4 ms·

Sometimes I wonder whether IRC really does have an advantage over richer media communications. I do not know or care about the identity of someone who helps me

Sometimes I wonder whether IRC really does have an advantage over richer media communications. I do not know or care about the identity of someone who helps me with a tricky question in #emacs beyond their current nick. This lack of information is, in many ways, an asset. I think the only place it goes wrong is that eventually you'll have to interact with people in the real world, and the easiest assumption to make on IRC is that everyone i'm talking to is basically me, but smarter, and there's some guaranteed weirdness when it becomes clear that this is not the case.

friedButter 9y ago
The problem with IRC is, if diverse participants realize their inputs arent as valued when viewed without bias, they will cause PR issues. On media like Twitter, you can always pay special attention to diverse folks so they dont feel left out
- krastanov 9y ago
  I am not certain whether this is a joke that flied over my head, but in case it is not: The whole point of the parent comment was that on IRC you do not know other people's background and can not be discriminatory. Most scientific evidence is the exact opposite of your allegation - when the "tribe" of the other is not know you assume they are of your tribe and do not discriminate. Project Implicit and "stereotype threat" are good phrases to google that would provide rigorous scientific studies around those and other similar topics.
  - friedButter 9y ago
    Interesting.. I'll look up project implicit. The 2 situations which came to mind were the github conference that was cancelled for not being diverse enough after a blind review process and the study done by masking the gender of the applicant where men whose voice was modified to sound like a woman's did marginally better (Though not statistically significant IIRC) in coding interviews
    - krastanov 9y ago
      There are a handful of examples in professional settings where there is a minor bias in favor of women or minorities[1], but both researchers and activists are honest about them (there are always zealots, but that goes for both sides). This bias is bad, but it does not invalidate the much more prevalent and problematic bias in the other direction (against women and minorities). Similarly, the bias against men in parental disputes does not invalidate, nor is invalidated by the bias against women in professional settings. [1]: The example that comes to mind is that in academic settings if women are (for instance) 5% of the applicant pool, they will make (for instance) 10% of the people invited for interviews. (I made up all the numbers for the sake of explanation) But this seems to be explained by rounding (you would invite less than 10 people for interviews, so a single woman being present is already above the population average). This effect will hopefully disappear as we create more diverse community. And the effect is completely dominated by effects in the other direction like [2]. [2]: http://www.yalescientific.org/2013/02/john-vs-jennifer-a-battle-of-the-sexes/ http://www.yalescientific.org/2013/02/john-vs-jennifer-a-bat...
emsal 9y ago
On IRC, if you stay in a channel long enough, you'll find that (depending on the channel) communities there do have their own slew of personalities and politics. People may eventually reveal information about themselves (gender, age, ethnicity, etc.), and if the information happens to be real, whatever harassment or bigotry that's made in response to that can do just as much damage as if it were done over another medium.
- hprotagonist 9y ago
  This is all true, but the degree to which I get to control how much other long-time channel denizens know about me is much more under my control. I can even mask my IP pretty easily. A real-name, photo-required, rich-media equivalent (i.e, twitter) tips the balance of mandatory disclosure away from my favor.
  - praisewhitey 9y ago
    Twitter doesn't require a real name or photo (I use neither) and has as much rich media as the IRC channels I sit in.
    - hprotagonist 9y ago
      i'm not a twitter user, but i have been led to believe that eggs are generally not trusted.
      - jpindar 9y ago
        When they say eggs they mean accounts that literally do not have any avatar image, and are thus probably operated by newbies or bots. A quick check of my feed shows that at least half of the accounts I follow don't have an image of a person or a name that could be a real name. Of those that do, some are clearly not the picture or real name of the user of the account.
    - retailbuyout 9y ago
      Twitter has many, many other issues, including an absolutely terrible interface for meaningful discussion. Good for swapping gifs; bad for talking about anything with complexity.

friedButter 9y ago

The problem with IRC is, if diverse participants realize their inputs arent as valued when viewed without bias, they will cause PR issues. On media like Twitter, you can always pay special attention to diverse folks so they dont feel left out

krastanov 9y ago
I am not certain whether this is a joke that flied over my head, but in case it is not: The whole point of the parent comment was that on IRC you do not know other people's background and can not be discriminatory. Most scientific evidence is the exact opposite of your allegation - when the "tribe" of the other is not know you assume they are of your tribe and do not discriminate. Project Implicit and "stereotype threat" are good phrases to google that would provide rigorous scientific studies around those and other similar topics.
- friedButter 9y ago
  Interesting.. I'll look up project implicit. The 2 situations which came to mind were the github conference that was cancelled for not being diverse enough after a blind review process and the study done by masking the gender of the applicant where men whose voice was modified to sound like a woman's did marginally better (Though not statistically significant IIRC) in coding interviews
  - krastanov 9y ago
    There are a handful of examples in professional settings where there is a minor bias in favor of women or minorities[1], but both researchers and activists are honest about them (there are always zealots, but that goes for both sides). This bias is bad, but it does not invalidate the much more prevalent and problematic bias in the other direction (against women and minorities). Similarly, the bias against men in parental disputes does not invalidate, nor is invalidated by the bias against women in professional settings. [1]: The example that comes to mind is that in academic settings if women are (for instance) 5% of the applicant pool, they will make (for instance) 10% of the people invited for interviews. (I made up all the numbers for the sake of explanation) But this seems to be explained by rounding (you would invite less than 10 people for interviews, so a single woman being present is already above the population average). This effect will hopefully disappear as we create more diverse community. And the effect is completely dominated by effects in the other direction like [2]. [2]: http://www.yalescientific.org/2013/02/john-vs-jennifer-a-battle-of-the-sexes/ http://www.yalescientific.org/2013/02/john-vs-jennifer-a-bat...

emsal 9y ago

On IRC, if you stay in a channel long enough, you'll find that (depending on the channel) communities there do have their own slew of personalities and politics. People may eventually reveal information about themselves (gender, age, ethnicity, etc.), and if the information happens to be real, whatever harassment or bigotry that's made in response to that can do just as much damage as if it were done over another medium.

hprotagonist 9y ago
This is all true, but the degree to which I get to control how much other long-time channel denizens know about me is much more under my control. I can even mask my IP pretty easily. A real-name, photo-required, rich-media equivalent (i.e, twitter) tips the balance of mandatory disclosure away from my favor.
- praisewhitey 9y ago
  Twitter doesn't require a real name or photo (I use neither) and has as much rich media as the IRC channels I sit in.
  - hprotagonist 9y ago
    i'm not a twitter user, but i have been led to believe that eggs are generally not trusted.
    - jpindar 9y ago
      When they say eggs they mean accounts that literally do not have any avatar image, and are thus probably operated by newbies or bots. A quick check of my feed shows that at least half of the accounts I follow don't have an image of a person or a name that could be a real name. Of those that do, some are clearly not the picture or real name of the user of the account.
  - retailbuyout 9y ago
    Twitter has many, many other issues, including an absolutely terrible interface for meaningful discussion. Good for swapping gifs; bad for talking about anything with complexity.