4 ms·
This is a dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34132152 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34132152 Though neither are great links. Here's probably the
by varenc 4y ago
This is a dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34132152 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34132152
Though neither are great links. Here's probably the best link since it's the actual statement ratified by the faculty: https://facultygovernance.mit.edu/sites/default/files/reports/20221221_MIT_Statement_on_Freedom_of_Expression_and_Academic_Freedom.pdf https://facultygovernance.mit.edu/sites/default/files/report...
The earlier post is a link to twitter and this post is a link to a news story in September when the report, including the proposed statement, was released. The statement as ratified was slightly edited from the September proposal. I highly recommend reading the full report from which the proposed statement is just a small part: https://facultygovernance.mit.edu/sites/default/files/reports/2022-09_Final_Report_of_the_Ad_Hoc_Working_Group_on_Free_Expression.pdf https://facultygovernance.mit.edu/sites/default/files/report...
- walterbell 4y ago> This is a dupe 1000 words in Sept 2022 from MIT's President and Provost are "a dupe" of a Dec 2022 tweet from a non-MIT source? Two events separated by three months are not the same event. Related, yes. Is there a public MIT statement or record of the Dec 2022 faculty vote?
- pvg 4y agoIt's definitely an HN dupe since one of the criteria of dupery is whether the discussions is the same which it is, in this case. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34111176 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34111176
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- dang 4y agoThe real previous thread was this one: Proposed Free Expression Statement for MIT - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32893842 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32893842 - Sept 2022 (116 comments) The significant new information* in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34132152 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34132152 is that the faculty voted to adopt the proposed statement, so (I guess?) it's no longer just "proposed". Is that information significant enough to justify not marking 34132152 as a dupe? Borderline call, I suppose, because the discussion is going to be more or less the same. But I think it's ok. * https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22significant%20new%20information%22%20by%3Adang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
- walterbell 4y agoThanks for the explanation and SNI (TIL) pointer, I was expecting any previous thread to be auto-detected upon submission, looks like variation in titles (for/from) and second-level domains prevented a match by Algolia.
- dang 4y agoComments moved thither. Thanks!