4 ms·

I don't think we're quite there yet, but it conjures up modern-day videos of people being accused of white supremacy and told that the evidence for it is the fa

by daenz 6y ago

I don't think we're quite there yet, but it conjures up modern-day videos of people being accused of white supremacy and told that the evidence for it is the fact that they don't see it. I wish I was joking. This[0] was posted recently on one of my hyper-progressive acquaintances Instagram. Does it not have a similar level of paranoia as when people chased witches or communists? 0. https://i.imgur.com/0mzw6D8.png https://i.imgur.com/0mzw6D8.png

GavinMcG 6y ago
I think that's wrong in a way that's kind of subtle. It seems to equate the system being created by intentional minds with the system being an intentionally-created one. But intentional people can still be non-intentional participants in emergent phenomena. Tweaking it brings up an important point that's made in debates here on HN about privacy, censorship, etc., in relation to developer ethics. That is, if you are an intelligent and intentional participant in building something, and you're not thinking about second-order effects, the system you're building will still have them. The intention in making Facebook more "engaging" probably wasn't to have radicalizing isolated communities. But Facebook was intentionally developed toward more engagement, and that was the result. Ask people who worked on the project and they'll almost certainly tell you they had no intention of worsening the situation in Myanmar. But the system that led there was still intentionally created.
- konjin 6y ago
  Who says that the system of grifting that anti-racism has become wasn't designed? I was in Boston in the 00s when the prototype was being created and it was used best by international students who happened to be brown or black, and usually the children or grand children of war criminals. The one case that still stands out was an ex of mine whose grandfather murdered thousands of Chinese in Indonesia. She has been playing the minority card to get exposure in NY for a decade now, crying about how horrible Trump was. While living on literal blood money. The other was Obama. The child of an African from the wrong side of Africa and a white woman, raised by his rich white grandparents, he is somehow treated as though he is black american. To misquote Bill Clinton: I am blacker than him. At least there weren't mass graves in his closet until he became president.
- a1369209993 6y ago
  Not that it necessarily addresses your actual point, but regarding Facebook, engagement is the malicious intention. Claiming that Facebook developers didn't intend to spread memetic plagues, only to increase engagement, is like claiming that armed robbers didn't intend to shoot people, only to steal their money.
cultus 6y ago
There's not much of an equivalence between some professor saying something illiberal and the apparatus of state power doing something illiberal.
jakelazaroff 6y ago
You say this as if "socialism" and "communism" aren't routinely deployed as scare words against everyone to the left of Mitt Romney. That paranoia is still present — it just goes unnoticed because the censorship campaign was largely successful.
- daenz 6y ago
  This is "whataboutism." Rather than relate to validity (or invalidity) of my point, you are re-framing the argument ("You say this as if") in a way that suggests I need to defend someone else doing something else.
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    FWIW, I read the parent as agreeing with your overall claim, but pointing out that the situation is actually even worse than you implied. (Namely, that the communist witch hunt never really stopped, and is ongoing concurrently with the white supremacist witch hunt.)
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    It’s not whataboutism — I'm disputing your implication that censorship is an illiberal exception to the norm. You would have the reader believe that there is a unique and notable paranoia surrounding accusations of white supremacy, when in fact it's a fairly typical manifestation of the proud American tradition of suppressing "problematic" viewpoints.

by daenz 6y ago

GavinMcG 6y ago

I think that's wrong in a way that's kind of subtle. It seems to equate the system being created by intentional minds with the system being an intentionally-created one. But intentional people can still be non-intentional participants in emergent phenomena. Tweaking it brings up an important point that's made in debates here on HN about privacy, censorship, etc., in relation to developer ethics. That is, if you are an intelligent and intentional participant in building something, and you're not thinking about second-order effects, the system you're building will still have them. The intention in making Facebook more "engaging" probably wasn't to have radicalizing isolated communities. But Facebook was intentionally developed toward more engagement, and that was the result. Ask people who worked on the project and they'll almost certainly tell you they had no intention of worsening the situation in Myanmar. But the system that led there was still intentionally created.

konjin 6y ago
Who says that the system of grifting that anti-racism has become wasn't designed? I was in Boston in the 00s when the prototype was being created and it was used best by international students who happened to be brown or black, and usually the children or grand children of war criminals. The one case that still stands out was an ex of mine whose grandfather murdered thousands of Chinese in Indonesia. She has been playing the minority card to get exposure in NY for a decade now, crying about how horrible Trump was. While living on literal blood money. The other was Obama. The child of an African from the wrong side of Africa and a white woman, raised by his rich white grandparents, he is somehow treated as though he is black american. To misquote Bill Clinton: I am blacker than him. At least there weren't mass graves in his closet until he became president.
a1369209993 6y ago
Not that it necessarily addresses your actual point, but regarding Facebook, engagement is the malicious intention. Claiming that Facebook developers didn't intend to spread memetic plagues, only to increase engagement, is like claiming that armed robbers didn't intend to shoot people, only to steal their money.

cultus 6y ago

There's not much of an equivalence between some professor saying something illiberal and the apparatus of state power doing something illiberal.

jakelazaroff 6y ago

You say this as if "socialism" and "communism" aren't routinely deployed as scare words against everyone to the left of Mitt Romney. That paranoia is still present — it just goes unnoticed because the censorship campaign was largely successful.

daenz 6y ago
This is "whataboutism." Rather than relate to validity (or invalidity) of my point, you are re-framing the argument ("You say this as if") in a way that suggests I need to defend someone else doing something else.
- a1369209993 6y ago
  FWIW, I read the parent as agreeing with your overall claim, but pointing out that the situation is actually even worse than you implied. (Namely, that the communist witch hunt never really stopped, and is ongoing concurrently with the white supremacist witch hunt.)
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  It’s not whataboutism — I'm disputing your implication that censorship is an illiberal exception to the norm. You would have the reader believe that there is a unique and notable paranoia surrounding accusations of white supremacy, when in fact it's a fairly typical manifestation of the proud American tradition of suppressing "problematic" viewpoints.