6 ms·

> “Frankly, I'm so tired of the pervasive low-grade harassment and de facto exclusion of disenfranchised communities on HN…” Would you care to elaborate? I am

by alimov 4y ago

> “Frankly, I'm so tired of the pervasive low-grade harassment and de facto exclusion of disenfranchised communities on HN…” Would you care to elaborate? I am genuinely interested, in part because of curiosity and also because I haven’t experienced this personally.

rectang 4y ago
See for example: https://melissamcewen.medium.com/a-guide-to-hacker-news-for-people-who-arent-men-5737bc3e68a https://melissamcewen.medium.com/a-guide-to-hacker-news-for-... That author advocates that HN stay how it is — or rather, she advocates changing it from within. But I don't think it's possible — I believe that the "assume good faith" proposition leads to toleration of unlimited low-grade hostility that does not rise above the threshold of flagging. The result is that outgroups flee the platform. Have you not noticed the gender imbalance around here? From what I can see it's pick your poison: * "Assume good faith" — outgroups don't participate. Exclusion may not be the intent, but it is the de facto result. * Siloed: outgroups can and will meaningfully participate, but debate is more constrained.
- gsinclair 4y ago
  I was interested but not particularly moved by that example.
  - rectang 4y ago
    Yeah, I'm not surprised. I mean, the ridiculous gender imbalance here doesn't bother a lot of those who have stayed. It's a vicious cycle — the people who it bothers leave, and since those are disproportionately women, the imbalance gets worse.
    - sitkack 4y ago
      FWIW I agree with you. That this and your other post are both light gray kinda proves your point. Neither post ‘contribute nothing to the discussion’
      - rectang 4y ago
        Well, the HN guidelines for downvoting consider disagreement a legitimate criteria. I take the downvotes as connoting mostly disagreement rather than a judgment that I was commenting in bad faith or posting something substance-free. The disagreement may be unsurprising, but I'd rather be persuasive. I'm not chasing "heretic" cred.
    - smsm42 4y ago
      I think it looks more like people interested in gender and identity based activism leave, and people interested in signal-to-noise ratio stay. I literally have no idea about gender of any person but a handful of "celebrities" on HN - and it never occurred to me to account for it in reading or writing comments (excluding, of course, ones directly discussing gender issues of a specific person, which are thankfully rare). But of course, I am aware of demographics of the tech community, and there's a place to discuss it. It's just it doesn't have to be the only - or the primary - thing to discuss on HN. For me. I guess for people that think otherwise there might be other venues they may prefer, and it's fine too. There's absolutely no problem in existence of the multiple forums with diverse set of focal topics. One doesn't even have to "leave" HN to be able to discuss gender issues in other places.
      - rectang 4y ago
        The point is that regardless of reason, women are by and large not well represented on HN. This is easily discovered by looking through the profiles of the top 100 posters and following the breadcrumbs. I recall that a few years ago, DoreenMichele was the only identifiable female. > I think it looks more like people interested in gender and identity based activism leave, and people interested in signal-to-noise ratio stay. That's not true, as there are plenty of people discussing male-focused gender issues and male identity based activism, in addition to those discussing women, transgender, and universal gender issues.
        smsm42 4y ago
        "Regardless of reason" makes a poor point. > This is easily discovered by looking through the profiles of the top 100 posters and following the breadcrumbs. Why would I want to do that? I mean, unless I am specifically interested either in gender activism (I am not), or in dating a top-100 HN poster (I am happily married) - why would I bother to research what kind of bits each of top-100 HN posters carry between their legs? > That's not true, as there are plenty of people discussing male-focused gender issues I would like to see some data supporting the assumption that male-focused gender issues and male-focused activism are discussed significantly more frequently on HN than female-focused gender issues and female-focused activism. This does not match my anecdotal impression - but of course I could be wrong. Could I see the source of your claims?
- gregoryl 4y ago
  Can't say I've noticed the gender of any user here?
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    You won't find genitalia on HN. You will find pervasive psychological profiles that correlate well with gender, if you just pay attention.
- dbsmith83 4y ago
  Meh, low-grade harassment to you might be completely acceptable conversation to other people, and that is the crux of the issue. Voting is used to identify bad-faith responses. If certain people can't handle responses which are in good faith, then I am personally glad that they are not participating. Those are not the kind of people that make good discussions anyway.
- woojoo666 4y ago
  I wish the article gave more examples than a single 2-line comment (that was already flagged and called out for being "stupid" by the moderator anyways)
- oefrha 4y ago
  Find me a comment that’s remotely critical of anything and I’ll find you an “outgroup” who believes it’s low-grade hostility.
- YATA1 4y ago
robocat 4y ago
I think Yishan (ex-CEO of Reddit) explains it well: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1514938507407421440.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1514938507407421440.html Everyone feels like they are targeted and disenfranchised, as a side effect of the nature of social media. All my left-wing woke friends are CONVINCED that the social media platforms uphold the white supremacist misogynistic patriarchy, and they have plenty of screenshots and evidence ... All my alt/center-right/libertarian friends are CONVINCED the social media platforms uphold the woke BLM/Marxist/LGBTQ agenda and they ALSO have plenty of screenshots and evidence of times when...
- rectang 4y ago
  Yishan is bothsides-ing. It's a cop-out. I do not believe or claim that dang is personally biased against "my side". I think he tries incredibly hard and is rigorously driven to avoid bias because of the grand social experiment he's shepherding. It's our privilege to participate in that experiment. What I claim is that the policy of "assume good faith" has an inevitable, unavoidable side effect of driving away outgroups. On reflection it wouldn't be just left-affiliated outgroups either — the mechanism is that leniency in moderation means that low-grade hostility is tolerated — BUT that hostility could be directed against the outgroups of any forum, and who the outgroups are is variable and forum-specific.
- smsm42 4y ago
  The fact that both sides make similar claims does not necessarily means both of them are wrong. One can be just mistaken - or lying, and another telling the truth. An aggressor frequently claims the victim started it - but that doesn't mean aggressors and victims do not exist. You can see that the people that control moderation on most social networks are political left, and aren't shy about discussing it. You can see that the political support from the social media workers leans to the left (I think over 99% of all political donations from twitter goes to the left). You see that these people routinely proclaim support for leftist political causes in their personal social media. Do you think there's a chance this influences their decisions? Now, we've been told a lot about implicit biases and how people that think they are even handed may be still prejudiced even if they don't realize it, and need to take deliberate actions to ensure this bias does not influence their work. Do you think this also relates to people controlling social media, or they are unique caste of saints untainted by biases the rest of humanity suffers from? Or, more likely, they don't think they need to any take such actions, because they live in 99% agreement bubble? Do you think the existence of 99% agreement bubbles hinders their ability to evaluate their biases and enact measures to reduce their impact on their work?

by alimov 4y ago

rectang 4y ago

See for example: https://melissamcewen.medium.com/a-guide-to-hacker-news-for-people-who-arent-men-5737bc3e68a https://melissamcewen.medium.com/a-guide-to-hacker-news-for-... That author advocates that HN stay how it is — or rather, she advocates changing it from within. But I don't think it's possible — I believe that the "assume good faith" proposition leads to toleration of unlimited low-grade hostility that does not rise above the threshold of flagging. The result is that outgroups flee the platform. Have you not noticed the gender imbalance around here? From what I can see it's pick your poison: * "Assume good faith" — outgroups don't participate. Exclusion may not be the intent, but it is the de facto result. * Siloed: outgroups can and will meaningfully participate, but debate is more constrained.

gsinclair 4y ago
I was interested but not particularly moved by that example.
- rectang 4y ago
  Yeah, I'm not surprised. I mean, the ridiculous gender imbalance here doesn't bother a lot of those who have stayed. It's a vicious cycle — the people who it bothers leave, and since those are disproportionately women, the imbalance gets worse.
  - sitkack 4y ago
    FWIW I agree with you. That this and your other post are both light gray kinda proves your point. Neither post ‘contribute nothing to the discussion’
    - rectang 4y ago
      Well, the HN guidelines for downvoting consider disagreement a legitimate criteria. I take the downvotes as connoting mostly disagreement rather than a judgment that I was commenting in bad faith or posting something substance-free. The disagreement may be unsurprising, but I'd rather be persuasive. I'm not chasing "heretic" cred.
  - smsm42 4y ago
    I think it looks more like people interested in gender and identity based activism leave, and people interested in signal-to-noise ratio stay. I literally have no idea about gender of any person but a handful of "celebrities" on HN - and it never occurred to me to account for it in reading or writing comments (excluding, of course, ones directly discussing gender issues of a specific person, which are thankfully rare). But of course, I am aware of demographics of the tech community, and there's a place to discuss it. It's just it doesn't have to be the only - or the primary - thing to discuss on HN. For me. I guess for people that think otherwise there might be other venues they may prefer, and it's fine too. There's absolutely no problem in existence of the multiple forums with diverse set of focal topics. One doesn't even have to "leave" HN to be able to discuss gender issues in other places.
    - rectang 4y ago
      The point is that regardless of reason, women are by and large not well represented on HN. This is easily discovered by looking through the profiles of the top 100 posters and following the breadcrumbs. I recall that a few years ago, DoreenMichele was the only identifiable female. > I think it looks more like people interested in gender and identity based activism leave, and people interested in signal-to-noise ratio stay. That's not true, as there are plenty of people discussing male-focused gender issues and male identity based activism, in addition to those discussing women, transgender, and universal gender issues.
      - smsm42 4y ago
        "Regardless of reason" makes a poor point. > This is easily discovered by looking through the profiles of the top 100 posters and following the breadcrumbs. Why would I want to do that? I mean, unless I am specifically interested either in gender activism (I am not), or in dating a top-100 HN poster (I am happily married) - why would I bother to research what kind of bits each of top-100 HN posters carry between their legs? > That's not true, as there are plenty of people discussing male-focused gender issues I would like to see some data supporting the assumption that male-focused gender issues and male-focused activism are discussed significantly more frequently on HN than female-focused gender issues and female-focused activism. This does not match my anecdotal impression - but of course I could be wrong. Could I see the source of your claims?
gregoryl 4y ago
Can't say I've noticed the gender of any user here?
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  You won't find genitalia on HN. You will find pervasive psychological profiles that correlate well with gender, if you just pay attention.
dbsmith83 4y ago
Meh, low-grade harassment to you might be completely acceptable conversation to other people, and that is the crux of the issue. Voting is used to identify bad-faith responses. If certain people can't handle responses which are in good faith, then I am personally glad that they are not participating. Those are not the kind of people that make good discussions anyway.
woojoo666 4y ago
I wish the article gave more examples than a single 2-line comment (that was already flagged and called out for being "stupid" by the moderator anyways)
oefrha 4y ago
Find me a comment that’s remotely critical of anything and I’ll find you an “outgroup” who believes it’s low-grade hostility.
YATA1 4y ago

robocat 4y ago

I think Yishan (ex-CEO of Reddit) explains it well: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1514938507407421440.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1514938507407421440.html Everyone feels like they are targeted and disenfranchised, as a side effect of the nature of social media. All my left-wing woke friends are CONVINCED that the social media platforms uphold the white supremacist misogynistic patriarchy, and they have plenty of screenshots and evidence ... All my alt/center-right/libertarian friends are CONVINCED the social media platforms uphold the woke BLM/Marxist/LGBTQ agenda and they ALSO have plenty of screenshots and evidence of times when...

rectang 4y ago
Yishan is bothsides-ing. It's a cop-out. I do not believe or claim that dang is personally biased against "my side". I think he tries incredibly hard and is rigorously driven to avoid bias because of the grand social experiment he's shepherding. It's our privilege to participate in that experiment. What I claim is that the policy of "assume good faith" has an inevitable, unavoidable side effect of driving away outgroups. On reflection it wouldn't be just left-affiliated outgroups either — the mechanism is that leniency in moderation means that low-grade hostility is tolerated — BUT that hostility could be directed against the outgroups of any forum, and who the outgroups are is variable and forum-specific.
smsm42 4y ago
The fact that both sides make similar claims does not necessarily means both of them are wrong. One can be just mistaken - or lying, and another telling the truth. An aggressor frequently claims the victim started it - but that doesn't mean aggressors and victims do not exist. You can see that the people that control moderation on most social networks are political left, and aren't shy about discussing it. You can see that the political support from the social media workers leans to the left (I think over 99% of all political donations from twitter goes to the left). You see that these people routinely proclaim support for leftist political causes in their personal social media. Do you think there's a chance this influences their decisions? Now, we've been told a lot about implicit biases and how people that think they are even handed may be still prejudiced even if they don't realize it, and need to take deliberate actions to ensure this bias does not influence their work. Do you think this also relates to people controlling social media, or they are unique caste of saints untainted by biases the rest of humanity suffers from? Or, more likely, they don't think they need to any take such actions, because they live in 99% agreement bubble? Do you think the existence of 99% agreement bubbles hinders their ability to evaluate their biases and enact measures to reduce their impact on their work?