6 ms·

Because he's the founder of this website?

by blackshaw 6y ago

lolive 6y ago
Just like RMS is highly respected at the FSF :)
- thought12342 6y ago
  I don't understand if your insulting RMS but the comparison is definitely insult to RMS. RMS is the legend.
- true_religion 6y ago
  I understand the comparison, but the FSF can exist without RMS. PG on the other hand solely supports HN, I doubt he would continue to pay for a site that vilified him.
  - troygoode 6y ago
    This is incorrect. HN is run by Y Combinator; yes, PG started YC, but he retired from YC 7 years ago.
    - true_religion 6y ago
      Oh, I had thought he stepped down from the day to day role but still had significant investment and control. There are many firms where the owner is never present, but all employees know not to cross them. (E.g. Washington Post & Jeff Bezos).
      - lupire 6y ago
        WaPo is very critical of Amazon
        true_religion 6y ago
        That wasn’t my impression 3 years ago when I worked there.
  - N00bN00b 6y ago
    This site is mainly supported by its volunteer moderators. I doubt it cost more than a few thousand a year at most to run. So the fact that PG pays for it doesn't mean much. If the community decided to no longer be under his care, they could easily find a replacement model or benefactor and they're more than capable to arrange such an uprising/migration.
    - vinceguidry 6y ago
      What matters far more than dollars paid is having his name attached to it. I recall Scott Alexander getting the forum started around his community to remove any associations to him because of things people were saying were happening “under his watch.”
    - triceratops 6y ago
      Pretty sure dang is not a "volunteer moderator".
    - Y_Y 6y ago
      Who pays dang? He can't be so cheap to maintain.
  - kelnos 6y ago
    PG doesn't run YC anymore (he retired quite a few years back), which is the org that pays for HN.
- ncann 6y ago
  I love RMS but unfortunately his skepticism doesn't get treated well by the vocal mass. These days people like to view things in a very black and white manner and if you dare to express your skepticism in a topic that is considered clear cut by the mass you get ostracized.
  - ravenstine 6y ago
    I liked it better when people were religious towards philosophy and universal metaphysics rather than towards technology and science. Now that traditional religion has been in decline for some time now, people have transitioned the concept of orthodoxy towards systems that are antithetical to it. This is nothing new, as there's long been a level of orthodoxy within technology groups, academia, and so forth, but now it's actual heresy to be skeptical towards anything authoritative, especially if that skepticism stems from one's own intuition. Inversely, the "skeptics" behave so skeptically towards anything contrary their views that it has the effect of making them hardly skeptical in the first place. I'm not even talking about Stallman's form of skepticism, but what I deem "pop skepticism" that's permeated the mainstream narrative. If one is so skeptical that they are potentially missing out on critical new information, that's not actual skepticism. It's a stroke of the ego for someone too insecure to be wrong about anything. This is especially true when the evidence in front of them is sound and they refuse to consider it. We are living in an intellectual decline. A true skeptic can't have any sort of controversial opinion without being socially burned at the stake.
  - foobiter 6y ago
    the skepticism he was most criticized for was playing devils advocate for a convicted rapist I support skepticism, but you don’t make arguments like that for the same reason you don’t say “hitler was great for the german economy” - it plays a major role in minimizing abhorrent crimes, whether you intend it to or not. Fighting that concept in any way makes it incredibly hard to distinguish the argument from support, especially when you’re doing so from an armchair. RMS is (was?) an expert in one thing, and outrageously naive in most other things he’s written about.
iur12 6y ago
Indeed. Meritocracy, hard at work.
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
And therefore... what? We listen to him because he founded the website? Do Facebook users listen to Zuckerberg because he founded Facebook? I doubt that many do. Or do we listen to PG because the kind of people who find his writings to be interesting have some overlap the kind of people who are attracted to the website that he founded?

Because he's the founder of this website?

lolive 6y ago

Just like RMS is highly respected at the FSF :)

thought12342 6y ago
I don't understand if your insulting RMS but the comparison is definitely insult to RMS. RMS is the legend.
true_religion 6y ago
I understand the comparison, but the FSF can exist without RMS. PG on the other hand solely supports HN, I doubt he would continue to pay for a site that vilified him.
- troygoode 6y ago
  This is incorrect. HN is run by Y Combinator; yes, PG started YC, but he retired from YC 7 years ago.
  - true_religion 6y ago
    Oh, I had thought he stepped down from the day to day role but still had significant investment and control. There are many firms where the owner is never present, but all employees know not to cross them. (E.g. Washington Post & Jeff Bezos).
    - lupire 6y ago
      WaPo is very critical of Amazon
      - true_religion 6y ago
        That wasn’t my impression 3 years ago when I worked there.
- N00bN00b 6y ago
  This site is mainly supported by its volunteer moderators. I doubt it cost more than a few thousand a year at most to run. So the fact that PG pays for it doesn't mean much. If the community decided to no longer be under his care, they could easily find a replacement model or benefactor and they're more than capable to arrange such an uprising/migration.
  - vinceguidry 6y ago
    What matters far more than dollars paid is having his name attached to it. I recall Scott Alexander getting the forum started around his community to remove any associations to him because of things people were saying were happening “under his watch.”
  - triceratops 6y ago
    Pretty sure dang is not a "volunteer moderator".
  - Y_Y 6y ago
    Who pays dang? He can't be so cheap to maintain.
- kelnos 6y ago
  PG doesn't run YC anymore (he retired quite a few years back), which is the org that pays for HN.
ncann 6y ago
I love RMS but unfortunately his skepticism doesn't get treated well by the vocal mass. These days people like to view things in a very black and white manner and if you dare to express your skepticism in a topic that is considered clear cut by the mass you get ostracized.
- ravenstine 6y ago
  I liked it better when people were religious towards philosophy and universal metaphysics rather than towards technology and science. Now that traditional religion has been in decline for some time now, people have transitioned the concept of orthodoxy towards systems that are antithetical to it. This is nothing new, as there's long been a level of orthodoxy within technology groups, academia, and so forth, but now it's actual heresy to be skeptical towards anything authoritative, especially if that skepticism stems from one's own intuition. Inversely, the "skeptics" behave so skeptically towards anything contrary their views that it has the effect of making them hardly skeptical in the first place. I'm not even talking about Stallman's form of skepticism, but what I deem "pop skepticism" that's permeated the mainstream narrative. If one is so skeptical that they are potentially missing out on critical new information, that's not actual skepticism. It's a stroke of the ego for someone too insecure to be wrong about anything. This is especially true when the evidence in front of them is sound and they refuse to consider it. We are living in an intellectual decline. A true skeptic can't have any sort of controversial opinion without being socially burned at the stake.
- foobiter 6y ago
  the skepticism he was most criticized for was playing devils advocate for a convicted rapist I support skepticism, but you don’t make arguments like that for the same reason you don’t say “hitler was great for the german economy” - it plays a major role in minimizing abhorrent crimes, whether you intend it to or not. Fighting that concept in any way makes it incredibly hard to distinguish the argument from support, especially when you’re doing so from an armchair. RMS is (was?) an expert in one thing, and outrageously naive in most other things he’s written about.

iur12 6y ago

Indeed. Meritocracy, hard at work.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

And therefore... what? We listen to him because he founded the website? Do Facebook users listen to Zuckerberg because he founded Facebook? I doubt that many do. Or do we listen to PG because the kind of people who find his writings to be interesting have some overlap the kind of people who are attracted to the website that he founded?