3 ms·
The one thing I valued most about online communities at least "back in the day" was not knowing this stuff. I could genuinely be interacting with people as per
by _8j50 3y ago
The one thing I valued most about online communities at least "back in the day" was not knowing this stuff.
I could genuinely be interacting with people as persons without being biased about them. It was the great equalizer and part of what drew me towards "the hacker's manifesto".
Most of us I think fail to understand what an immense treasure of justice anonymity or at least pseudonymity is. It sucks that the modern internet financially is surviving as a result of fighting against these values.
I disagree with you about knowing people's gender's being a good thing. Look at what people say and do and get to know and then hate or like them to your heart's content. There are few places left where you can meet people and get to know them without a profile pic or a reddit post like this HN post tells you the same exact things that bias us in real life and result in so much strife and injustice.I hated places where people asked "A/S/L?" as you can tell, what do you think of petitioning to ban asking such info to the general HN audience?
- tcfhgj 3y agoNot knowing the gender (distribution) of commenters is not knowing the underlying bias in the replies of these commenters. Thus no, such info shouldn't be banned.
- Conscat 3y agoIt's vitally important to know the perspective from which somebody evaluates the gender wage gap when I'm reading their complaints about Node.
- _8j50 3y agoI disagree, the underlying bias a person has is irrelevant if they can prove to others the correctness of what they are saying. You are wanting to put people in boxes and stereotype as if they're not capable of compensating for bias or understanding others' perspective. If it is a subjective comment and personal experience is relevant, the commenter can disclose that detail there and then. However, where fact or analysis of information is involved, it is the correctness and quality of what is said that matters not who said it.
- tcfhgj 3y ago> I disagree, the underlying bias a person has is irrelevant if they can prove to others the correctness of what they are saying. Which isn't the case for everything, and if it is the case, it isn't done always (most of the time). > You are wanting to put people in boxes and stereotype as if they're not capable of compensating for bias I am not. Capability doesn't matter if they aren't even aware of their own bias or don't care. > understanding others' perspective. No, relevance? > However, where fact or analysis of information is involved, it is the correctness and quality of what is said that matters not who said it. Even if something is correct the information they give might be selective while neglecting other perspectives because of their bias, may it be on purpose or not. Tldr: I think you portrait people as perfectly self aware and free of self interest, which isn't the case on reality which is exactly why groups of people show biases.
- paulddraper 3y agoEh, it's one thing to know the gender of individuals. It's another thing to have anonymized statistics about the community.
- _8j50 3y agofor what purpose? Are you assuming everyone will act in good faith or should we expect a rise in people presuming others are male by default for example? Once I know the stats, it's hard to ignore.
- cassianoleal 3y agoIt's not all that different when 95% are of the same gender.