5 ms·

Your last line there is the key, and the filter by which we can see if that comic is worrying or wise. HN has a rather brutal philosophy in flagging/downvoting

Your last line there is the key, and the filter by which we can see if that comic is worrying or wise. HN has a rather brutal philosophy in flagging/downvoting items lacking substance and shadowbanning troll-ish folk; it seems to work ok and is usually not too sinister (and when it is, human intervention/moderation can often help). By contrast, large communities like states and national institutions can - with just a hint and a nod - inflict surprisingly chilling effects throughout communities of millions. So where do we draw the line? I dunno. Whereever we draw it, it's got to be parametric with enough inputs to take into account at least the rough subtleties of the situation. Because the comic is right: I don't need to put up with an asshole's bullshit, but I also don't want to destroy them. Just, you know, tone it down a smidge and stop being a jerk. I'm fairly passive. Normally I do that by ignoring them, changing the channel, or just avoiding the website. Rarely I'll actively flag or downvote (ugh, so hamfisted). And sometimes, I just go away if they take root. With high-signal web analytics, tracking, stats, and other social-buzz things, my avoidance may actually be logged and noted. Maybe I help starve out what I consider noise, thus boosting what I consider signal. What if a lot of people in a community are just outraged? Or are very sensitive to easily become outraged? I think that's where things get underdamped fast, and where your worries come into play. My only thought is to starve it of energy 'till it settles down, but we've seen enough self-sustaining bullshit storms that I bet passive resistance doesn't work much anymore for that. EDIT: speling

pklausler 11y ago
I'm not sure where the boundary of acceptable responses to contentious speech may lie, but surely choosing to avoid an expensive and optional conference because it has booked a particular speaker is well within one's options. Free speech doesn't obligate anyone else to listen.
- HCIdivision17 11y ago
  I think that's a fine opinion. It's an active choice to not get involved, and I think dynamic partitioning is a good way to handle things (dissent and go one's own way). It's a bit ironic, since I hadn't really known about the conference, and it sounds really cool. After all, I can just not go to that speaker - whoever he is (the controversy really doesn't interest me) - and see some of the other neat talks. I think as far as conference prices go, it's not too bad, but I wasn't planning on it (and there's always the ever-larger cost of travel/lodging), so I suspect I won't see it =/
- mcphage 11y ago
  > surely choosing to avoid an expensive and optional conference because it has booked a particular speaker is well within one's options. Definitely. But what about contacting all of the conference's sponsors, and insinuating that they're racist if they don't denounce the conference and pull their sponsorship? Or encouraging all of the previous speakers to denounce the organizers? Both of those happened. Probably both allowed, but... wow, some real nasty behavior.
  - pklausler 11y ago
    Such behavior infringes on the opportunity of others to decide whether or not they want to hear the speech in question.
  - querulous 11y ago
    is this just supposition or can you show where this actually happened?
    - mcphage 11y ago
      So I put some tweets in another message, but they weren't exactly the ones I was referring to; like I said, search is difficult on a phone. But I didn't want to make it seem like I was misconstruing what was said, so I wanted to post some clearer ones as well: "@47deg Hi, are you still going to sponsor LambdaConf if they give a platform to someone who thinks blacks are suited for slavery?" - https://twitter.com/ekrubnivek/status/713501535515226113 https://twitter.com/ekrubnivek/status/713501535515226113 "@andrewfnewman @adrienneleigh So, the racist organizers of lambdaconf selected his talk knowing who they would get? Smart move, clearly!" - https://twitter.com/extempore2/status/714502151884505088 https://twitter.com/extempore2/status/714502151884505088 "If you've spoken at LambdaConf: have you repudiated its organizers for making the choice to include bigots and exclude marginalized people?" - https://twitter.com/fatneckbeardguy/status/712804368945250305 https://twitter.com/fatneckbeardguy/status/71280436894525030...
      - tunesmith 11y ago
        FWIW, extempore2 was making the opposite point - he's been one of the most vocal in criticizing the boycotters.

pklausler 11y ago

I'm not sure where the boundary of acceptable responses to contentious speech may lie, but surely choosing to avoid an expensive and optional conference because it has booked a particular speaker is well within one's options. Free speech doesn't obligate anyone else to listen.

HCIdivision17 11y ago
I think that's a fine opinion. It's an active choice to not get involved, and I think dynamic partitioning is a good way to handle things (dissent and go one's own way). It's a bit ironic, since I hadn't really known about the conference, and it sounds really cool. After all, I can just not go to that speaker - whoever he is (the controversy really doesn't interest me) - and see some of the other neat talks. I think as far as conference prices go, it's not too bad, but I wasn't planning on it (and there's always the ever-larger cost of travel/lodging), so I suspect I won't see it =/
mcphage 11y ago
> surely choosing to avoid an expensive and optional conference because it has booked a particular speaker is well within one's options. Definitely. But what about contacting all of the conference's sponsors, and insinuating that they're racist if they don't denounce the conference and pull their sponsorship? Or encouraging all of the previous speakers to denounce the organizers? Both of those happened. Probably both allowed, but... wow, some real nasty behavior.
- pklausler 11y ago
  Such behavior infringes on the opportunity of others to decide whether or not they want to hear the speech in question.
- querulous 11y ago
  is this just supposition or can you show where this actually happened?
  - mcphage 11y ago
    So I put some tweets in another message, but they weren't exactly the ones I was referring to; like I said, search is difficult on a phone. But I didn't want to make it seem like I was misconstruing what was said, so I wanted to post some clearer ones as well: "@47deg Hi, are you still going to sponsor LambdaConf if they give a platform to someone who thinks blacks are suited for slavery?" - https://twitter.com/ekrubnivek/status/713501535515226113 https://twitter.com/ekrubnivek/status/713501535515226113 "@andrewfnewman @adrienneleigh So, the racist organizers of lambdaconf selected his talk knowing who they would get? Smart move, clearly!" - https://twitter.com/extempore2/status/714502151884505088 https://twitter.com/extempore2/status/714502151884505088 "If you've spoken at LambdaConf: have you repudiated its organizers for making the choice to include bigots and exclude marginalized people?" - https://twitter.com/fatneckbeardguy/status/712804368945250305 https://twitter.com/fatneckbeardguy/status/71280436894525030...
    - tunesmith 11y ago
      FWIW, extempore2 was making the opposite point - he's been one of the most vocal in criticizing the boycotters.