3 ms·
Of course, DanBC. But questioning the inherent biases (and actions) of Silicon Valley are verboten. It's a sacred cow, in to the point I'm not even allowed to d
by kefka 11y ago
Of course, DanBC. But questioning the inherent biases (and actions) of Silicon Valley are verboten. It's a sacred cow, in to the point I'm not even allowed to discuss these areas.
And perhaps Uber was a good and bad idea both. There's hundreds of these companies that seek to "disrupt" whatever. The problem with these "disrupters" is that they also cause great problems... but those areas aren't explored because they are externalities. Outside the business interests; out of scope; government's problem; should have did it better; less interference... We've heard these as responses when individual areas are questioned.
The other part of highlighting inherent bias with regards to Silicon Valley (and VCs), is that areas like Hacker News punish you for non-groupthink. The more karma per recent post, the more you can post. If you have a contentious, but well thought out argument/discussion but yet against popular opinion here, you are modded down, and therefore silenced with "you're submitting too fast". There is no distinction between someone who is against the public opinion here, and that of a troll or regular crapflooder. I'd like to think there is a huge difference, but a -1 is a -1. The repercussions remain the same.
Maybe it's what Dang and other admins want. I don't know. Although I think it is of utmost importance to understand ones own biases. Knowing how your and others biases interact can be very useful, especially in business and enterprise.
- DanBC 11y ago> The other part of highlighting inherent bias with regards to Silicon Valley (and VCs), is that areas like Hacker News punish you for non-groupthink. The more karma per recent post, the more you can post. If you have a contentious, but well thought out argument/discussion but yet against popular opinion here, you are modded down, and therefore silenced with "you're submitting too fast". There is no distinction between someone who is against the public opinion here, and that of a troll or regular crapflooder. I'd like to think there is a huge difference, but a -1 is a -1. The repercussions remain the same. I agree with you here. People who get flagged and downvoted for reasonable opinions should not be caught up in rate-limiting, and that seems to happen a bit too much. For what it's worth you can try asking dang to remove the rate limiting if you're caught by it.
- dang 11y ago> There is no distinction between someone who is against the public opinion here, and that of a troll or regular crapflooder. Over time, there is a huge difference. But people have a strong bias against wanting to admit this in their own case and those of users they agree with. There's something about expressing a controversial opinion that compels people to be gratuitously provocative on top of the opinion they're expressing. Predictably, they get downvoted for the gratuitous provocation. Then they complain about how the hordes of HN can't appreciate their brave independent thinking, want to suppress them, and so on. This happens astonishingly often, and you can't understand how HN works without taking it into account.
- Gargoyle 11y ago> compels people to be gratuitously provocative on top of the opinion they're expressing. > HN can't appreciate their brave independent thinking So that first sentence is true. :-)