3 ms·
Your logic isn't exactly wrong, but I don't think it applies here. A woman in tech wants to have a discussion about a recent report saying that women in tech a
by nkurz 3y ago
Your logic isn't exactly wrong, but I don't think it applies here. A woman in tech wants to have a discussion about a recent report saying that women in tech are paid less than men for equivalent work. Some people flag it to prevent discussion, some people vouch for it, and in the end the flaggers win. I'd say it's categorically different than a crypto scam.
On the other hand, I think you're right that there is a spectrum. It's hard to find a clear rule that works for everything. People here also want to discuss trans rights, the Christian right, Trump's most recent gaffes, Biden's most recent gaffes, and the wars in Gaza and and Ukraine. It's probably reasonable to declare at least some of these as off-topic, at least most of the time.
On the third hand, there doesn't seem to be a clear rule for which articles get flagged off and which remain. Multiple attempts to discuss the politics that affect Google's public facing products get flagged off again and again, while "What Have Fourteen Years of Conservative Rule Done to Britain?" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39855704 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39855704) stayed up.
I worry that we're granting too much of a right to censor to a small minority of users. It's asymmetric, in that the "free speech" side has a very high bar for censoring things, while those with less compunction and more focussed on "winning" use flagging as a tool. Personally, I trust the human moderator (Dan) more than I trust the users.
For at least the articles that have any significant numbers of upvotes, I'd like for him to decide case-by-case whether the article stays or goes according to some principle, even if that principle just whether he thinks it will lead to productive discussion. And I think the article we're discussing here (women's salaries in tech, not lead pencils) probably clears the bar and merits discussion.
- kazinator 3y agoI downloaded the 120+ page PDF of the report a few days ago. Nowhere does it list any information narrowed down to tech sector jobs. (Unless it's disguised in such a way that obvious search terms don't find the relevant sections.) It's about the status of working women in all jobs, globally. > It's hard to find a clear rule that works for everything. It wouldn't help, because people who downvote and flag would ignore the details of the rule anyway. They would let some things slide, and be harsher on others.
- nkurz 3y agoI also downloaded the report, and while I only skimmed it, I came to a similar conclusion. This doesn't mean that there isn't gender disparity of pay in tech, but it doesn't seem to be well supported by that particular report. But for me, this is why it's even more important to discuss the article rather than preventing the discussion. As it is, people will remain entrenched in the impression they get from the headline. Allowing discussion (even and especially critical discussion) helps people's thinking to evolve. If not clear, I'm fairly far on the "free speech" side of things. While there are legitimate reasons to declare certain areas off-topic here, I don't think there should be any viewpoint censorship. We should strive to understand the truth, even if that truth is uncomfortable.