zlacker

>>sschue+(OP)
Tangentially, I would love to be able to see the age of everyone on the internet. IRL this gives us so much context when having an interaction.

>>mrtksn+Ki
I can't find which document it was specifically, but I seem to remember that the hackers' ethos always been that it doesn't matter who you are, what your title is or skin looks like, but that your arguments are to be valued by its merit rather than by who says it. Age seems like another one of these properties you are stuck with

>>lucb1e+0O1
I agree with that, I'm not arguing for discrediting arguments by age and ask for authority of the elders or something of that sort. Age provides context, it's helpful with facilitating the conversation in a healthier manner. Just the other day I was having an intense argument with someone on reddit, at some point it occurred to me that they don't understand because they are too young(checked the profile, definitely some kid trying to have an opinion on grown up stuff) and my words don't ring a thing in their head. Instead of being angry for them being too stupid to understand, I decided that they are not stupid or bad people but just too young. I was at that age some time ago and I knew how it feels, so left them alone. They will understand when they understand.

This is because words actually don't carry much meaning, they invoke something that the other side understands already. For example, it's very hard to have a conversation about some aspects of a relation of 40 y/o people if the other party is in their 20s. You need to relate with something of their age and build it up and even then its likely they will understand it completely the wrong way. Over the years people evolve, they go over stuff and when you meet someone who hasn't been through the process you need to be aware of that otherwise you will mistake them for stupid(because, not everyone who ages ends up going through the transformation the same way. You better know if you are speaking to such a person or a younger person who has the chance).

What I don't understand is, why people assume that everything you know about someone is supposed to be used against them. Why everything needs to be malicious?

>>mrtksn+ZS1
Thanks for the elaborate and thoughtful reply! I have little to add to the bigger paragraphs, but about the question at the end: I've been wondering the same and think it must be an information age thing. Not in the abstract or the "kids these days" sense, but in that everything is stored somewhere and processed in invisible ways

I don't remember caring that someone took a picture of me with their Nokia when I know that they'll at worst share it to a handful of people via Bluetooth or try to upload it to a friend's MSN channel via GPRS. It won't be uploaded to Facebook, facial-recognized, and stuffed into a global database. Or visiting websites: I operate a website and I know you can parse which pages I viewed straight from the access logs. I don't mind, you can see what paths I took through the website and you might learn how to make a better flow. But technically, drilling down to such an individual user level is tracking based on personal identifiers and so would require consent under 2018's GDPR. I'm happy that it now does because I don't want Google to track every page I visit, and ~everyone uses Google Analytics because then you get perks like knowing what search queries you are doing well on (how convenient that google removed referrers for privacy)

I don't really have a solid answer -- why do I care about Facebook and Google but not about John "Malicious Sysadmin" Doe? -- but maybe it makes sense on some level. I need to think about it more still