6 ms·

Just out of curiosity, what about his comment is trolling other than it being a contrarian opinion in this forum?

by nickrivadeneira 9y ago

jsmthrowaway 9y ago
That is sufficient to qualify here, unfortunately.
- braveo 9y ago
  and now dang is going to harass him in an attempt to get him off the site. Dang doesn't appreciate being called out for his bullshit.
  - tomlock 9y ago
    >It makes those of us who are a bit more moderate start to distrust everything we hear in terms of these loaded words. I've said this many times, but when you start using these words for every little thing, you do a disservice to those who are ACTUALLY being sexually harassed, raped, etc. >and now dang is going to harass him in an attempt to get him off the site. lol
dang 9y ago
That's a legit question (especially out of curiosity) but one that takes a surprising amount of energy to answer precisely. I might be able to do that tomorrow, but in the meantime here are some answers in the same vein. It's all the same principle, but the details vary. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment&query=by:dang%20troll%20effects https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=... Edit: I wrote some more downthread at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14627388 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14627388, if anyone wants more to read about how we approach this.
- grandalf 9y ago
  I haven't read this thread yet but I'm curious why the downvote mechanism isn't sufficient moderation in a case like this. HN has been a superb place for discussion of issues relating to workplace harassment and it seems that having certain ideas forbidden is likely to harm the discussion.
  - dang 9y ago
    It's because comments can have troll effects even when they're downvoted or flagged. There's a difference between expressing a view and setting this place on fire. There's no view that can't be expressed substantively and thoughtfully if one has a mind to, but it takes work. Throwing fuel on the fire or sand in the gears is different; that's vandalism, and it destroys the free exchange of views by ruining the container—the community and site—that supports it. The container is fragile and needs protecting. People mostly do this without realizing how destructive it is. Dealing with it requires moderators whose role is to protect the commons. That's how HN still exists as a place for (hopefully) thoughtful discussion. We'll never all agree about where to draw the line every time, but that's secondary to the point that someone needs to. A comment crosses into trolling when it does things that are known to ruin thoughtful discussion, whether intentionally or not. I chided the commenter upthread because they were going much further than merely (say) arguing against a rush to judgment about the OP—they were signalling bad faith with polemical swipes (e.g. 'Your prejudice that in general, "men are pigs"'). That is not thoughtful discussion, it's destructive of it. When we ask commenters not to do this, reactions vary. Some react by taking responsibility and learning how not to produce such effects in online conversation. Many HN users have gone through that process. I had to go through it myself (it took years); I used to optimize for snark and venting as much as the next person. If HN has anything superb about it, to use your word, it's because of the community members who do this work. Other commenters prefer the melodrama approach. They proclaim they're being 'censored' for their 'unpopular opinions' by mods who 'can't handle the truth', then storm out the front door with an 'enjoy your circlejerk' or two. (Typically they then walk around the building, come back in through the back door and start over with a new account.) This is the Pythonesque 'help help I'm being repressed' phase of the internet cycle of life. It's eternal and will never go way, but I'm confident that in most cases, most neutral readers observe the same signs of bad faith that mods were reacting to in the first place. How do I know that? Because otherwise our job would be impossible. In the end the root distinction isn't about what view a commenter has on this or that topic, it's the difference between users who comment with care for the whole and those who don't. Sometimes that's because they're so agitated that they lack the self-control to do anything other than toss a hot potato into the thread. (It happens to everyone.) But often it's just that they haven't yet learned about this dynamic and why it matters. Once somebody gets that, they're motivated to participate in the community quite differently—but it isn't a question of changing their views, becoming more 'conformist' or 'groupthink' or any of that sort of thing people say. It's more akin to not littering in a city park, or to taking good care of a campsite.

Just out of curiosity, what about his comment is trolling other than it being a contrarian opinion in this forum?

jsmthrowaway 9y ago

That is sufficient to qualify here, unfortunately.

braveo 9y ago
and now dang is going to harass him in an attempt to get him off the site. Dang doesn't appreciate being called out for his bullshit.
- tomlock 9y ago
  >It makes those of us who are a bit more moderate start to distrust everything we hear in terms of these loaded words. I've said this many times, but when you start using these words for every little thing, you do a disservice to those who are ACTUALLY being sexually harassed, raped, etc. >and now dang is going to harass him in an attempt to get him off the site. lol

dang 9y ago

That's a legit question (especially out of curiosity) but one that takes a surprising amount of energy to answer precisely. I might be able to do that tomorrow, but in the meantime here are some answers in the same vein. It's all the same principle, but the details vary. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment&query=by:dang%20troll%20effects https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=... Edit: I wrote some more downthread at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14627388 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14627388, if anyone wants more to read about how we approach this.

grandalf 9y ago
I haven't read this thread yet but I'm curious why the downvote mechanism isn't sufficient moderation in a case like this. HN has been a superb place for discussion of issues relating to workplace harassment and it seems that having certain ideas forbidden is likely to harm the discussion.
- dang 9y ago
  It's because comments can have troll effects even when they're downvoted or flagged. There's a difference between expressing a view and setting this place on fire. There's no view that can't be expressed substantively and thoughtfully if one has a mind to, but it takes work. Throwing fuel on the fire or sand in the gears is different; that's vandalism, and it destroys the free exchange of views by ruining the container—the community and site—that supports it. The container is fragile and needs protecting. People mostly do this without realizing how destructive it is. Dealing with it requires moderators whose role is to protect the commons. That's how HN still exists as a place for (hopefully) thoughtful discussion. We'll never all agree about where to draw the line every time, but that's secondary to the point that someone needs to. A comment crosses into trolling when it does things that are known to ruin thoughtful discussion, whether intentionally or not. I chided the commenter upthread because they were going much further than merely (say) arguing against a rush to judgment about the OP—they were signalling bad faith with polemical swipes (e.g. 'Your prejudice that in general, "men are pigs"'). That is not thoughtful discussion, it's destructive of it. When we ask commenters not to do this, reactions vary. Some react by taking responsibility and learning how not to produce such effects in online conversation. Many HN users have gone through that process. I had to go through it myself (it took years); I used to optimize for snark and venting as much as the next person. If HN has anything superb about it, to use your word, it's because of the community members who do this work. Other commenters prefer the melodrama approach. They proclaim they're being 'censored' for their 'unpopular opinions' by mods who 'can't handle the truth', then storm out the front door with an 'enjoy your circlejerk' or two. (Typically they then walk around the building, come back in through the back door and start over with a new account.) This is the Pythonesque 'help help I'm being repressed' phase of the internet cycle of life. It's eternal and will never go way, but I'm confident that in most cases, most neutral readers observe the same signs of bad faith that mods were reacting to in the first place. How do I know that? Because otherwise our job would be impossible. In the end the root distinction isn't about what view a commenter has on this or that topic, it's the difference between users who comment with care for the whole and those who don't. Sometimes that's because they're so agitated that they lack the self-control to do anything other than toss a hot potato into the thread. (It happens to everyone.) But often it's just that they haven't yet learned about this dynamic and why it matters. Once somebody gets that, they're motivated to participate in the community quite differently—but it isn't a question of changing their views, becoming more 'conformist' or 'groupthink' or any of that sort of thing people say. It's more akin to not littering in a city park, or to taking good care of a campsite.