5 ms·

Private companies ending Cosby's prior art is giving in to the mob. Had there not been such vitriolic outcry, they'd have happily continued making their profits

Private companies ending Cosby's prior art is giving in to the mob. Had there not been such vitriolic outcry, they'd have happily continued making their profits. No, the erasure is not on them; it's entirely our fault. Our modern equivalents of the library are being purged, and you're happily cheering the flames.

dang 8y ago
Please don't cross into personal attack. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
glangdale 8y ago
It's cute that you think that the purging the "modern equivalent of the library" is "not getting to have reruns on network television". I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the "modern equivalent of the library" is, well, the library. A quick check reveals that it is still possible to find The Cosby Show at most libraries of record.
- dang 8y ago
  This comment breaks the site guidelines. Please review and follow them when posting here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - linza 8y ago
    Is this really necessary? The exchange seems quite civil. What exactly in the GP gave offense that warrants pointing it out? HN seems like a generally civil place. Comments like these make it seem more uncivil, just like police patrolling "bad" neighborhoods more frequently.
    - Lewton 8y ago
      We can’t tell whether the posts have been edited
      - kstenerud 8y ago
        They haven't.
      - kwhitefoot 8y ago
        Then dang could have specified exactly which statement transgressed the rules.
        dang 8y ago
        "It's cute that you think [dumb thing]." Don't be snarky. Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        cortic 8y ago
        what is 'snarky' about 'cute'? I mean its not a very good rule, the general definition [snide and sharply critical.] could apply to most comments; but what specifically is you objection with 'cute', seems it could be taken as a compliment. And fyi- summarizing this persons quote as 'dumb thing' could be construed as snide and sharply critical.
        dang 8y ago
        It's not the case that "snark" could apply to most HN comments. Mostly there's a clear distinction between comments that contain that toxin and those that don't. That's why it's a good rule for HN. "Cute" is a term of affection, but it's an internet snark trope to use positive language in a demeaning way, because it makes a comment nastier when you do that. Another example is "I love how you", which is used about as often to attack someone as to compliment them (https://hn.algolia.com/?query=%22i%20love%20how%20you%22&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0 https://hn.algolia.com/?query=%22i%20love%20how%20you%22&sor...).
    - dang 8y ago
      The comment was internet vitriol and the site guidelines ask users not to argue that way. You're right that it was far from the worst instance of it, but still. Pouring acid over the other side feels like championing goodness, but really is just pouring acid. It's an invitation to the other side to do the same, and that's how HN ends up burning. You guys remember that Hacker News is a community, yes? Community members have duties to the community, and to one another, no matter how strongly they disagree.
  - dTal 8y ago
    "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
  - glangdale 8y ago
    Yeah, I have to admit that I felt a kind of 'not following the letter of the rules' when I used the word 'cute'. Frankly, the argument against 'snark' on HN is a bit wearying to follow 100%. All I would have to do is obfuscate a bit and it sounds like principled disagreement ("It's perhaps a naive take that you ...", "I don't completely understand the line of reasoning that led you to think ..."). The thing is, out there in the world, you don't have to bother worrying that there's some starchy HN exceptionalism that doesn't allow you to answer something that's complete bullshit with a 'proper intellectual response'. It is a bit wearying to constantly deal with juvenelia ("Getting dropped from network TV is like being 'disappeared' by Stalin) in a fashion that would be commensurate with, say, a improper attribution of a remark from Wittgenstein uttered in the drawing room. It feels like HN's policies against 'snark' have the (no doubt unintentional) effect of shifting the Overton window towards requiring remarks - no matter how juvenile and daft - to be met with proper and careful drawing-room etiquette. So saying stuff that's completely absurd needs to be either unanswered (and left to stink up the room) or carefully argued against (making it sound way more plausible than it is). I understand that the slippery-slope version of my argument here suggests that anyone can meet anyone else with a torrent of personal abuse simply as a result of disagreement. That being said, I'm not 100% convinced that the right answer to someone uttering absurdities is to meet them with logical, guideline-approved non-snark. Also: to the nice people on the subthread defending my remark as somehow not snarky, thanks, but no. I intended to be a prick here - there's no entirely guidelines-compliant interpretation of my comment. My argument above is that judicious snark is probably better, and more honest, than either masking it ("your argument is characteristic of arguments made by people no doubt considerably less intelligent than you obviously are, my fine Sir") or by pretending that absurdity isn't absurd ("Well, you see, Stalin actually made people disappear and systematically erased them from libraries, while in this case, what we're talking about is...").
intertextuality 8y ago
> Our modern equivalents of the library are being purged No, they aren't. Not in any way, shape, or form. Private companies don't have any obligation to continue showing anything. They don't have any such 'moral' obligations at all. They aren't going into libraries and purging books. An actual purge would be something like systemically recalling, redacting, and deleting any remaining records of art that involve Cosby. Saying this is 'our libraries being purged' is completely alarmist and untrue.
- ardy42 8y ago
  > No, they aren't. Not in any way, shape, or form. Private companies don't have any obligation to continue showing anything. They don't have any such 'moral' obligations at all. They aren't going into libraries and purging books. What if the libraries are privatized? > An actual purge would be something like systemically recalling, redacting, and deleting any remaining records of art that involve Cosby. Saying this is 'our libraries being purged' is completely alarmist and untrue. No. An actual purge would consist of removing the work from circulation and locking the remaining copies in a restricted section in the library (a giftschrank). What you describe sounds like it's inspired by the fictional total censorship regime shown in 1984 [1] than by nonfictional examples. [1] Which was probably lie even in the context of that fictional world; I wouldn't be surprised if the Inner Party actually had accurate archives kept in a giftschrank.
  - vertex-four 8y ago
    > What if the libraries are privatized? Then there’s a serious issue with your society that needs to be resolved independent of anything else - libraries are a public good, not for the benefit of any individual entity.
  - intertextuality 8y ago
    Public libraries still exist. You're referring to a private company's catalogue. Thus, this entire argument is really moot. You can still go to libraries and obtain things, there is no purge or anything remotely even close happening. It's absurd to expect a private company to always offer content from now until the end of time.

dang 8y ago

Please don't cross into personal attack. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

glangdale 8y ago

It's cute that you think that the purging the "modern equivalent of the library" is "not getting to have reruns on network television". I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the "modern equivalent of the library" is, well, the library. A quick check reveals that it is still possible to find The Cosby Show at most libraries of record.

dang 8y ago
This comment breaks the site guidelines. Please review and follow them when posting here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- linza 8y ago
  Is this really necessary? The exchange seems quite civil. What exactly in the GP gave offense that warrants pointing it out? HN seems like a generally civil place. Comments like these make it seem more uncivil, just like police patrolling "bad" neighborhoods more frequently.
  - Lewton 8y ago
    We can’t tell whether the posts have been edited
    - kstenerud 8y ago
      They haven't.
    - kwhitefoot 8y ago
      Then dang could have specified exactly which statement transgressed the rules.
      - dang 8y ago
        "It's cute that you think [dumb thing]." Don't be snarky. Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        cortic 8y ago
        what is 'snarky' about 'cute'? I mean its not a very good rule, the general definition [snide and sharply critical.] could apply to most comments; but what specifically is you objection with 'cute', seems it could be taken as a compliment. And fyi- summarizing this persons quote as 'dumb thing' could be construed as snide and sharply critical.
        dang 8y ago
        It's not the case that "snark" could apply to most HN comments. Mostly there's a clear distinction between comments that contain that toxin and those that don't. That's why it's a good rule for HN. "Cute" is a term of affection, but it's an internet snark trope to use positive language in a demeaning way, because it makes a comment nastier when you do that. Another example is "I love how you", which is used about as often to attack someone as to compliment them (https://hn.algolia.com/?query=%22i%20love%20how%20you%22&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0 https://hn.algolia.com/?query=%22i%20love%20how%20you%22&sor...).
  - dang 8y ago
    The comment was internet vitriol and the site guidelines ask users not to argue that way. You're right that it was far from the worst instance of it, but still. Pouring acid over the other side feels like championing goodness, but really is just pouring acid. It's an invitation to the other side to do the same, and that's how HN ends up burning. You guys remember that Hacker News is a community, yes? Community members have duties to the community, and to one another, no matter how strongly they disagree.
- dTal 8y ago
  "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
- glangdale 8y ago
  Yeah, I have to admit that I felt a kind of 'not following the letter of the rules' when I used the word 'cute'. Frankly, the argument against 'snark' on HN is a bit wearying to follow 100%. All I would have to do is obfuscate a bit and it sounds like principled disagreement ("It's perhaps a naive take that you ...", "I don't completely understand the line of reasoning that led you to think ..."). The thing is, out there in the world, you don't have to bother worrying that there's some starchy HN exceptionalism that doesn't allow you to answer something that's complete bullshit with a 'proper intellectual response'. It is a bit wearying to constantly deal with juvenelia ("Getting dropped from network TV is like being 'disappeared' by Stalin) in a fashion that would be commensurate with, say, a improper attribution of a remark from Wittgenstein uttered in the drawing room. It feels like HN's policies against 'snark' have the (no doubt unintentional) effect of shifting the Overton window towards requiring remarks - no matter how juvenile and daft - to be met with proper and careful drawing-room etiquette. So saying stuff that's completely absurd needs to be either unanswered (and left to stink up the room) or carefully argued against (making it sound way more plausible than it is). I understand that the slippery-slope version of my argument here suggests that anyone can meet anyone else with a torrent of personal abuse simply as a result of disagreement. That being said, I'm not 100% convinced that the right answer to someone uttering absurdities is to meet them with logical, guideline-approved non-snark. Also: to the nice people on the subthread defending my remark as somehow not snarky, thanks, but no. I intended to be a prick here - there's no entirely guidelines-compliant interpretation of my comment. My argument above is that judicious snark is probably better, and more honest, than either masking it ("your argument is characteristic of arguments made by people no doubt considerably less intelligent than you obviously are, my fine Sir") or by pretending that absurdity isn't absurd ("Well, you see, Stalin actually made people disappear and systematically erased them from libraries, while in this case, what we're talking about is...").

intertextuality 8y ago

> Our modern equivalents of the library are being purged No, they aren't. Not in any way, shape, or form. Private companies don't have any obligation to continue showing anything. They don't have any such 'moral' obligations at all. They aren't going into libraries and purging books. An actual purge would be something like systemically recalling, redacting, and deleting any remaining records of art that involve Cosby. Saying this is 'our libraries being purged' is completely alarmist and untrue.

ardy42 8y ago
> No, they aren't. Not in any way, shape, or form. Private companies don't have any obligation to continue showing anything. They don't have any such 'moral' obligations at all. They aren't going into libraries and purging books. What if the libraries are privatized? > An actual purge would be something like systemically recalling, redacting, and deleting any remaining records of art that involve Cosby. Saying this is 'our libraries being purged' is completely alarmist and untrue. No. An actual purge would consist of removing the work from circulation and locking the remaining copies in a restricted section in the library (a giftschrank). What you describe sounds like it's inspired by the fictional total censorship regime shown in 1984 [1] than by nonfictional examples. [1] Which was probably lie even in the context of that fictional world; I wouldn't be surprised if the Inner Party actually had accurate archives kept in a giftschrank.
- vertex-four 8y ago
  > What if the libraries are privatized? Then there’s a serious issue with your society that needs to be resolved independent of anything else - libraries are a public good, not for the benefit of any individual entity.
- intertextuality 8y ago
  Public libraries still exist. You're referring to a private company's catalogue. Thus, this entire argument is really moot. You can still go to libraries and obtain things, there is no purge or anything remotely even close happening. It's absurd to expect a private company to always offer content from now until the end of time.