3 ms·

> By the time it was posted HN had had a massive number of threads about it (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26713650 https://news.ycombinator.com/item

> By the time it was posted HN had had a massive number of threads about it (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26713650 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26713650). Almost all the threads you linked to were misinformation or anti-RMS posts with no substance. Stallmansupport.org is a website made by a group of women, with articles only from women, debunking the sexism claims. It is rich in primary sources. Yet it gets flagged. Non-substantiative news like "Red Hat supports the removal of RMS" doesn't get flagged, but an in-depth website by a group of women does. "Red Hat Pulls Free Software Foundation Funding over Richard Stallman's Return" is a dupe. Also, less than 3% of FSF funding is corporate, so it's not really relevant. There were far more "calls for RMS to be removed" that weren't flagged than substantiative in-depth articles that looked at the issue. I suggest a simple remedy: Don't count flags from people who didn't click to open the article. To implement this, require a min delay between the time the link list is loaded, and the time they flagged.

dang 5y ago
Your perceptions of one-sidedness are coming from the force of your passions. I assure you that people on the opposite side of this story say exactly the same things, just with one bit flipped. I addressed all of this in depth at the time (ironically, in a submission of the same URL that you posted, which wasn't killed): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26713636 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26713636 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26714003 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26714003 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26713701 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26713701 That took hours, and I don't have hours to write anything new. If, after reading those comments, you still think there's something I haven't addressed, please double-check to make double-sure that I didn't address it. If it passes that test, ask me then and I'll try to answer. In the meantime, though, please don't post new variations in this endless sequence.
- crazypython 5y ago
  > force of your passions Someone was falsely accused of being misogynist ("Stallman never made me feel uncomfortable." - Molly De Blanc, leader of the anti-RMS letter.), transphobic ("My pronouns were always respected by Stallman and the rest of the GNU Project the day my transition was announced, and the same for other trans developers."), and more. I am outraged that HN failed to prevent– or even show balance– in the spread of this misinformation. > I assure you that people on the opposite side of this story say exactly the same things, just with one bit flipped. They are practicing ritual defamation, which mandates any speech presenting evidence is taboo: https://stallmansupport.org/the-practice-of-ritual-defamation-laird-wilcox.html https://stallmansupport.org/the-practice-of-ritual-defamatio... > If, after reading those comments, you still think there's something I haven't addressed, please double-check to make double-sure that I didn't address it. If it passes that test, ask me then and I'll try to answer. Fine.
  - dang 5y ago
    I didn't count, but the story stream that I saw seemed roughly balanced between pro and anti RMS. There certainly wasn't a strong skew. Your feeling that it was unbalanced is another example of the bias I'm talking about. Both sides over-weight the datapoints they dislike and under-weight (or simply don't notice) the ones they approve of, so both sides end up with a feeling of unjust imbalance. This is what I mean by false feelings of generality.
    - crazypython 5y ago
      I did an unweighted, unfiltered count of the submissions with more than 10 comments in your post here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26713636 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26713636 16 negative 8 positive In the examples of popular threads you cited, a two-thirds supermajority were anit-Stallman. I did a cursory search for "RMS" and "Stallman" in the past month, since your link was posted. I found 3 pro-Stallman articles (and no anti-Stallman ones): https://meribold.org/2021/04/07/critique-of-rms-open-letter/ https://meribold.org/2021/04/07/critique-of-rms-open-letter/ https://www.fsf.org/news/statement-of-fsf-board-on-election-of-richard-stallman https://www.fsf.org/news/statement-of-fsf-board-on-election-... https://stallman.org/articles/dr-stallman.html https://stallman.org/articles/dr-stallman.html That brings our total to 16 negative and 11 positive, or 1.5 anti-Stallman articles per pro-Stallman articles. (60% anti-Stallman.) Weighted by the number of comments, there are 378 more comments on the links you provided.

dang 5y ago

Your perceptions of one-sidedness are coming from the force of your passions. I assure you that people on the opposite side of this story say exactly the same things, just with one bit flipped. I addressed all of this in depth at the time (ironically, in a submission of the same URL that you posted, which wasn't killed): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26713636 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26713636 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26714003 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26714003 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26713701 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26713701 That took hours, and I don't have hours to write anything new. If, after reading those comments, you still think there's something I haven't addressed, please double-check to make double-sure that I didn't address it. If it passes that test, ask me then and I'll try to answer. In the meantime, though, please don't post new variations in this endless sequence.

crazypython 5y ago
> force of your passions Someone was falsely accused of being misogynist ("Stallman never made me feel uncomfortable." - Molly De Blanc, leader of the anti-RMS letter.), transphobic ("My pronouns were always respected by Stallman and the rest of the GNU Project the day my transition was announced, and the same for other trans developers."), and more. I am outraged that HN failed to prevent– or even show balance– in the spread of this misinformation. > I assure you that people on the opposite side of this story say exactly the same things, just with one bit flipped. They are practicing ritual defamation, which mandates any speech presenting evidence is taboo: https://stallmansupport.org/the-practice-of-ritual-defamation-laird-wilcox.html https://stallmansupport.org/the-practice-of-ritual-defamatio... > If, after reading those comments, you still think there's something I haven't addressed, please double-check to make double-sure that I didn't address it. If it passes that test, ask me then and I'll try to answer. Fine.
- dang 5y ago
  I didn't count, but the story stream that I saw seemed roughly balanced between pro and anti RMS. There certainly wasn't a strong skew. Your feeling that it was unbalanced is another example of the bias I'm talking about. Both sides over-weight the datapoints they dislike and under-weight (or simply don't notice) the ones they approve of, so both sides end up with a feeling of unjust imbalance. This is what I mean by false feelings of generality.
  - crazypython 5y ago
    I did an unweighted, unfiltered count of the submissions with more than 10 comments in your post here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26713636 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26713636 16 negative 8 positive In the examples of popular threads you cited, a two-thirds supermajority were anit-Stallman. I did a cursory search for "RMS" and "Stallman" in the past month, since your link was posted. I found 3 pro-Stallman articles (and no anti-Stallman ones): https://meribold.org/2021/04/07/critique-of-rms-open-letter/ https://meribold.org/2021/04/07/critique-of-rms-open-letter/ https://www.fsf.org/news/statement-of-fsf-board-on-election-of-richard-stallman https://www.fsf.org/news/statement-of-fsf-board-on-election-... https://stallman.org/articles/dr-stallman.html https://stallman.org/articles/dr-stallman.html That brings our total to 16 negative and 11 positive, or 1.5 anti-Stallman articles per pro-Stallman articles. (60% anti-Stallman.) Weighted by the number of comments, there are 378 more comments on the links you provided.