4 ms·

Well, unimpeded, unless you make the mistake of using Google's DNS services and they decide to steal your domain name for the greater good. Or someone decides

Well, unimpeded, unless you make the mistake of using Google's DNS services and they decide to steal your domain name for the greater good. Or someone decides to impede your right to speech with DoS attacks (see: Quillette) and you made the mistake of using Cloudflare to protect yourself. At this point to reliably be able to express opinions that are based in science but offend some minority subgroup you would have to avoid basically all firms based in Silicon Valley. Note the quote from the new medium.com policy: But it is now more detailed and focused, disallowing posts ... including “the use of scientific or pseudoscientific claims to pathologize, dehumanize, or disempower others.” So basically an anti-Damore clause. If you state something based in scientific studies, but someone claims to feel "disempowered", you can't use Medium. I wonder how long before other Valley firms adopt similar usage policies. This reminds me of the quote by Urs Hoezle: As engineers, we're trained to pay attention to the details, think logically, challenge assumptions that may be incorrect (or just fuzzy), and so on. These are all excellent tools for technical discussions. But they can be terrible tools for discussion around race, discrimination, justice, and so on, because these discussions touch topics with a high cultural and emotional content. That's because questioning the exact details can easily be perceived as questioning the overall validity of the effort, or the veracity of the historical context. An entire subculture founded in the advancement of science is systematically turning its back on science, in case it 'offends' someone. A milestone in the (d)evolution of the Valley.

tptacek 9y ago
So go start a site that guarantees free expression of "science-backed" arguments. Again: see what it becomes. Your right to science-backed arguments will be unimpeded.
actsasbuffoon 9y ago
There are good reasons why we don't want to consider these sorts of pseudo-scientific claims for employment or other important matters. Let's say we live in a society with mandatory DNA testing with publicly available results. Your DNA shows that you have a genetic marker which indicates a tendency towards anti-social behavior. It's fine though; despite the increased risk, you're actually a very level-headed and agreeable person. You go apply for a job, and I apply for the same job. Perhaps your résumé is slightly stronger than mine, but the employer worries that you'll be difficult to get along with based not on your interview, but on your DNA test. I don't have the DNA markers for anti-social behavior that you have, though it turns out that I'm a bit of a jerk (not far-fetched; check my HN post history). This would be wildly unfair to you. While the DNA marker means there's an increased chance that you don't get along well with other people, it does not define you. You've just been denied a job based on a thing that you didn't choose, there's nothing you can do to change it, and is actually incorrect in your specific case. The good news is that we don't live in a world with mandatory public DNA testing. The bad news is that many minorities kind of do live in that world. They can't hide their ethnicity or sex. Just like how a DNA marker doesn't mean you're a jerk, it also doesn't mean you're less capable of being a good engineer. To make hiring decisions based on that kind of information would be horrifyingly immoral.

tptacek 9y ago

So go start a site that guarantees free expression of "science-backed" arguments. Again: see what it becomes. Your right to science-backed arguments will be unimpeded.

actsasbuffoon 9y ago

There are good reasons why we don't want to consider these sorts of pseudo-scientific claims for employment or other important matters. Let's say we live in a society with mandatory DNA testing with publicly available results. Your DNA shows that you have a genetic marker which indicates a tendency towards anti-social behavior. It's fine though; despite the increased risk, you're actually a very level-headed and agreeable person. You go apply for a job, and I apply for the same job. Perhaps your résumé is slightly stronger than mine, but the employer worries that you'll be difficult to get along with based not on your interview, but on your DNA test. I don't have the DNA markers for anti-social behavior that you have, though it turns out that I'm a bit of a jerk (not far-fetched; check my HN post history). This would be wildly unfair to you. While the DNA marker means there's an increased chance that you don't get along well with other people, it does not define you. You've just been denied a job based on a thing that you didn't choose, there's nothing you can do to change it, and is actually incorrect in your specific case. The good news is that we don't live in a world with mandatory public DNA testing. The bad news is that many minorities kind of do live in that world. They can't hide their ethnicity or sex. Just like how a DNA marker doesn't mean you're a jerk, it also doesn't mean you're less capable of being a good engineer. To make hiring decisions based on that kind of information would be horrifyingly immoral.