5 ms·

What struck me from the HN thread on the article this is responding to was the vitriol directed towards Ryan. The general consensus seemed to be that he was a t

What struck me from the HN thread on the article this is responding to was the vitriol directed towards Ryan. The general consensus seemed to be that he was a terrible person who was using Product Hunt to perpetuate the "Old Boys Club" in tech. From my experience dealing with him, that seems like the polar opposite from the truth. I don't know him well, but he appears to be a genuinely nice guy who loves discovering new technology and wants to enable people to share their creations with a wider audience. I do believe the OC made a number of valid points, and Product Hunt needs to evolve so that insiders have less influence. Still, it saddens me that HN's reaction was to make personal attacks and accusations. (most of the evidence given was anecdotal, too) I think Ryan's response clears up the reasoning behind why Product Hunt is structured the way it is. I hope that in the future members of the HN community stop and think before they make personal attacks based on a one-sided Medium article.

sparkzilla 11y ago
I don't care how nice he is in person, just as I don't care how mean Steve Jobs was. I judge people by the products they put out. If his product perpetuates the power structures of Silicon Valley and gives insiders special access then he's actually not a very nice guy.
- Alex3917 11y ago
  > If his product perpetuates the power structures All successful social software is going to perpetuate the existing power structures at the expense of outgroups in some areas, and empower outgroups at the expense of the mainstream and the insiders in other areas. As it should.
  - sparkzilla 11y ago
    Social software can perpetuate existing power structures, but it can also create new structures. Software can also evolve to eliminate power concentrations. That's why it is important to always recognize that inequalities can arise in social software, and to devolve power in the system as much as possible.
    - Alex3917 11y ago
      > devolve power in the system as much as possible Can you think of good examples where this has actually happened? In most cases you have situations like where everyone has access to the sum of all human knowledge for free, but where high-SES kids have more time and ability to benefit. Part of the issue is that social software is built on networks, and networks naturally concentrate power because of Zipf's Law. Most design elements are also really just double edged swords. E.g. lots of people argue that Facebook's real names policy is bad for the LGBTQ community or whatever. But at the same time, Xbox Live isn't exactly the world's most LGBTQ friendly community either. One of my favorite quotes on social software is still this old one from Joi Ito, "You're not a leader, you're a place. You're like a park or a garden. If it's comfortable and cool, people are attracted." It's important to be cognizant of power structures when designing structures, but at the same time what really makes good social software is seeking out and accentuating the interstitial. But this usually eventually results in the creation of new power structures, and the best we can do is try to give a wide variety of folks the opportunity to benefit.
      - sparkzilla 11y ago
        Wikipedia is actually a good example of where devolution has not happened. It's long been known that Wikipedia has a gender gap, where less than 10% of active users are women. Many reasons have been given for this, most of which are along the lines of "women don't have time" or "they're not interested". I would probably have thought the same, until I started my own site, creating broadly similar crowdsourced content, and ended up with 80% female participation. That meant women are interested, and do have time. I realized that the software choices I had made on my site resulted in more inclusion than Wikipedia. Therefore, the only way to change wikipedia to include more women (and to include more men also) is to change the software so that power is taken away from those who hold it now, and distribute it more widely. In fact I'd go as far as saying Wikipedia is a system that rewards the accumulation of power, more than the creation of quality content. You can read my essay on this here: http://newslines.org/blog/the-sexists-at-the-top-of-wikipedia/ http://newslines.org/blog/the-sexists-at-the-top-of-wikipedi...
        deleted 11y ago
- cballard 11y ago
  If you're an engineer, Steve Jobs worked to illegally and systematically suppress your wages. Yeah, the iPhone is great, but I'll judge him on that instead.
  - sparkzilla 11y ago
    Good point.
- pla3rhat3r 11y ago
  This reply makes me think of Craigslist and how it was really meant to be a community based platform for people to do or sell whatever they wanted. Add that they have/had a pretty active forum which was also a quasi-democracy in which the community decided what was good or bad. I think this is what was intended for Product Hunt, but somewhere along the line something happened and this became a bit skewed. I've never met Ryan, but I know many that have. It sounds like this was not a product meant to build on the "boys club" but to let people know about cool shit people were building. Eventually it became THE place to find new products and services to a point where, if you were launching a product, posting and having it upvoted on Product Hunt was/is a must. From my perspective, that's not being a horrible person. That's creating something that people trust. Sounds like innovation to me.
troels 11y ago
There does seem to be an air of schadenfreude/witch hunt going on.
jtmcmc 11y ago
I knew Ryan pretty well when we worked together several years ago and I can honestly say he is a really nice guy that is passionate about technology. I am not totally conversant about the issues happening here but I'm sure about that.
xiaoma 11y ago
I hope you weren't reading my comment that I feel less inclined to visit a site where only the old boys club get to comment as vitriol or a personal attack of all things. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10762260 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10762260 Just as a matter of taste I don't want to spend time on the outside looking in on an invite-only community. I'd simply go elsewhere. I'm not a huge fan of elitism and exclusivity in general. One situation where it's not quite as bad if there are very transparent, specific criteria. E.g. "you can't comment unless you've built a product >10,000 people use" is much better than "you can't comment unless you're on our social graph".

sparkzilla 11y ago

I don't care how nice he is in person, just as I don't care how mean Steve Jobs was. I judge people by the products they put out. If his product perpetuates the power structures of Silicon Valley and gives insiders special access then he's actually not a very nice guy.

Alex3917 11y ago
> If his product perpetuates the power structures All successful social software is going to perpetuate the existing power structures at the expense of outgroups in some areas, and empower outgroups at the expense of the mainstream and the insiders in other areas. As it should.
- sparkzilla 11y ago
  Social software can perpetuate existing power structures, but it can also create new structures. Software can also evolve to eliminate power concentrations. That's why it is important to always recognize that inequalities can arise in social software, and to devolve power in the system as much as possible.
  - Alex3917 11y ago
    > devolve power in the system as much as possible Can you think of good examples where this has actually happened? In most cases you have situations like where everyone has access to the sum of all human knowledge for free, but where high-SES kids have more time and ability to benefit. Part of the issue is that social software is built on networks, and networks naturally concentrate power because of Zipf's Law. Most design elements are also really just double edged swords. E.g. lots of people argue that Facebook's real names policy is bad for the LGBTQ community or whatever. But at the same time, Xbox Live isn't exactly the world's most LGBTQ friendly community either. One of my favorite quotes on social software is still this old one from Joi Ito, "You're not a leader, you're a place. You're like a park or a garden. If it's comfortable and cool, people are attracted." It's important to be cognizant of power structures when designing structures, but at the same time what really makes good social software is seeking out and accentuating the interstitial. But this usually eventually results in the creation of new power structures, and the best we can do is try to give a wide variety of folks the opportunity to benefit.
    - sparkzilla 11y ago
      Wikipedia is actually a good example of where devolution has not happened. It's long been known that Wikipedia has a gender gap, where less than 10% of active users are women. Many reasons have been given for this, most of which are along the lines of "women don't have time" or "they're not interested". I would probably have thought the same, until I started my own site, creating broadly similar crowdsourced content, and ended up with 80% female participation. That meant women are interested, and do have time. I realized that the software choices I had made on my site resulted in more inclusion than Wikipedia. Therefore, the only way to change wikipedia to include more women (and to include more men also) is to change the software so that power is taken away from those who hold it now, and distribute it more widely. In fact I'd go as far as saying Wikipedia is a system that rewards the accumulation of power, more than the creation of quality content. You can read my essay on this here: http://newslines.org/blog/the-sexists-at-the-top-of-wikipedia/ http://newslines.org/blog/the-sexists-at-the-top-of-wikipedi...
      - deleted 11y ago
cballard 11y ago
If you're an engineer, Steve Jobs worked to illegally and systematically suppress your wages. Yeah, the iPhone is great, but I'll judge him on that instead.
- sparkzilla 11y ago
  Good point.
pla3rhat3r 11y ago
This reply makes me think of Craigslist and how it was really meant to be a community based platform for people to do or sell whatever they wanted. Add that they have/had a pretty active forum which was also a quasi-democracy in which the community decided what was good or bad. I think this is what was intended for Product Hunt, but somewhere along the line something happened and this became a bit skewed. I've never met Ryan, but I know many that have. It sounds like this was not a product meant to build on the "boys club" but to let people know about cool shit people were building. Eventually it became THE place to find new products and services to a point where, if you were launching a product, posting and having it upvoted on Product Hunt was/is a must. From my perspective, that's not being a horrible person. That's creating something that people trust. Sounds like innovation to me.

troels 11y ago

There does seem to be an air of schadenfreude/witch hunt going on.

jtmcmc 11y ago

I knew Ryan pretty well when we worked together several years ago and I can honestly say he is a really nice guy that is passionate about technology. I am not totally conversant about the issues happening here but I'm sure about that.

xiaoma 11y ago

I hope you weren't reading my comment that I feel less inclined to visit a site where only the old boys club get to comment as vitriol or a personal attack of all things. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10762260 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10762260 Just as a matter of taste I don't want to spend time on the outside looking in on an invite-only community. I'd simply go elsewhere. I'm not a huge fan of elitism and exclusivity in general. One situation where it's not quite as bad if there are very transparent, specific criteria. E.g. "you can't comment unless you've built a product >10,000 people use" is much better than "you can't comment unless you're on our social graph".