3 ms·

Well, your response appeared to assume that the contents of the article were true and the contents of the article weren't true. In general, when I receive inco

Well, your response appeared to assume that the contents of the article were true and the contents of the article weren't true. In general, when I receive incorrect information and respond to it assuming its true, I appreciate when people inform me that its not true. I assume other people on HN share that desire.

SilasX 5y ago
>Well, your response appeared to assume that the contents of the article were true I guess it might seem that way if you were going out of the way to read it uncharitably so you could be correct about something, I suppose. A more charitable reading would be, "monitoring social media is a natural response to the demands of the hive mind, and outrage at it would reveal a double standard." If you're "refuting" that -- if you're negating the relevance of the entire argument -- then you're effectively claiming my point will never be relevant on this topic at all: that, because this one university isn't actually doing it (probably because their trial balloon went badly), then no one will ever do it, and we never have to deal with the implications of universities (or large orgs) monitoring social media, or think about the pressure they're put under when they're associated with someone who said something bad on social media. That would be the wrong lesson to take. >In general, when I receive incorrect information and respond to it assuming its true, I appreciate when people inform me that its not true. I assume other people on HN share that desire. I absolutely do! That's why I insist that you do post it, in the place where it's the most relevant, with the appropriate caveats: "Hey, even though this might be an issue some day, it looks like this specific university isn't doing it." -- as a top level comment, directly on the story. Were you planning to respond to everyone who discussed the merit of "universities monitoring social media" by saying "well akshually this whole issue is irrelevant because this one university halted its plan to do it and insists there never was one"? Then what do you think you were accomplishing by raising the point one time (well, two times it looks like) in a subthread about an orthogonal issue? It's great if you want to take the tack of "hey, I'm just trying to be super-rigorous and care about the Truth, man". But the other side of that is making an effort to post it where the opposite claim is actually asserted, not as "late hit" in a subthread where it isn't relevant. And not in a way that implies no one should care about the general issue.
- ncallaway 5y ago
  > That's why I insist that you do post it, in the place where it's the most relevant, with the appropriate caveats Sure! There was already someone else who made a post similar to that (which is the top-post on the thread). I also replied to that one, to reinforce the point. So...done. > But the other side of that is making an effort to post it where the opposite claim is actually asserted Yep, I did that too! In fact, my first posts were mostly questions, and those formed into more concrete posts once I felt I understood the mistake of the article well enough. After I had done those two things you suggested, I also responded to a handful of posts from people who looked like they had interpreted the article as being accurate when it wasn't. I'm not trying to disagree with your point! I just wanted to let you, and people reading your comment know that it wasn't accurate (as was described in the headline of the post and the article) in this case. Fair enough that it would be unfair to only comment on your post as my only comment in the thread! I didn't do that, though. > And not in a way that implies no one should care about the general issue. I can see how my initial comment came across that way, but that wasn't my intent and I apologize that it reads that way. I'll try and be less dismissive of the meta-point in the future.
  - SilasX 5y ago
    >I'm not trying to disagree with your point! I just wanted to let you, and people reading your comment know that it wasn't accurate (as was described in the headline of the post and the article) in this case. Then you did it incorrectly, because you worded it as: >>>Except...the University in this case hasn't said ... That is, my point is wrong, because this one case isn't actually happen. But my comment doesn't depend on this incident having actually happened! (It simply points out that this would be the natural outgrowth of the incentives, and that the hive mind would be inconsistent to object.) If you were actually trying to do what you claimed, the appropriate way is to indicate it's a nitpick or that it doesn't affect the general point, or that you're just saying that to avoid a misconception that someone might get from the article (and not my comment) -- not to write it as a point of refutation, as you did.
    - ncallaway 5y ago

SilasX 5y ago

>Well, your response appeared to assume that the contents of the article were true I guess it might seem that way if you were going out of the way to read it uncharitably so you could be correct about something, I suppose. A more charitable reading would be, "monitoring social media is a natural response to the demands of the hive mind, and outrage at it would reveal a double standard." If you're "refuting" that -- if you're negating the relevance of the entire argument -- then you're effectively claiming my point will never be relevant on this topic at all: that, because this one university isn't actually doing it (probably because their trial balloon went badly), then no one will ever do it, and we never have to deal with the implications of universities (or large orgs) monitoring social media, or think about the pressure they're put under when they're associated with someone who said something bad on social media. That would be the wrong lesson to take. >In general, when I receive incorrect information and respond to it assuming its true, I appreciate when people inform me that its not true. I assume other people on HN share that desire. I absolutely do! That's why I insist that you do post it, in the place where it's the most relevant, with the appropriate caveats: "Hey, even though this might be an issue some day, it looks like this specific university isn't doing it." -- as a top level comment, directly on the story. Were you planning to respond to everyone who discussed the merit of "universities monitoring social media" by saying "well akshually this whole issue is irrelevant because this one university halted its plan to do it and insists there never was one"? Then what do you think you were accomplishing by raising the point one time (well, two times it looks like) in a subthread about an orthogonal issue? It's great if you want to take the tack of "hey, I'm just trying to be super-rigorous and care about the Truth, man". But the other side of that is making an effort to post it where the opposite claim is actually asserted, not as "late hit" in a subthread where it isn't relevant. And not in a way that implies no one should care about the general issue.

ncallaway 5y ago
> That's why I insist that you do post it, in the place where it's the most relevant, with the appropriate caveats Sure! There was already someone else who made a post similar to that (which is the top-post on the thread). I also replied to that one, to reinforce the point. So...done. > But the other side of that is making an effort to post it where the opposite claim is actually asserted Yep, I did that too! In fact, my first posts were mostly questions, and those formed into more concrete posts once I felt I understood the mistake of the article well enough. After I had done those two things you suggested, I also responded to a handful of posts from people who looked like they had interpreted the article as being accurate when it wasn't. I'm not trying to disagree with your point! I just wanted to let you, and people reading your comment know that it wasn't accurate (as was described in the headline of the post and the article) in this case. Fair enough that it would be unfair to only comment on your post as my only comment in the thread! I didn't do that, though. > And not in a way that implies no one should care about the general issue. I can see how my initial comment came across that way, but that wasn't my intent and I apologize that it reads that way. I'll try and be less dismissive of the meta-point in the future.
- SilasX 5y ago
  >I'm not trying to disagree with your point! I just wanted to let you, and people reading your comment know that it wasn't accurate (as was described in the headline of the post and the article) in this case. Then you did it incorrectly, because you worded it as: >>>Except...the University in this case hasn't said ... That is, my point is wrong, because this one case isn't actually happen. But my comment doesn't depend on this incident having actually happened! (It simply points out that this would be the natural outgrowth of the incentives, and that the hive mind would be inconsistent to object.) If you were actually trying to do what you claimed, the appropriate way is to indicate it's a nitpick or that it doesn't affect the general point, or that you're just saying that to avoid a misconception that someone might get from the article (and not my comment) -- not to write it as a point of refutation, as you did.
  - ncallaway 5y ago