3 ms·

A good example of what happens when an individual runs against powerful institutional forces, and a good reminder of why individual rights, like the freedom to

A good example of what happens when an individual runs against powerful institutional forces, and a good reminder of why individual rights, like the freedom to speak even when it offends or hurts, must be protected, both in law as well as in culture.

dredmorbius 3y ago
Absolutely. And, I'll argue again as I have multiple times in recent days, on Internet discussion sites. (HN repeatedly tone-polices those who speak truth to power, when that speech becomes heated, not only through user actions but in official moderation. I'm aware of HN's justifications. They are extraordinarily insufficient.)
- rootw0rm 3y ago
  and yet, to make your point, all you had to do was upvote the parent to make it more visible.
  - dredmorbius 3y ago
    There are a significant number of instances when this isn't the case. A comment is killed by flags, and dang will comment on how it violates HN guidelines. This isn't super-frequent, but does occur at least a few times a year that I see it (both through my own browsing of HN and by following up on dang's moderation comments, the overwhelming majority of which I agree with, just to be clear). Often what's being criticised in the comment is also being practised either in a parent comment (which generally isn't flagged or admonished by dang), or in the source article itself. Abuses by the Catholic Church are one somewhat typical case, there are a few others. Climate / resource discussions that I see, though I think that's becoming less the case with time. Virtually always it's a truth-to-power situation, with truth getting emotional, as might be expected in cases of long-standing abuse. Dang's consistent response is that HN's prime directive is to satisfy intellectual curiosity, and that there are a set of stories (and discussions) that just don't do that. Fluffy floofs, sportsball, celebrity, and horse-race politics are a large fraction of these, and I'm OK with that. I see significant spillover into hard problems as well, though. These are hard to discuss productively, and it's even harder to move that discussion along (new points, new insights, deeper mutual understanding), but my complaint to HN is that it doesn't seem to want to try, or at least, not as hard as I'd like it to. Sinead is a case where Celebrity intersects with Hard Problems, as it occasionally does. Also: for all that this is a fairly consistent complaint of mine, HN does far better than any other general online forum of which I'm aware. There may be some less-frequented corners, and I'd like to check out how, say, MetaFilter scores in this regard. But of major social sites --- Birdsite, FB, Reddit, and even the Fediverse (which shares some characteristics of its larger cousin) --- HN is well above mean IMO. I'd like it to be better. And some latitude in the case of truth-to-power conversations seems one route there.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  Seconded. There's a reason for the existence of the phrase 'the ugly truth'; unpleasant facts are ofen obscured by an anodyne civility. I think YC owners (and aspirants) could do worse than read Capital as Power, which is available for free: https://bnarchives.yorku.ca/259/2/20090522_nb_casp_full_indexed.pdf https://bnarchives.yorku.ca/259/2/20090522_nb_casp_full_inde...
wesleywt 3y ago
Should speech targeting violence and discrimination against a minority or "protected" group be allowed on a private platform? It is certainly offending people to call for their extermination.
- rootw0rm 3y ago
  personally i think yes. any opportunity to call out people publicly for disgusting behaviour presents a chance for people to learn. i think it's okay for people to be reminded that ugly ideas like fascism exist and are still current. specifically on 'private platform' detail...it's a rather slippery slope to force people to host or not host particular ideas on their own property. it's easy to pick a couple topics that most people would agree are 'bad' and shouldn't be discussed, but where does it end? i'm more in favor of publicly calling Nazis assholes wherever they show up.
- kubectl_h 3y ago
  Depends on whether that "private platform" is more or less a commons. One of the most insidious phrases we have in our hyper-online society is that the "internet is not real life". Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc have profound effects on society and the notion that they are "private platforms" that have no responsibility to uphold our broad collective values is perverse.
  - stjohnswarts 3y ago
    That's the kind of thinking that leads to “wrongthink” and precisely why we have the bill of rights. If you don't like what is on a platform, then you need to start your own and provide a safe space there. Short of advocating specific violence/treason/threats, you can generally say what you want in America. That's why section 230 is so valuable so that every newly elected party can't just start throwing Facebook employees in jail because they don't like what is being said there. If you don't like Facebook, don't use it; if you don't like twitter: don't use it; if you don't like gab: don't use it.

dredmorbius 3y ago

Absolutely. And, I'll argue again as I have multiple times in recent days, on Internet discussion sites. (HN repeatedly tone-polices those who speak truth to power, when that speech becomes heated, not only through user actions but in official moderation. I'm aware of HN's justifications. They are extraordinarily insufficient.)

rootw0rm 3y ago
and yet, to make your point, all you had to do was upvote the parent to make it more visible.
- dredmorbius 3y ago
  There are a significant number of instances when this isn't the case. A comment is killed by flags, and dang will comment on how it violates HN guidelines. This isn't super-frequent, but does occur at least a few times a year that I see it (both through my own browsing of HN and by following up on dang's moderation comments, the overwhelming majority of which I agree with, just to be clear). Often what's being criticised in the comment is also being practised either in a parent comment (which generally isn't flagged or admonished by dang), or in the source article itself. Abuses by the Catholic Church are one somewhat typical case, there are a few others. Climate / resource discussions that I see, though I think that's becoming less the case with time. Virtually always it's a truth-to-power situation, with truth getting emotional, as might be expected in cases of long-standing abuse. Dang's consistent response is that HN's prime directive is to satisfy intellectual curiosity, and that there are a set of stories (and discussions) that just don't do that. Fluffy floofs, sportsball, celebrity, and horse-race politics are a large fraction of these, and I'm OK with that. I see significant spillover into hard problems as well, though. These are hard to discuss productively, and it's even harder to move that discussion along (new points, new insights, deeper mutual understanding), but my complaint to HN is that it doesn't seem to want to try, or at least, not as hard as I'd like it to. Sinead is a case where Celebrity intersects with Hard Problems, as it occasionally does. Also: for all that this is a fairly consistent complaint of mine, HN does far better than any other general online forum of which I'm aware. There may be some less-frequented corners, and I'd like to check out how, say, MetaFilter scores in this regard. But of major social sites --- Birdsite, FB, Reddit, and even the Fediverse (which shares some characteristics of its larger cousin) --- HN is well above mean IMO. I'd like it to be better. And some latitude in the case of truth-to-power conversations seems one route there.
anigbrowl 3y ago
Seconded. There's a reason for the existence of the phrase 'the ugly truth'; unpleasant facts are ofen obscured by an anodyne civility. I think YC owners (and aspirants) could do worse than read Capital as Power, which is available for free: https://bnarchives.yorku.ca/259/2/20090522_nb_casp_full_indexed.pdf https://bnarchives.yorku.ca/259/2/20090522_nb_casp_full_inde...

wesleywt 3y ago

Should speech targeting violence and discrimination against a minority or "protected" group be allowed on a private platform? It is certainly offending people to call for their extermination.

rootw0rm 3y ago
personally i think yes. any opportunity to call out people publicly for disgusting behaviour presents a chance for people to learn. i think it's okay for people to be reminded that ugly ideas like fascism exist and are still current. specifically on 'private platform' detail...it's a rather slippery slope to force people to host or not host particular ideas on their own property. it's easy to pick a couple topics that most people would agree are 'bad' and shouldn't be discussed, but where does it end? i'm more in favor of publicly calling Nazis assholes wherever they show up.
kubectl_h 3y ago
Depends on whether that "private platform" is more or less a commons. One of the most insidious phrases we have in our hyper-online society is that the "internet is not real life". Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc have profound effects on society and the notion that they are "private platforms" that have no responsibility to uphold our broad collective values is perverse.
- stjohnswarts 3y ago
  That's the kind of thinking that leads to “wrongthink” and precisely why we have the bill of rights. If you don't like what is on a platform, then you need to start your own and provide a safe space there. Short of advocating specific violence/treason/threats, you can generally say what you want in America. That's why section 230 is so valuable so that every newly elected party can't just start throwing Facebook employees in jail because they don't like what is being said there. If you don't like Facebook, don't use it; if you don't like twitter: don't use it; if you don't like gab: don't use it.