5 ms·

I would love it if dang could weigh in on this tough issue. There were a number of people being downvoted asking questions about how this could have happened, a

by breck 6y ago

I would love it if dang could weigh in on this tough issue. There were a number of people being downvoted asking questions about how this could have happened, and now to see that someone posted the true answer and it was flagged and hidden, that I think reflects poorly on HN and warrants an explanation. I'll never forget at my first friend's funeral when his mother said during the eulogy "My son was a drug addict." It was so heartbreaking but so important to speak the truth and be open about it in order to pay respect to him and call out for action so that more mom's don't have to make that speech. She did not bury the truth and "wait out of respect", she confronted it head on. If she can do that and do it in a positive way then I think an Internet forum could do it too. The truth is it seems if it weren't for a few of Tony's friends sharing the whole story, the truth may have been buried and many more may have gone down that path.

eli 6y ago
Speculating about the circumstances of someone's death can be in poor taste even if some of the speculation turns out to be correct.
- breck 6y ago
  This person clearly stated they weren't speculating, and any long time HN user could tell that they were likely credible and not a troll account. At least that's my take, that's why it would be good to hear from dang why this was buried.
  - eli 6y ago
    Yes, the anonymous account certainly did claim to know for sure.
detaro 6y ago
A relative talking about it at the funeral is quite different than anonymous claims that are impossible to (dis)prove within hours of the death.
- breck 6y ago
  Hindsight is 20-20, but looking back it seems clear they were credible and correct, which is why I just wonder if dang could explain why they were flagged. Were moderators involved? Was any attempt made to verify? Or was it just lost in a sea of comments flagged daily (I don't know, not sure how the backend works here).
  - detaro 6y ago
    Flagging is a user action, not something mods do, and I don't see why mods should have overridden that here. It's obviously always possible that strong claims that are impossible to confirm quickly turn out to be true, that doesn't mean we should let them always stand as if they are true in such circumstances. EDIT: and usual hint, the most reliable way to get an answer from dang is emailing him.
    - tempsy 6y ago
      something that is not immediately verifiable is not reason alone to censor something.
  - dang 6y ago
    Users flagged it. We can only guess why users flag things. It was flagkilled for a while and then we unkilled it but left [flagged] on. It also got a lot of upvotes, so the signals were actually mixed. I don't have any special insight, but FWIW: situations like this are inevitably messy. People want different things (e.g. the social standard about not speaking ill of the dead vs. curiosity to know the truth or share inside information) and they do different things (e.g. use of throwaway accounts to share sensitive true information vs. to post rumors or lies). How all that adds up is impossible to be certain about, and people will strongly disagree. It's intrinsically conflictual and I don't think we can impose simple rules on it. For example: HN is a watercooler site and it's natural for people to wonder what really happened and want to talk about it; and at the same time, that sort of internet thread can run amok and do harm surprisingly quickly. In my experience, that sort of throwaway account (but there are many sorts—let's not overgeneralize) is usually reporting something true, though perhaps biased. But "usually" is still far from certain. If we'd known that it was likely false we'd have left the comment flagkilled, but in this case it felt likely true, so I unkilled it, but left [flagged] on as a marker of community discontent. To anyone who objects "who the hell are you to make calls about 'feels', 'likely', 'true' or 'false'", I can only completely agree. p.s. Here's what I replied to a user who emailed about it a few days ago: "I've unkilled the comment but left it [flagged]. I think that's the right balance. Posts like that are usually authentic, in my experience. Not to say that people don't make shit up on the internet—they certainly do—but one can usually 'smell' the difference somehow. Of course the fact that it's true doesn't make it an appropriate comment, but I think [flagged] is enough of a marker to indicate that, and to let people decide for themselves. It's a tragic story in any case."
senthil_rajasek 6y ago
"If she can do that and do it in a positive way then I think an Internet forum could do it too. " You just compared an Internet forum to a grieving mother. Not the right comparison by a longshot. Allowing a publication run by professional journalists ( they follow a code of ethics) to share news is slightly better than internet forum participants to share their opinions on such a sensitive topic.
- breck 6y ago
  I think you have an overly favorable opinion of “journalists” (while I think WSJ is full of good ones, most publications are not). But that being said, I agree there are lots of bad ways to handle this sort of thing on public forums (see numerous Reddit failures). But there’s gotta be something better and more positive than to bury the truth. They were not sharing opinions they were sharing the facts.
  - senthil_rajasek 6y ago
    I agree, there has to be a better way. This is a hard problem to solve as twitter, facebook and other social media companies are finding out.
  - filmgirlcw 6y ago
    But the truth wasn’t buried. Within a week of his passing, Forbes and the Wall Street Journal had in-depth, investigative reports into his death with on-the-record comments from those close to him. Hell, within three days of his death, the tabloid the Daily Mail (which isn’t what I would call reputable, but is significantly more reputable than a burner comment account on HN) had the 911 tape and the reports that he was drinking and abusing drugs (nitrous being mentioned) in the months leading up to his death. And I guarantee you way more people were alerted to the truth in those well-researched and deeply reported articles than ever would have learned from a throwaway account on HN. If the family had actively tried to halt publication of the articles or if there hadn’t been reporting into the cause of death, I would agree with you. But that isn’t what happened. Moreover, the reporting that did come out, even from the tabloid, added a lot more context and insight into the situation than what the burner account did. And even better, plenty of people were willing to put their name to their words (though you had people who were quoted anonymously too, which isn’t uncommon). I got downvoted for calling that commenter and his comment gross - and I’ll probably get downvoted for this comment too — but the fact that unsubstantiated gossip happened to be true (which I personally didn’t so much doubt to begin with as much as it was I didn’t trust it without substantiation; my objection was how that information was shared) doesn’t change the other fact that the way it was presented was in poor form. I’m in complete favor of being open and honest about the fact that people who we admire and respect or hold up as successful can struggle with addiction or mental illness. I think it is incredibly important to lessen the stigma around these areas. But it is incredibly different for a mother to bravely and honestly declare that her son was an addict at his funeral then it is for a burner account to say “bro blew himself up while he was high on nitrous” (that’s a paraphrase, the original comment wasn’t as blasé but it certainly wasn’t full of either details or compassion). People are going to gossip and speculate on Internet forums, I get it. I’ve also definitely participated in it. But I don’t think it is too much to ask that as a community, HN be held to a higher standard of spreading anonymous gossip, than a place like Twitter or Reddit.
DoreenMichele 6y ago
Part of the problem is that "the truth" is generally not as simple and one dimensional as people would like it to be. I was called "lazy" for much of my life. Then I was diagnosed with a genetic disorder and people finally understood I wasn't lazy. I just didn't have the energy other people had. Everyone knows addiction is extremely hard to quit, yet being an addict remains stigmatizing and the addict is routinely treated in a blamey way for their failure to quit. Specific outcomes also tend to have a circumstancial component. When a family has a "badly behaving" teenager, they typically blame the teen. But family therapists typically see a misbehaving minor as the presenting problem and wonder what is going on in the social fabric of the individual that is creating this outcome. None of us entirely has control over our own lives and our own actions. We have some input, but we always have constraints on us. Explanations that fall inside the Overton Window will be latched onto quickly. This can boil down to victim blaming rather than trying to understand with some compassion how and why things went wrong.
- breck 6y ago
  Very interesting. And thanks for mentioning Overton window, hadn’t seen that term before.
- zarkov99 6y ago
  All true, but sometimes bad things are indeed one's fault, or at least under one's control, and the first step towards remedy is taking responsibility.
  - DoreenMichele 6y ago
    The person being discussed is dead. He is not in any position to take responsibility and alter his future. I'm all for personal responsibility, but that really has nothing to do with my point at all.

by breck 6y ago

eli 6y ago

Speculating about the circumstances of someone's death can be in poor taste even if some of the speculation turns out to be correct.

breck 6y ago
This person clearly stated they weren't speculating, and any long time HN user could tell that they were likely credible and not a troll account. At least that's my take, that's why it would be good to hear from dang why this was buried.
- eli 6y ago
  Yes, the anonymous account certainly did claim to know for sure.

detaro 6y ago

A relative talking about it at the funeral is quite different than anonymous claims that are impossible to (dis)prove within hours of the death.

breck 6y ago
Hindsight is 20-20, but looking back it seems clear they were credible and correct, which is why I just wonder if dang could explain why they were flagged. Were moderators involved? Was any attempt made to verify? Or was it just lost in a sea of comments flagged daily (I don't know, not sure how the backend works here).
- detaro 6y ago
  Flagging is a user action, not something mods do, and I don't see why mods should have overridden that here. It's obviously always possible that strong claims that are impossible to confirm quickly turn out to be true, that doesn't mean we should let them always stand as if they are true in such circumstances. EDIT: and usual hint, the most reliable way to get an answer from dang is emailing him.
  - tempsy 6y ago
    something that is not immediately verifiable is not reason alone to censor something.
- dang 6y ago
  Users flagged it. We can only guess why users flag things. It was flagkilled for a while and then we unkilled it but left [flagged] on. It also got a lot of upvotes, so the signals were actually mixed. I don't have any special insight, but FWIW: situations like this are inevitably messy. People want different things (e.g. the social standard about not speaking ill of the dead vs. curiosity to know the truth or share inside information) and they do different things (e.g. use of throwaway accounts to share sensitive true information vs. to post rumors or lies). How all that adds up is impossible to be certain about, and people will strongly disagree. It's intrinsically conflictual and I don't think we can impose simple rules on it. For example: HN is a watercooler site and it's natural for people to wonder what really happened and want to talk about it; and at the same time, that sort of internet thread can run amok and do harm surprisingly quickly. In my experience, that sort of throwaway account (but there are many sorts—let's not overgeneralize) is usually reporting something true, though perhaps biased. But "usually" is still far from certain. If we'd known that it was likely false we'd have left the comment flagkilled, but in this case it felt likely true, so I unkilled it, but left [flagged] on as a marker of community discontent. To anyone who objects "who the hell are you to make calls about 'feels', 'likely', 'true' or 'false'", I can only completely agree. p.s. Here's what I replied to a user who emailed about it a few days ago: "I've unkilled the comment but left it [flagged]. I think that's the right balance. Posts like that are usually authentic, in my experience. Not to say that people don't make shit up on the internet—they certainly do—but one can usually 'smell' the difference somehow. Of course the fact that it's true doesn't make it an appropriate comment, but I think [flagged] is enough of a marker to indicate that, and to let people decide for themselves. It's a tragic story in any case."

senthil_rajasek 6y ago

"If she can do that and do it in a positive way then I think an Internet forum could do it too. " You just compared an Internet forum to a grieving mother. Not the right comparison by a longshot. Allowing a publication run by professional journalists ( they follow a code of ethics) to share news is slightly better than internet forum participants to share their opinions on such a sensitive topic.

breck 6y ago
I think you have an overly favorable opinion of “journalists” (while I think WSJ is full of good ones, most publications are not). But that being said, I agree there are lots of bad ways to handle this sort of thing on public forums (see numerous Reddit failures). But there’s gotta be something better and more positive than to bury the truth. They were not sharing opinions they were sharing the facts.
- senthil_rajasek 6y ago
  I agree, there has to be a better way. This is a hard problem to solve as twitter, facebook and other social media companies are finding out.
- filmgirlcw 6y ago
  But the truth wasn’t buried. Within a week of his passing, Forbes and the Wall Street Journal had in-depth, investigative reports into his death with on-the-record comments from those close to him. Hell, within three days of his death, the tabloid the Daily Mail (which isn’t what I would call reputable, but is significantly more reputable than a burner comment account on HN) had the 911 tape and the reports that he was drinking and abusing drugs (nitrous being mentioned) in the months leading up to his death. And I guarantee you way more people were alerted to the truth in those well-researched and deeply reported articles than ever would have learned from a throwaway account on HN. If the family had actively tried to halt publication of the articles or if there hadn’t been reporting into the cause of death, I would agree with you. But that isn’t what happened. Moreover, the reporting that did come out, even from the tabloid, added a lot more context and insight into the situation than what the burner account did. And even better, plenty of people were willing to put their name to their words (though you had people who were quoted anonymously too, which isn’t uncommon). I got downvoted for calling that commenter and his comment gross - and I’ll probably get downvoted for this comment too — but the fact that unsubstantiated gossip happened to be true (which I personally didn’t so much doubt to begin with as much as it was I didn’t trust it without substantiation; my objection was how that information was shared) doesn’t change the other fact that the way it was presented was in poor form. I’m in complete favor of being open and honest about the fact that people who we admire and respect or hold up as successful can struggle with addiction or mental illness. I think it is incredibly important to lessen the stigma around these areas. But it is incredibly different for a mother to bravely and honestly declare that her son was an addict at his funeral then it is for a burner account to say “bro blew himself up while he was high on nitrous” (that’s a paraphrase, the original comment wasn’t as blasé but it certainly wasn’t full of either details or compassion). People are going to gossip and speculate on Internet forums, I get it. I’ve also definitely participated in it. But I don’t think it is too much to ask that as a community, HN be held to a higher standard of spreading anonymous gossip, than a place like Twitter or Reddit.

DoreenMichele 6y ago

Part of the problem is that "the truth" is generally not as simple and one dimensional as people would like it to be. I was called "lazy" for much of my life. Then I was diagnosed with a genetic disorder and people finally understood I wasn't lazy. I just didn't have the energy other people had. Everyone knows addiction is extremely hard to quit, yet being an addict remains stigmatizing and the addict is routinely treated in a blamey way for their failure to quit. Specific outcomes also tend to have a circumstancial component. When a family has a "badly behaving" teenager, they typically blame the teen. But family therapists typically see a misbehaving minor as the presenting problem and wonder what is going on in the social fabric of the individual that is creating this outcome. None of us entirely has control over our own lives and our own actions. We have some input, but we always have constraints on us. Explanations that fall inside the Overton Window will be latched onto quickly. This can boil down to victim blaming rather than trying to understand with some compassion how and why things went wrong.

breck 6y ago
Very interesting. And thanks for mentioning Overton window, hadn’t seen that term before.
zarkov99 6y ago
All true, but sometimes bad things are indeed one's fault, or at least under one's control, and the first step towards remedy is taking responsibility.
- DoreenMichele 6y ago
  The person being discussed is dead. He is not in any position to take responsibility and alter his future. I'm all for personal responsibility, but that really has nothing to do with my point at all.