5 ms·

I think this is pretty true for economic issues, but not for diversity/identity politics/social justice. On those issues, the HN-hivemind is pretty solidly left

by hsod 10y ago

I think this is pretty true for economic issues, but not for diversity/identity politics/social justice. On those issues, the HN-hivemind is pretty solidly leftist (though not to the extremes of some corners of the web).

mintplant 10y ago
Wait, what? Really? I would point to the comments on just about any "women in tech" story as a counterexample.
- james-watson 10y ago
  I have had previous accounts banned for stating the following: "Homo sapiens are a sexually dimorphic species of primates, in which the Y chromosome results in differential physiological development between males and females." So yes, HN is quite a hivemind when it comes to gender/identity politics. In fact, I have a feeling I'll get banned for this comment.
  - PieterH 10y ago
    HN is overall polite and mature, especially compared to Reddit. Yet it can't escape its background culture. Some truths will always be taboo.
  - nkurz 10y ago
    Perhaps I live with rose colored glasses, but I do not believe that anyone has ever be be banned from HN for making that quoted statement unless you have left out some essential detail. My guess would be that you made that statement, and subsequently you were banned for something else. Perhaps you could post a link to the thread in question? Never mind, maybe I found it, or at least the account: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9039872 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9039872. A little bristly, and I'm not sure if the assumptions are correct (Is it unequivocal that "Status is zero sum"?) but doesn't seem ban-worthy. But since it's a year before the account appears banned, maybe I'm missing a later comment with the exact quote? Presuming this is the account you are referring to, it looks to have actually been banned for the similarly themed but much more aggressive comment "Sexual dimorphism is real. Your impotent rage and ridiculous ideologies will never change that fact. I will be greatly amused by your kind's zealous need to tilt at windmills." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11226294 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11226294), which when challenged by Dan you defended by saying "I have a policy to return hostility in kind." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11227788 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11227788). I think this counts as leaving out an essential detail. The problem is not that discussing sexually dimorphism is off limits (others appear to have done so without being banned) but that taking "he did it first" is not a acceptable excuse for rude behavior here. Or maybe I have the timeline slightly off? It's hard to tell when some of the edits occurred. In any case, I'm going to keep my rose colored glasses on for a bit longer. I'd encourage you to keep making scientifically accurate statements about sexual dimorphism from your new account, but given that some interpretations have sensitive implications, it would probably be wise to approach it as politely as possible. In fact, I have a feeling I'll get banned for this comment. No, I don't think you will. You can actually discuss many "controversial" topics here as long as you try to do so politely. Assuming I found the right thread, it looks like the ban wasn't because you raised a forbidden topic, but for your stated policy of returning hostility in kind. "Tit for tat" has it's place in game theory, but in real games (and communities) it has some serious defects if blindly applied. The main defect in this context is that if all players adhere to the simplest version, it has a tendency to end in a "death spiral" of defection. Eventually, a poorly phrased response is interpreted as an insult, and after that it's a permanent race to the bottom. The strategy can be improved by adding some degree of "forgiveness" to allow both parties to reset to cooperation. Adjusting the trigger to require multiple offenses before retaliation ("tit for two tats") can also help to account for inevitable communication errors. Welcome back.
    - james-watson 10y ago
      That is a good first order analysis, but I have witnessed HN darlings get away with far, far worse ad-hominem vulgarity with nary a peep from the moderators. This is most definitely about thoughtcrimes, and not manners. For history's sake, let's link the original post which dang replied to and subsequently killed. There was zero rule breaking in that one, just thoughtcrimes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11221055 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11221055 As a scientist, I find human behavior fascinating. Particularly when people say one thing, and do another. My argument has always been as follows: If HN is about entrepreneurship and technological progress, why do they ruthlessly suppress established scientific consensus? And here's my hypothesis: because it does not fit the current political zeitgeist.
    - nkurz 10y ago
      [Responding to myself since I can't respond to the the flagged and dead original. You can click on your username and turn on "Show Dead" to view it.] I have witnessed HN darlings get away with far, far worse ad-hominem vulgarity with nary a peep from the moderators Likely, but enforcement is always going to be "spotty", so it's almost impossible to distinguish bias from bad luck in any particular case. And perhaps they are "darlings" because they interact politely with the moderators? For history's sake, let's link the original post which dang replied to and subsequently killed. I don't know if it is intentional, but I think you are conflating different issues. Dan marked the thread off topic and explained why. Subsequently, another comment in the thread was killed by user flags. It is unlikely that Dan killed it himself. There was zero rule breaking in that one, just thoughtcrimes Arguably, although the counter-argument that Dan presents is that "attractive nuisances" are against the rules. He explains his reasoning (which I agree with) in a more recent response: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12163939 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12163939. The goal of moderation is not ensuring technical compliance with arbitrary rules, rather then goal is "protecting civil, substantive discussion". Like the common (and often truncated) quote that "democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms", the standard against which HN should be judged is not whether the moderation is perfect, but how it compares to the alternatives. Based on the current state of HN relative to other internet discussion sites, I'd claim that the moderation seems to be working pretty well. Where do you think is doing a better job? Separately, are "clevernickname" and "FD3SA" both your accounts? The transition it the thread from one account to the other seems odd to explain otherwise. If so, the "zero rule breaking in that one" seems like an odd claim, akin to the "Freemen on the Land" claims of immunity from the the courts based on being "Incorrectly Identified". See page 75 here: https://thelastbastille.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/meads-v-meads-2012-abqb-571-organized-pseudolegal-commercial-argument-opca-freeman-on-the-land-decision.pdf https://thelastbastille.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/meads-v-... If HN is about entrepreneurship and technological progress, why do they ruthlessly suppress established scientific consensus? I know this must feel like a well framed question, but it's really not. Why should we assume "HN is about entrepreneurship and technological progress" any more than assuming "the moon is made of blue cheese"? Who exactly is the "they" that is suppressing scientific consensus, and if this was the goal why choose such a round-about way to do so? For that matter, what does "consensus" have to do with science? And here's my hypothesis: because it does not fit the current political zeitgeist. A scientific hypothesis should make a falsifiable prediction. Is this the sense in which you are using the term? If so, what predictions does your hypothesis make that are different from a plausible "null hypothesis" like "the moderators are trying their best to keep HN as a place where substantive discussion is possible"? How would we go about testing these predictions?
  - dang 10y ago
    Users who make self-flattering claims about why they were banned from HN—always for some allegedly tinpot reason—are unreliable narrators. The real reason is invariably more sordid, which is why they omit to supply links. The typical such user has a long history of breaking the rules here, getting banned, and creating new accounts. They often do so shortly after proclaiming that they're leaving HN forever and will never set foot in this crappy, horribly-run echo chamber again. Most HN readers would be surprised to learn how small the number of users generating all this drama really is. The rest of us just want to use the site for its intended purpose, which isn't ideological flamewars or meta grandstanding. There's nothing more common than posturing as a brave independent thinker standing up to the mob. Therefore that posture has the interesting property of being self-refuting.
    - james-watson 10y ago
      I returned because I have hope dang, that HN will one day see the light of science and break the shackles of political correctness. I enjoyed the ideas espoused by Paul Graham, who is no longer among us and whose legacy is defiled by the current HN [1]. I won't say any more, as I can see that you are readying the ban hammer with righteous fervor. I will let Dr. Helena Cronin, a scientist, make the point I was banned for: https://www.edge.org/conversation/helena_cronin-getting-human-nature-right https://www.edge.org/conversation/helena_cronin-getting-huma... 1. http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
      - dang 10y ago
        PG was far more aggressive about banning people than we are; partly because he had less time, and partly less patience. After years of trying to be more patient, I'm unconvinced that patience in this area is a virtue. It seems to lead to more trouble and no fewer complaints. When efforts to do things a certain way lead to condemnation for the opposite, it seems like a sign that something's not working.
    - nkurz 10y ago
      The typical such user has a long history of breaking the rules here, getting banned, and creating new accounts. I'm hoping that you base your moderating decisions on the actions of the user in question ("human behind the keyboard" user regardless of account name) and not the "typical such user"? Do you have evidence that you are chosing not to release that 'james-watson' is such a user? Most HN readers would be surprised to learn how small the number of users generating all this drama really is. Perhaps there would be some way to publicly enlighten us about the serial offenders? For example, maybe you could explain the full backstory of why this post was killed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12313089 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12313089. In and of itself, it doesn't appear to be too egregious, and thus it would appear to bolster the poster's argument. But presumably there is more to the story? this crappy, horribly run echo chamber again The most interesting thing to me is that there are often multiple conflicting "echo chamber" claims in flight, with each side feeling like the lone outcast. There's an excellent example even in this subthread right here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12308842 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12308842 (I'm referring to the back-and-forth in the thread, rather than the individual comment I linked). To some, HN is a hotbed of socialism, and to others the epitome of evil capitalism. My recent conclusion is that (counterintuitively) HN is frequently accused of being an "echo chamber" because it has greater diversity of opinion than most other spaces online. The truly anechoic chambers aren't called out as such because the filtering is so effective, whereas "leaky" spaces like HN are assigned the label. [Edit: I just noticed that "anechoic" doesn't quite fit the narrative here, but don't know how to reword it. The point was supposed to be that full echo chambers and anechoic chambers may have more in common with each other than each does with the points in the middle.] Perversely, this might mean that accusations of being an echo chamber is a good metric for diversity of opinion. If the norm is that one lives in a world where one normally hears no fundamental disagreement, it can be disconcerting to be in a place where there is no clear "right way of thinking". Only when people stop proclaiming it to be an echo chamber is the canary dead.
gaius 10y ago
And there is a threat of a #hnwatch brigading to enforce it

by hsod 10y ago

mintplant 10y ago

Wait, what? Really? I would point to the comments on just about any "women in tech" story as a counterexample.

james-watson 10y ago
I have had previous accounts banned for stating the following: "Homo sapiens are a sexually dimorphic species of primates, in which the Y chromosome results in differential physiological development between males and females." So yes, HN is quite a hivemind when it comes to gender/identity politics. In fact, I have a feeling I'll get banned for this comment.
- PieterH 10y ago
  HN is overall polite and mature, especially compared to Reddit. Yet it can't escape its background culture. Some truths will always be taboo.
- nkurz 10y ago
  Perhaps I live with rose colored glasses, but I do not believe that anyone has ever be be banned from HN for making that quoted statement unless you have left out some essential detail. My guess would be that you made that statement, and subsequently you were banned for something else. Perhaps you could post a link to the thread in question? Never mind, maybe I found it, or at least the account: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9039872 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9039872. A little bristly, and I'm not sure if the assumptions are correct (Is it unequivocal that "Status is zero sum"?) but doesn't seem ban-worthy. But since it's a year before the account appears banned, maybe I'm missing a later comment with the exact quote? Presuming this is the account you are referring to, it looks to have actually been banned for the similarly themed but much more aggressive comment "Sexual dimorphism is real. Your impotent rage and ridiculous ideologies will never change that fact. I will be greatly amused by your kind's zealous need to tilt at windmills." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11226294 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11226294), which when challenged by Dan you defended by saying "I have a policy to return hostility in kind." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11227788 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11227788). I think this counts as leaving out an essential detail. The problem is not that discussing sexually dimorphism is off limits (others appear to have done so without being banned) but that taking "he did it first" is not a acceptable excuse for rude behavior here. Or maybe I have the timeline slightly off? It's hard to tell when some of the edits occurred. In any case, I'm going to keep my rose colored glasses on for a bit longer. I'd encourage you to keep making scientifically accurate statements about sexual dimorphism from your new account, but given that some interpretations have sensitive implications, it would probably be wise to approach it as politely as possible. In fact, I have a feeling I'll get banned for this comment. No, I don't think you will. You can actually discuss many "controversial" topics here as long as you try to do so politely. Assuming I found the right thread, it looks like the ban wasn't because you raised a forbidden topic, but for your stated policy of returning hostility in kind. "Tit for tat" has it's place in game theory, but in real games (and communities) it has some serious defects if blindly applied. The main defect in this context is that if all players adhere to the simplest version, it has a tendency to end in a "death spiral" of defection. Eventually, a poorly phrased response is interpreted as an insult, and after that it's a permanent race to the bottom. The strategy can be improved by adding some degree of "forgiveness" to allow both parties to reset to cooperation. Adjusting the trigger to require multiple offenses before retaliation ("tit for two tats") can also help to account for inevitable communication errors. Welcome back.
  - james-watson 10y ago
    That is a good first order analysis, but I have witnessed HN darlings get away with far, far worse ad-hominem vulgarity with nary a peep from the moderators. This is most definitely about thoughtcrimes, and not manners. For history's sake, let's link the original post which dang replied to and subsequently killed. There was zero rule breaking in that one, just thoughtcrimes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11221055 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11221055 As a scientist, I find human behavior fascinating. Particularly when people say one thing, and do another. My argument has always been as follows: If HN is about entrepreneurship and technological progress, why do they ruthlessly suppress established scientific consensus? And here's my hypothesis: because it does not fit the current political zeitgeist.
  - nkurz 10y ago
    [Responding to myself since I can't respond to the the flagged and dead original. You can click on your username and turn on "Show Dead" to view it.] I have witnessed HN darlings get away with far, far worse ad-hominem vulgarity with nary a peep from the moderators Likely, but enforcement is always going to be "spotty", so it's almost impossible to distinguish bias from bad luck in any particular case. And perhaps they are "darlings" because they interact politely with the moderators? For history's sake, let's link the original post which dang replied to and subsequently killed. I don't know if it is intentional, but I think you are conflating different issues. Dan marked the thread off topic and explained why. Subsequently, another comment in the thread was killed by user flags. It is unlikely that Dan killed it himself. There was zero rule breaking in that one, just thoughtcrimes Arguably, although the counter-argument that Dan presents is that "attractive nuisances" are against the rules. He explains his reasoning (which I agree with) in a more recent response: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12163939 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12163939. The goal of moderation is not ensuring technical compliance with arbitrary rules, rather then goal is "protecting civil, substantive discussion". Like the common (and often truncated) quote that "democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms", the standard against which HN should be judged is not whether the moderation is perfect, but how it compares to the alternatives. Based on the current state of HN relative to other internet discussion sites, I'd claim that the moderation seems to be working pretty well. Where do you think is doing a better job? Separately, are "clevernickname" and "FD3SA" both your accounts? The transition it the thread from one account to the other seems odd to explain otherwise. If so, the "zero rule breaking in that one" seems like an odd claim, akin to the "Freemen on the Land" claims of immunity from the the courts based on being "Incorrectly Identified". See page 75 here: https://thelastbastille.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/meads-v-meads-2012-abqb-571-organized-pseudolegal-commercial-argument-opca-freeman-on-the-land-decision.pdf https://thelastbastille.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/meads-v-... If HN is about entrepreneurship and technological progress, why do they ruthlessly suppress established scientific consensus? I know this must feel like a well framed question, but it's really not. Why should we assume "HN is about entrepreneurship and technological progress" any more than assuming "the moon is made of blue cheese"? Who exactly is the "they" that is suppressing scientific consensus, and if this was the goal why choose such a round-about way to do so? For that matter, what does "consensus" have to do with science? And here's my hypothesis: because it does not fit the current political zeitgeist. A scientific hypothesis should make a falsifiable prediction. Is this the sense in which you are using the term? If so, what predictions does your hypothesis make that are different from a plausible "null hypothesis" like "the moderators are trying their best to keep HN as a place where substantive discussion is possible"? How would we go about testing these predictions?
- dang 10y ago
  Users who make self-flattering claims about why they were banned from HN—always for some allegedly tinpot reason—are unreliable narrators. The real reason is invariably more sordid, which is why they omit to supply links. The typical such user has a long history of breaking the rules here, getting banned, and creating new accounts. They often do so shortly after proclaiming that they're leaving HN forever and will never set foot in this crappy, horribly-run echo chamber again. Most HN readers would be surprised to learn how small the number of users generating all this drama really is. The rest of us just want to use the site for its intended purpose, which isn't ideological flamewars or meta grandstanding. There's nothing more common than posturing as a brave independent thinker standing up to the mob. Therefore that posture has the interesting property of being self-refuting.
  - james-watson 10y ago
    I returned because I have hope dang, that HN will one day see the light of science and break the shackles of political correctness. I enjoyed the ideas espoused by Paul Graham, who is no longer among us and whose legacy is defiled by the current HN [1]. I won't say any more, as I can see that you are readying the ban hammer with righteous fervor. I will let Dr. Helena Cronin, a scientist, make the point I was banned for: https://www.edge.org/conversation/helena_cronin-getting-human-nature-right https://www.edge.org/conversation/helena_cronin-getting-huma... 1. http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
    - dang 10y ago
      PG was far more aggressive about banning people than we are; partly because he had less time, and partly less patience. After years of trying to be more patient, I'm unconvinced that patience in this area is a virtue. It seems to lead to more trouble and no fewer complaints. When efforts to do things a certain way lead to condemnation for the opposite, it seems like a sign that something's not working.
  - nkurz 10y ago
    The typical such user has a long history of breaking the rules here, getting banned, and creating new accounts. I'm hoping that you base your moderating decisions on the actions of the user in question ("human behind the keyboard" user regardless of account name) and not the "typical such user"? Do you have evidence that you are chosing not to release that 'james-watson' is such a user? Most HN readers would be surprised to learn how small the number of users generating all this drama really is. Perhaps there would be some way to publicly enlighten us about the serial offenders? For example, maybe you could explain the full backstory of why this post was killed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12313089 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12313089. In and of itself, it doesn't appear to be too egregious, and thus it would appear to bolster the poster's argument. But presumably there is more to the story? this crappy, horribly run echo chamber again The most interesting thing to me is that there are often multiple conflicting "echo chamber" claims in flight, with each side feeling like the lone outcast. There's an excellent example even in this subthread right here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12308842 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12308842 (I'm referring to the back-and-forth in the thread, rather than the individual comment I linked). To some, HN is a hotbed of socialism, and to others the epitome of evil capitalism. My recent conclusion is that (counterintuitively) HN is frequently accused of being an "echo chamber" because it has greater diversity of opinion than most other spaces online. The truly anechoic chambers aren't called out as such because the filtering is so effective, whereas "leaky" spaces like HN are assigned the label. [Edit: I just noticed that "anechoic" doesn't quite fit the narrative here, but don't know how to reword it. The point was supposed to be that full echo chambers and anechoic chambers may have more in common with each other than each does with the points in the middle.] Perversely, this might mean that accusations of being an echo chamber is a good metric for diversity of opinion. If the norm is that one lives in a world where one normally hears no fundamental disagreement, it can be disconcerting to be in a place where there is no clear "right way of thinking". Only when people stop proclaiming it to be an echo chamber is the canary dead.

gaius 10y ago

And there is a threat of a #hnwatch brigading to enforce it