12 ms·

"The worst thing to post or upvote is something that's intensely but shallowly interesting. Gossip about famous people, funny or cute pictures or videos, partis

"The worst thing to post or upvote is something that's intensely but shallowly interesting. Gossip about famous people, funny or cute pictures or videos, partisan political articles, etc. If you let that sort of thing onto a news site, it will push aside the deeply interesting stuff, which tends to be quieter." - http://ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html http://ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html I'm pretty sure that personal experiences of discrimination qualify as "intensely but shallowly interesting" content. It's "intense" because racial/sexual/etc. discrimination is a very charged topic that people get passionate about. (Not that this is bad, it's just the current state of things.) It's "shallowly interesting" because it doesn't teach us anything except "some companies are racist sometimes", which everyone already knows. If companies in field X are especially racist, that might be interesting. If specific company Y was really racist, that might be interesting. If people were more or less racist under circumstance Z, that might be interesting, etc. But since this kind of content doesn't name specifics, all we can take away is "some employers are racist sometimes under some circumstances" (according to one person, whose account might or might not be completely accurate). That hasn't been new information since, well, ever. Even if you went back to 1900, everyone would already know this, it's just that most people would agree with it, instead of objecting like modern-day people would.

anon808 13y ago
Agreed. Let's just ignore this. Next article please.
- codygman 13y ago
  This attitude reeks of white privilege, although I used to have an opinion similar to it. I recommend spending some time here: http://racismschool.tumblr.com/post/16976192868/white-privilege-preferential-treatment http://racismschool.tumblr.com/post/16976192868/white-privil...
wpietri 13y ago
I strongly disagree. Not everybody knows that racism exists, and not everybody agrees that it is a significant barrier to hiring. Further, it is not a solved problem, so it is well worth talking about it so we can solve it. Even if you don't believe that it should be solved as a societal problem (I do), this is a sign to hiring managers that they can do especially well by looking for the sorts of people that many companies tend to miss.
- lotso 13y ago
  Not sure why this user gets downvoted, while the parent comment gets upvoted. Maybe this related to the belief of meritocracy that many have in Silicon Valley.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
coldtea 13y ago
>It's "shallowly interesting" because it doesn't teach us anything except "some companies are racist sometimes", which everyone already knows. I think you got it wrong. It doesn't have to teach you anything new. It's not here to amuse you. It's here to enrage you and get you to do something about it. Now, if you are white, you might not find it amusing or interesting at all. But if you are black, you can see into it something that fucks you chances, and that's not funny at all, even if it's not novel or "everyone already knows". >That hasn't been new information since, well, ever. Even if you went back to 1900, everyone would already know this, it's just that most people would agree with it, instead of objecting like modern-day people would. Yes, and in 2050 they might say: "Even if you went back to 2013, everyone would already know this, it's just that most people would not care, because it was not novel or interesting, instead of getting enraged and trying to fix this as a modern-day people would." I mean, to me it's not very unlike reading about lynchings in 1910, and saying: "Well, OK, this is not news, such things happen for two centuries. Next news item please".
- apsec112 13y ago
  Sure, but the purpose of HN is specifically to teach people things, and not to create rage. The site guidelines make that pretty clear. Also, is our problem really that people don't get outraged enough about race? We've had a number of days-long, city-wide street riots about race. That's an awful lot of rage we have already.
  - wpietri 13y ago
    I would find this position more credible if people were downvoting and admonishing all the tech, business, privacy, and government rage. I didn't notice anybody saying, "Hey, let's not get ragey about [the NSA|Apple|patent trolls|Facebook|Google|Congress], we're here to learn, not get upset." You may personally be sincere, and if you have been equally assiduous on all upsetting topics, I commend you. But more generally, I think the sudden tone-policing that appears on race and gender discrimination topics has much more to do with the topic than the tone.
    - 13y ago

anon808 13y ago

Agreed. Let's just ignore this. Next article please.

codygman 13y ago
This attitude reeks of white privilege, although I used to have an opinion similar to it. I recommend spending some time here: http://racismschool.tumblr.com/post/16976192868/white-privilege-preferential-treatment http://racismschool.tumblr.com/post/16976192868/white-privil...

wpietri 13y ago

I strongly disagree. Not everybody knows that racism exists, and not everybody agrees that it is a significant barrier to hiring. Further, it is not a solved problem, so it is well worth talking about it so we can solve it. Even if you don't believe that it should be solved as a societal problem (I do), this is a sign to hiring managers that they can do especially well by looking for the sorts of people that many companies tend to miss.

lotso 13y ago
Not sure why this user gets downvoted, while the parent comment gets upvoted. Maybe this related to the belief of meritocracy that many have in Silicon Valley.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

coldtea 13y ago

>It's "shallowly interesting" because it doesn't teach us anything except "some companies are racist sometimes", which everyone already knows. I think you got it wrong. It doesn't have to teach you anything new. It's not here to amuse you. It's here to enrage you and get you to do something about it. Now, if you are white, you might not find it amusing or interesting at all. But if you are black, you can see into it something that fucks you chances, and that's not funny at all, even if it's not novel or "everyone already knows". >That hasn't been new information since, well, ever. Even if you went back to 1900, everyone would already know this, it's just that most people would agree with it, instead of objecting like modern-day people would. Yes, and in 2050 they might say: "Even if you went back to 2013, everyone would already know this, it's just that most people would not care, because it was not novel or interesting, instead of getting enraged and trying to fix this as a modern-day people would." I mean, to me it's not very unlike reading about lynchings in 1910, and saying: "Well, OK, this is not news, such things happen for two centuries. Next news item please".

apsec112 13y ago
Sure, but the purpose of HN is specifically to teach people things, and not to create rage. The site guidelines make that pretty clear. Also, is our problem really that people don't get outraged enough about race? We've had a number of days-long, city-wide street riots about race. That's an awful lot of rage we have already.
- wpietri 13y ago
  I would find this position more credible if people were downvoting and admonishing all the tech, business, privacy, and government rage. I didn't notice anybody saying, "Hey, let's not get ragey about [the NSA|Apple|patent trolls|Facebook|Google|Congress], we're here to learn, not get upset." You may personally be sincere, and if you have been equally assiduous on all upsetting topics, I commend you. But more generally, I think the sudden tone-policing that appears on race and gender discrimination topics has much more to do with the topic than the tone.
  - 13y ago