on code that "generate[s] costs". I think this is a common delusion programmers have; that some code is inherently unrelated to security (or cost), so they can get lazy with it. I see it like gun safety. You have to always treat a gun like it's loaded, not because it always is (although sometimes it may be loaded when you don't expect it), but because it teaches you to always be careful, so you don't absent-mindedly fall back into bad habits when you handle a loaded one.

Telling people to write code carefully sounds simplistic but I believe for some people it's genuinely the right advice.