6 ms·

What I find particularly disconcerting about this Van Horn story is not that he wanted to present it (which is terrible in and of itself), but that this guy is

What I find particularly disconcerting about this Van Horn story is not that he wanted to present it (which is terrible in and of itself), but that this guy is 28, went through Digg (who never struck me as a company of idiots), already presented a sexist presentation, and still appears at SXSW either by invitation of him or Path. Why would Path or SXSW allow it? Did he not practice this presentation at Path before heading out? Was this thought to be acceptable by everyone at that company? He sounded to me like some tragic Van Wilder-esque figure trying to clutch on to those college good times forever. What is somewhat frustrating about all this stuff is that, while brogrammers or hipsters or whatever Bay Area-clique is in this month, can be targets of derision, the Valley is actually diversifying its personality structure, if not its sex. It's refreshing to see people that have different lifestyles to the geek stereotype, and it's broadening the appeal of these companies. It's getting easier and easier to sell Computer Science as a career to male undergraduates, because they're seeing that there are people just like them higher up. It's very annoying that those same higher ups are screwing up female motivation.

ojbyrne 14y ago
Matt arrived at digg in 2007 if I recall correctly. At that point the culture was being reshaped into what is described in the article. Also lots of women were hired - young, attractive women. And we all know how that worked out. The reason why this culture persists is because people are rewarded for promulgating it. Matt is a VP at Path.
- sfrench 14y ago
  Owen, I think your memory is a little fuzzy on this. If you recall, we overlapped for a few months in 2007 before you left, and the "lots of women" you describe just weren't there.
  - ojbyrne 14y ago
    Fair enough. The thing about women was actually something I was told happened after I left. Will edit the comment. Edit: sorry I missed the edit window.
jedsundwall 14y ago
Very well said. It's heartening to see a diversification of "personality structure." It's disheartening to have that reveal how far we still need to go – as a society – to eliminate misogyny.
ajross 14y ago
I think you need to be careful on that line of thinking. We don't want conferences censoring presenters because of reputation issues. That said, certainly in context the humor wasn't funny -- and SXSW certainly could have asked him to rework the presentation to be less needlessly controversial. I guess what I'm most confused by is why a talk titled "Adding Value as a Non-Technical No Talent Ass-Clown." got accepted in the first place. Really? I know SXSW isn't a hard science conference, but that seems awfully fluffy for an event that clearly has no trouble filling seats. Maybe it's one more sign we're in a bubble... Edit: lots of folks are picking on the second sentence above and I think taking it out of context. It was a specific reply to the idea of banning a presenter based on the notion that he "already presented a sexist presentation" -- a fact offered without support. That's just bad thinking. If the guy deserves a career ban, then make that case. Don't throw it out as a tangential point in another post.
- incongruity 14y ago
  As someone who has been a member of the program committee for a large tech conference, I can say that in my personal opinion, I'd have very little problem rejecting a talk from someone whose track record clearly demonstrated a style and set of values that significantly diverged from the culture and explicitly stated values of the community I was trying to serve. My job, as a program committee member was to find speakers who could deliver great content in a great way – both matter, both produce value for the conference attendees and organizers. At a minimum, if the talk proposal was overwhelmingly compelling from a content angle, I'd have little issue with being explicit, up front and individually direct with said person about the expectations for how speakers conduct themselves. Choosing to reject a talk from someone because of who the presenter is or how they have handled themselves in the past is completely legitimate and it is not "censorship" – a conference is a curated event and someone has the job to make sure the content fits the conference. If you want a brogrammer conference, go start one, but don't demand that we accept that sort of crap at ours just because you think you're hot shit and can offend anyone you want because "it's funny".
- MBlume 14y ago
  > I think you need to be careful on that line of thinking. We don't want conferences censoring presenters because of reputation issues. Why on earth not? Part of ensuring cooperation on prisoner's dilemmas is punishment. It should be bad for your career to act like an asshole and make us all look bad.
brown9-2 14y ago
Is SWSX the kind of centralized conference that approves/disapproves/arranges presenters? I've never attended but my impression was it was pretty free-form.
batista 14y ago
>What I find particularly disconcerting about this Van Horn story is not that it happened (which is terrible in and of itself), but that this guy is 28, went through Digg (who never struck me as a company of idiots), already presented a sexist presentation, and still appears at SXSW either by invitation of him or Path. Why would Path or SXSW allow it? Did he not practice this presentation at Path before heading out? Was this thought to be acceptable by everyone at that company? Yes, let's ostracize him. Hell, let's burn him at the stake. /s
- MBlume 14y ago
  I know you're trying to be sarcastic, but yes, please, let's ostracize him. Our culture will be better off without him. Sometimes not pissing in the pool isn't enough, sometimes asking people nicely to stop isn't enough, sometimes you have to force people out of the pool if you want to swim somewhere that doesn't have piss in it.
  - MartinCron 14y ago
    I don't know if you made up the "pissing in the pool" metaphor for this kind of behavior, but it's just perfect. Thank you.
    - MBlume 14y ago
      Thanks =) I'm honestly not sure if it's original or not.
- Lewisham 14y ago
  I really don't see your point here. You think I was being over the top? I don't see how; he's representing Path. Path, you would think, would probably like to represent itself as a diverse, vibrant workplace with exciting, fun, kind people, and not sexist jerks with locker-room antics. I would appreciate it if you'd elaborate on what you think is wrong about this.
  - batista 14y ago

ojbyrne 14y ago

Matt arrived at digg in 2007 if I recall correctly. At that point the culture was being reshaped into what is described in the article. Also lots of women were hired - young, attractive women. And we all know how that worked out. The reason why this culture persists is because people are rewarded for promulgating it. Matt is a VP at Path.

sfrench 14y ago
Owen, I think your memory is a little fuzzy on this. If you recall, we overlapped for a few months in 2007 before you left, and the "lots of women" you describe just weren't there.
- ojbyrne 14y ago
  Fair enough. The thing about women was actually something I was told happened after I left. Will edit the comment. Edit: sorry I missed the edit window.

jedsundwall 14y ago

Very well said. It's heartening to see a diversification of "personality structure." It's disheartening to have that reveal how far we still need to go – as a society – to eliminate misogyny.

ajross 14y ago

I think you need to be careful on that line of thinking. We don't want conferences censoring presenters because of reputation issues. That said, certainly in context the humor wasn't funny -- and SXSW certainly could have asked him to rework the presentation to be less needlessly controversial. I guess what I'm most confused by is why a talk titled "Adding Value as a Non-Technical No Talent Ass-Clown." got accepted in the first place. Really? I know SXSW isn't a hard science conference, but that seems awfully fluffy for an event that clearly has no trouble filling seats. Maybe it's one more sign we're in a bubble... Edit: lots of folks are picking on the second sentence above and I think taking it out of context. It was a specific reply to the idea of banning a presenter based on the notion that he "already presented a sexist presentation" -- a fact offered without support. That's just bad thinking. If the guy deserves a career ban, then make that case. Don't throw it out as a tangential point in another post.

incongruity 14y ago
As someone who has been a member of the program committee for a large tech conference, I can say that in my personal opinion, I'd have very little problem rejecting a talk from someone whose track record clearly demonstrated a style and set of values that significantly diverged from the culture and explicitly stated values of the community I was trying to serve. My job, as a program committee member was to find speakers who could deliver great content in a great way – both matter, both produce value for the conference attendees and organizers. At a minimum, if the talk proposal was overwhelmingly compelling from a content angle, I'd have little issue with being explicit, up front and individually direct with said person about the expectations for how speakers conduct themselves. Choosing to reject a talk from someone because of who the presenter is or how they have handled themselves in the past is completely legitimate and it is not "censorship" – a conference is a curated event and someone has the job to make sure the content fits the conference. If you want a brogrammer conference, go start one, but don't demand that we accept that sort of crap at ours just because you think you're hot shit and can offend anyone you want because "it's funny".
MBlume 14y ago
> I think you need to be careful on that line of thinking. We don't want conferences censoring presenters because of reputation issues. Why on earth not? Part of ensuring cooperation on prisoner's dilemmas is punishment. It should be bad for your career to act like an asshole and make us all look bad.

brown9-2 14y ago

Is SWSX the kind of centralized conference that approves/disapproves/arranges presenters? I've never attended but my impression was it was pretty free-form.

batista 14y ago

>What I find particularly disconcerting about this Van Horn story is not that it happened (which is terrible in and of itself), but that this guy is 28, went through Digg (who never struck me as a company of idiots), already presented a sexist presentation, and still appears at SXSW either by invitation of him or Path. Why would Path or SXSW allow it? Did he not practice this presentation at Path before heading out? Was this thought to be acceptable by everyone at that company? Yes, let's ostracize him. Hell, let's burn him at the stake. /s

MBlume 14y ago
I know you're trying to be sarcastic, but yes, please, let's ostracize him. Our culture will be better off without him. Sometimes not pissing in the pool isn't enough, sometimes asking people nicely to stop isn't enough, sometimes you have to force people out of the pool if you want to swim somewhere that doesn't have piss in it.
- MartinCron 14y ago
  I don't know if you made up the "pissing in the pool" metaphor for this kind of behavior, but it's just perfect. Thank you.
  - MBlume 14y ago
    Thanks =) I'm honestly not sure if it's original or not.
Lewisham 14y ago
I really don't see your point here. You think I was being over the top? I don't see how; he's representing Path. Path, you would think, would probably like to represent itself as a diverse, vibrant workplace with exciting, fun, kind people, and not sexist jerks with locker-room antics. I would appreciate it if you'd elaborate on what you think is wrong about this.
- batista 14y ago