3 ms·

I am going to try to say something neutral, not related to current politics. Frankly, I'm doing so because I'm curious if such a comment is even possible. - I

I am going to try to say something neutral, not related to current politics. Frankly, I'm doing so because I'm curious if such a comment is even possible. - I applaud anybody who takes a moral stand, especially if it might cost them something they hold dear. - Whenever people complain about social media, the usual response is "But these are private properties. People can do what they like with them." I agree that this is the role of private property - It's a fact that these social media networks operate because of the network principle, that is, it's much easier to get into than to get out of. It's also a fact that just a few media sites control the vast majority of online conversation and commerce - Might it not have been useful for this moral stance to have been taken much earlier? First, you made your money and built your company. Walking off now isn't exactly standing in the soup line next week. Second, lots of folks are stuck with your product that might now be changing its operating parameters. Third, there's no way to predict what future event might cause even more changes. Once again, kudos for reaching inside and doing a gut check. Life is full of a bunch of people, all with different opinions and points where they would change their mind. That's a good thing, but is this just something that keeps getting more and more restrictive over time? If so, might want to put that on your sign-up page, perhaps periodically remind folks. (This is a rhetorical question aimed at every service that does what reddit does online)

kbenson 6y ago
> I applaud anybody who takes a moral stand, especially if it might cost them something they hold dear. I also applaud anyone who takes a moral stand about what they are willing to do, especially if it might cost them something they hold dear. If that moral stand involves enforcing a standard of conduct on others, then it's anywhere from slightly to extremely more complicated. Enforcing behavior on others for the perceived benefit of all has been responsible for some major problems in the past (for example, not allowing people to express their sexuality), so let's be careful how much we throw in with those pushing to instill a level of behavior on those who want a place of their own to speak freely (to take as an example another part of the comments here, where Ellen Pao calls out Ohanian re: the_donald). Many of us may support it in this case because it aligns with our values of inclusion and tolerance towards others (even if it's sort of a catch-22), but it's not like leaders of moral charges haven't been known to go too far before, nor like movements haven't been co-opted by other interests before. Edit: Clarified where the example I was referring to came from, since that might have been confusing in isolation.
- DanielBMarkham 6y ago
  I agree. You can have a series of these things over a few decades and then suddenly end up in a much different spot than when you started out. Humans have done this before. More than once. In fact, it's probably the natural outcome of situations like this and requires some sort of strong provisions to keep it from naturally happening over and over again. It's not like any of this is new. A lot of people seem hell-bent that this is not the case, however. I'm curious to see if they're able to look at their own actions from just a small remove. If so, why? If not, why? These are technical, UX questions. They might involve sensitive matters, but that's only the more important reason for working them out. All UI/UX issues shouldn't be about some version of wringing another .4% of sign-ups out of the funnel. There are things that are more important by orders of magnitude.

kbenson 6y ago

> I applaud anybody who takes a moral stand, especially if it might cost them something they hold dear. I also applaud anyone who takes a moral stand about what they are willing to do, especially if it might cost them something they hold dear. If that moral stand involves enforcing a standard of conduct on others, then it's anywhere from slightly to extremely more complicated. Enforcing behavior on others for the perceived benefit of all has been responsible for some major problems in the past (for example, not allowing people to express their sexuality), so let's be careful how much we throw in with those pushing to instill a level of behavior on those who want a place of their own to speak freely (to take as an example another part of the comments here, where Ellen Pao calls out Ohanian re: the_donald). Many of us may support it in this case because it aligns with our values of inclusion and tolerance towards others (even if it's sort of a catch-22), but it's not like leaders of moral charges haven't been known to go too far before, nor like movements haven't been co-opted by other interests before. Edit: Clarified where the example I was referring to came from, since that might have been confusing in isolation.

DanielBMarkham 6y ago
I agree. You can have a series of these things over a few decades and then suddenly end up in a much different spot than when you started out. Humans have done this before. More than once. In fact, it's probably the natural outcome of situations like this and requires some sort of strong provisions to keep it from naturally happening over and over again. It's not like any of this is new. A lot of people seem hell-bent that this is not the case, however. I'm curious to see if they're able to look at their own actions from just a small remove. If so, why? If not, why? These are technical, UX questions. They might involve sensitive matters, but that's only the more important reason for working them out. All UI/UX issues shouldn't be about some version of wringing another .4% of sign-ups out of the funnel. There are things that are more important by orders of magnitude.