6 ms·

I'm going to reply to my own comment to extend the last point, because I think it's important to point out: I think it's clear, and that everyone would agree,

by ajross 4y ago

I'm going to reply to my own comment to extend the last point, because I think it's important to point out: I think it's clear, and that everyone would agree, that if you showed up here on HN making fun of another commenter for their gender in exactly the way that the Bee did, using exactly the same words, that you'd be banned. And we'd all agree that you should be banned. I think the logical trap that the "free speech" folks are falling into here is that this doesn't "feel" targetted in the same way. It's a "media organization" making fun of a "public figure" and neither the Bee nor Levine are part of "your community". So Twitter banning them doesn't feel like community enforcement of norms, it feels political. And since the Bee is on "your side" you feel like they must have been wronged. So maybe you should be constructing arguments around whether or not Twitter consitutes a "community" with "norms"? Maybe it doesn't, I'm willing to hear arguments. But the idea that the article wasn't hateful jut doesn't fly as I see it. It was awful, and the only way to see otherwise is to get into a headspace where Levine isn't part of "your community" and thus her feelings don't matter.

mquander 4y ago
I agree with this, but I would emphasize something you glossed over, which is that the target is a "public figure." It's normative to be cruel to "public figures" in ways that would be totally unacceptable in any normal interpersonal relationship. I personally think that's fucked up, but it really is normative. So singling out e.g. cruelty specifically about trans people's gender presentation seems targeted and political, because it's completely commonplace to say cruel things about someone if they made bad art, or if they disagree with you about some political policies, and rarely do people get banned from anything about it.
- ajross 4y ago
  This is a perspective thing. But I just don't see that. I mean, sure, there are Internet Yahoos everywhere who run around calling people Nazis and whatnot. But do you have any examples of major abuse directed by big accounts with big audiences (i.e. the ones that attract the censors' attention) that should have been banned but weren't? The Bee went way out on a limb with that article as I see it. And they got banned. Certainly other similar accounts (the Onion, say) aren't nearly as hateful.
  - mquander 4y ago
    I don't actually use Twitter, so I don't really have specific examples of huge Twitter accounts tweeting nasty things? I am just thinking of what's clearly considered normal among my peers. For example, here is a random thing I find if I Google "mean tweets about donald trump": https://twitter.com/dadsaysjokes/status/1062806755229474824?lang=en https://twitter.com/dadsaysjokes/status/1062806755229474824?... > What's the difference between Donald Trump and a worm? One of them is a slimy, loathsome creature incapable of complex thought; the other one actually shows up when it rains. I'm claiming that most people would think that it's totally okay to say that about Donald Trump in public, even though it's an absurdly mean thing to say. (I am sure I could find similar jokes about Joe Biden, too.) I don't think that this would be deleted from Twitter if people reported it. But I also don't think it's really much different from what the Bee wrote. I think people would treat the Bee's article as different mainly if they think that being trans is a special category that is taboo to be cruel about.
    - hairofadog 4y ago
      The notable difference is that one insult is criticizing behavior, while the other is criticizing the person for their core identity (and no, I don't count political affiliation as being central to identity). From my perspective it's OK to criticize Trump (or Biden) for their policies and conduct, but I don't think people should fat-shame Trump, for example, or make fun of Biden's occasional stutter. The issue isn't that people are being mean, it's that they're trying to ostracize people for aspects of their being that are out of their control. That's why, generally, trying to cast someone out for being of a certain race, gender, or sexual orientation are considered unacceptable, but criticizing their political opinions or corrupt or otherwise slimy behavior are fair game.
      - hunchle 4y ago
        > while the other is criticizing the person for their core identity Can this really be considered a core identity though? When a man such as Levine assumes an identity of a woman, is this not a form of identity fraud?
- H8crilA 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
partiallypro 4y ago
There aren't public figures on HN like this, and people make fun of some public figures here sometimes regardless. You also can't compare a massive platform like Twitter that has a broad range of discussions and allowances with HN which is a very niche forum on very niche topics that surround tech. It's like comparing someone being banned from your school chess club for being mean vs banning someone from the entire school district for being mean. It's not comparable. Twitter and Facebook are massive public forums, to the point where they are nearly public utilities that are privately owned. An example: you would have your post removed if you posted that topless Elon photo with his weird body structure and made a comment about it, but on Twitter/Facebook that flies...because they aren't niche forums.
FeepingCreature 4y ago
There are many things otherwise allowed on Twitter that would get you banned from HN.

by ajross 4y ago

mquander 4y ago

I agree with this, but I would emphasize something you glossed over, which is that the target is a "public figure." It's normative to be cruel to "public figures" in ways that would be totally unacceptable in any normal interpersonal relationship. I personally think that's fucked up, but it really is normative. So singling out e.g. cruelty specifically about trans people's gender presentation seems targeted and political, because it's completely commonplace to say cruel things about someone if they made bad art, or if they disagree with you about some political policies, and rarely do people get banned from anything about it.

ajross 4y ago
This is a perspective thing. But I just don't see that. I mean, sure, there are Internet Yahoos everywhere who run around calling people Nazis and whatnot. But do you have any examples of major abuse directed by big accounts with big audiences (i.e. the ones that attract the censors' attention) that should have been banned but weren't? The Bee went way out on a limb with that article as I see it. And they got banned. Certainly other similar accounts (the Onion, say) aren't nearly as hateful.
- mquander 4y ago
  I don't actually use Twitter, so I don't really have specific examples of huge Twitter accounts tweeting nasty things? I am just thinking of what's clearly considered normal among my peers. For example, here is a random thing I find if I Google "mean tweets about donald trump": https://twitter.com/dadsaysjokes/status/1062806755229474824?lang=en https://twitter.com/dadsaysjokes/status/1062806755229474824?... > What's the difference between Donald Trump and a worm? One of them is a slimy, loathsome creature incapable of complex thought; the other one actually shows up when it rains. I'm claiming that most people would think that it's totally okay to say that about Donald Trump in public, even though it's an absurdly mean thing to say. (I am sure I could find similar jokes about Joe Biden, too.) I don't think that this would be deleted from Twitter if people reported it. But I also don't think it's really much different from what the Bee wrote. I think people would treat the Bee's article as different mainly if they think that being trans is a special category that is taboo to be cruel about.
  - hairofadog 4y ago
    The notable difference is that one insult is criticizing behavior, while the other is criticizing the person for their core identity (and no, I don't count political affiliation as being central to identity). From my perspective it's OK to criticize Trump (or Biden) for their policies and conduct, but I don't think people should fat-shame Trump, for example, or make fun of Biden's occasional stutter. The issue isn't that people are being mean, it's that they're trying to ostracize people for aspects of their being that are out of their control. That's why, generally, trying to cast someone out for being of a certain race, gender, or sexual orientation are considered unacceptable, but criticizing their political opinions or corrupt or otherwise slimy behavior are fair game.
    - hunchle 4y ago
      > while the other is criticizing the person for their core identity Can this really be considered a core identity though? When a man such as Levine assumes an identity of a woman, is this not a form of identity fraud?
H8crilA 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

partiallypro 4y ago

There aren't public figures on HN like this, and people make fun of some public figures here sometimes regardless. You also can't compare a massive platform like Twitter that has a broad range of discussions and allowances with HN which is a very niche forum on very niche topics that surround tech. It's like comparing someone being banned from your school chess club for being mean vs banning someone from the entire school district for being mean. It's not comparable. Twitter and Facebook are massive public forums, to the point where they are nearly public utilities that are privately owned. An example: you would have your post removed if you posted that topless Elon photo with his weird body structure and made a comment about it, but on Twitter/Facebook that flies...because they aren't niche forums.

FeepingCreature 4y ago

There are many things otherwise allowed on Twitter that would get you banned from HN.