9 ms·

I was hoping someone would write about how bad this article was. (Shocked to see it's the same one as the pretty good piece from earlier.) The worst part to me

by rory096 11y ago

I was hoping someone would write about how bad this article was. (Shocked to see it's the same one as the pretty good piece from earlier.) The worst part to me was the article quoting Mitch Kapor to back up its implicit support of internet censorship: >...charges that bullying, harassment and cruel behavior are out of control on the web... >Mitch Kapor, a co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, noted that Reddit users were predominantly male and 18 to 29 years old. >“In my view, her job was made more difficult because as a woman, she was particularly subject to the abuse stemming from the pockets of toxic misogyny in the Reddit ecosystem,” said Mr. Kapor, now a partner at Kapor Capital.

notcensorship 11y ago
It is not censorship to say that a private entity has the right to choose who gets kicked out of their dinner party. I keep hoping that somebody will write about the difference between censorship and private parties choosing not to support and/or tolerate certain behaviors. It shouldn't be necessary, but there's a generation of people so incredibly entitled and so incredibly insane that they actually need a primer on reality.
- rory096 11y ago
  Sure it is. It's just not freedom of speech. > Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
  - notcensorship 11y ago
    It's incredibly disingenuous to claim that having some guidelines on a private forum (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html) counts as "Internet Censorship". You are actively supporting hatred by making that argument. It is not censorship or suppression of speech to tell a bigot that they can no longer borrow your megaphone. The bigot remains free to buy, build, or borrow another megaphone, a fact demonstrated clearly by the rise of voat. It is morally reprehensible to argue that taking away a privately owned megaphone is equivalent to censorship. It diminishes the meaning of the word, and boils it down to nothing. You should be ashamed of yourself for making such a truly insane and asinine argument. edit: rory is lying when he claims that the original draft was just me calling him out. I know, I know... it's shocking that somebody who thinks that conde needs to actively support hate speech is a lair, but he is. edit2: rory, it is BATSHIT FUCKING INSANE that you think that a private entity has some sort of duty to provide their megaphone to any bigot for any purpose. edit3: rory, you are one of the most entitled human beings on the planet. Reddit owes you nothing. edit4: i was stuck with editing existing posts because I'm banned from making new posts, and I respect HN enough not to work around their rules.
    - rory096 11y ago
      Let me be clear. I do not support the offensive behavior on reddit. I just think censorship and moderation is not an effective or desirable solution.
      - DanBC 11y ago
        The only good bits of Reddit are heavily censored by reddit users, not admins. Admins have not censored unpleasant subs; admins have removed subs that engaged in active harassment of people in other subs, in other forums, or AFK. EDIT: also, parent comment being downvoted and flagged is ironic.
        rory096 11y ago
        Sure, but the article is talking about the stuff on reddit that wasn't removed. Doesn't calling it "out of control" imply a desire to start controlling it? (grandparent was edited after flag, even more ironically by a mod I think) EDIT: In fact, let's all just take a second to appreciate the irony here. A guy made a throwaway account, called me an idiot, and (lamely) doxxed me – all in order to argue for restricting lowbrow content on internet forums. Love it.
      - rory096 11y ago
        Now that it's edited to somewhat more than just calling me out personally (and yes I'm a white guy, I currently live in Virginia and my startup is linked on my profile), there's a couple points to respond to. (I'd argue that your post just underwent self- or moderator censorship, of the justified sort.) > It's incredibly disingenuous to claim that having some guidelines on a private forum (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html) counts as "Internet Censorship". > You are actively supporting hatred by making that argument. > It is not censorship or suppression of speech to tell a bigot that they can no longer borrow your megaphone. The bigot remains free to buy, build, or borrow another megaphone, a fact demonstrated clearly by the rise of voat. > It is morally reprehensible to argue that taking away a privately owned megaphone is equivalent to censorship. It diminishes the meaning of the word, and boils it down to nothing. You should be ashamed of yourself for making such a truly insane and asinine argument. Let's call a spade a spade. It's absolutely censorship by the definition of the word. You believe it's justified censorship. "It" is somewhat unclear - but let's call it moderation beyond what is currently exercised by reddit, in order to remove the unpleasant content we saw in the wake of the FPH and Victoria incidents and is excoriated by this article. I argue against it for precisely the same reason you think it's justified. The range of human opinion on every topic is incredibly broad. That means that there's a tiny minority of people who hold truly outrageous and objectionable views. If you simply hide those people with deletions and shadowbans, you relegate them to their tiny corner of the internet where they're free to reinforce each other's insane ideals. One of the greatest things about reddit is that though it's divided into subreddits, it's one big place - and any given user's reddit lineup will have slightly different posts than another's, whether cat photos or racism. That means you get cross-pollination (or -contamination), which offers a chance to change those people's minds. Yes, the crazies will show up in big community threads. But that means the sanes get a chance to teach them why they're wrong, whether by shaming them like sama, convincing them with reasoned argument (lol), or just downvoting them into oblivion and sending some irrational flames back (your choice!). When you destroy the centrality of reddit, even if by cutting out really bad stuff, you encourage the sharding of the web into isolated echo chambers. EDIT: No, I think you're absolutely right that reddit has zero obligation to allow any content. I'm merely arguing that though the content may be reprehensible and censorship is legal and even justifiable, it would not improve reddit to remove it.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
    - rory096 11y ago
      I disagree. Even flagging notcensorship's personal attack (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9870590 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9870590) is a form of censorship. It's certainly not First Amendment protected, and you're absolutely correct that he retains the right to call me out anywhere else on the internet (or world). It might even be morally justifiable. But that doesn't mean it's not censorship. Wikipedia adds: > Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship. When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of their own works or speech, it is called self-censorship. Censorship may be direct or it may be indirect, in which case it is called soft censorship. It occurs in a variety of different media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of claimed reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children or other vulnerable groups, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel. > Direct censorship may or may not be legal, depending on the type, place, and content. Many countries provide strong protections against censorship by law, but none of these protections are absolute and frequently a claim of necessity to balance conflicting rights is made, in order to determine what can and cannot be censored. There are no laws against self-censorship.
- shredprez 11y ago
  >It shouldn't be necessary, but there's a generation of people so incredibly entitled and so incredibly insane that they actually need a primer on reality. We best get used to it, the baby boomers will be with us for a while.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  How is intentionally suppressing speech that you don't like, not censorship? It would seem to be the very definition of censorship.
  - arrrg 11y ago
    … but that comment is then written as though every form of censorship is obviously immoral and bad which is self-evidently not true using this definition of censorship. Because according to this definition what an editor at a newspaper engages in is censorship - and no one takes issue with that. It is an self evidently reasonable position to like or even love that kind of censorship – but the comment writes about it as though any endorsement of this kind of censorship were self-evidently evil, something not many people will agree with. You can use this definition of censorship – but then also know that liking or loving censorship in certain situation is also quite reasonable. I want my censors to be fierce and awesome! I want to, after all, read a newspaper worth reading. And why not also moderate much more heavily at Reddit? Is that somehow evil? I think it would be awesome.
    - rory096 11y ago
      I mostly intended my comment to be a shot at the Times' shoddy reporting on this one. You're right that censorship is certainly justified in many contexts. But the article quoted a founder of the EFF in its clear bias towards more.
  - mahranch 11y ago
    I think it depends on the context. If I'm a mod on reddit and I remove a submission because it's a clear rule breaker, am I censoring the person who posted it, or am I performing content curation? Which is the more accurate term to use? It might be technically correct to call water a 'clear liquid', but isn't there a better term or name to use, a more accurate and descriptive term to use? A clear liquid can also refer to vodka or rubbing alcohol or even many types of acids. Being clear and using the correct terms are important to the discussion. Overusing the word "Censorship" just because it might be technically correct dilutes the word's meaning. Especially since what's happening most of the time is content curation.
- mwfunk 11y ago
  I'm really curious how these people are going to feel about themselves in 10-20 years when (hopefully) many of them realize how they're coming across to the non-feral, socialized bulk of humanity. Even into my 20s I thought and said some things that just horrify me now. This was back in the '80s and early '90s, so fortunately none of it's on permanent record the way things are now. I'd like to think I wasn't a bad person, just a product of my environment, but I cringe just thinking about it sometimes.
mingus68040 11y ago
This article was exactly on point. If you think this is off-base then you've been living in a reddit filter bubble; the dialogue there is skewed toward outright slander and misogyny from the most juvenile perspective.
- leereeves 11y ago
  And how does that relate to the complaints from the moderators of IAmA, Science, etc? Are you calling them juvenile and misogynist too?
  - mingus68040 11y ago
    Insofar as they went along with the overall thrust of the "blackout", yes; that is support of a mysoginist agenda. However /r/science tried to sit on the fence by claiming they had to make their subreddit private due to its frequent collaboration with /r/IAma -- a reason which was nonsensical. None of this began until Reddit's administration indicated its intention to begin banning certain subreddits. The mindless culture of harassment and hate which has festered on reddit over the last couple of years couldn't tolerate a woman of color being behind this perceived attack on their majority-young-white-male "freedom". It's a joke to think that any of this would have happened with a white male as CEO.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - nbouscal 11y ago
      How about an older white male, from a business background, who was openly trying to institute censorship and monetization and was unabashedly ignorant of Reddit culture? I'm fairly confident that a CEO like that would have been significantly more hated by Redditors. The issue wasn't race or gender, it was culture.
      - TorKlingberg 11y ago
        The hate for Ellen Pao on Reddit seemed to start with her gender discrimination lawsuit. Also what monetization?
bobbyi_settv 11y ago
It seems kind of self-defeating to wish that news outlets would avoid mentioning one of the most noteworthy parts of a story because having it in the open may somehow hurt "freedom of speech".
- rory096 11y ago
  Mention, sure. Highlight, sure. But this is the top article on a CEO's departure and it doesn't even mention the trigger incident until the 5th paragraph, below the second picture. It says nothing about /r/fatpeoplehate, even though that would support its argument that the internet is 'cruel' (though not that it's sexist). It solely tries make Ellen Pao into a martyr for anti-sexism in SV. And don't get me wrong, the nasty behavior on reddit probably warrants an article. I'd argue that the prescription shouldn't be to hide people's behavior through censorship but to change it, whether by convincing them to self-censor or better changing people's minds, which I think sama did well in his announcement. But as a summary overview of why Reddit has a new CEO, this article failed miserably.
  - toufka 11y ago
    Further, it might be burying the trigger precisely because the trigger itself (firing of Victoria) runs against the tone of the (new) article. The whole reason reddit went into lockdown mode was because one of their most beloved employees (who happens to be a woman) was fired. The uproar didn't happen because people were generically upset with Ms. Pao, but because they were passionately upset with how she handled the dismissal a person reddit loved.
    - jolux 11y ago
      Almost no company will say why they fire someone. reddit is not unique in that regard. Personnel retention is a private concern, regardless of how it makes the community feel.
      - makomk 11y ago
        It's not just that they didn't mention why they fired her, it's that they didn't seem to have any plan in place to handle the work that she did, or indeed enough clue about her job to understand that they even needed one. If I remember correctly, one celebrity literally flew out to New York to do an AMA with her assistance and found when he got there that she'd been fired and it wasn't going ahead, and the admins didn't handle the other future AMAs that were relying on her any better.
gambler 11y ago
Yeah, it's a pretty good example of what has become of news reporting. It has an instance of almost every common issue, except misinterpreting statistics. Emotionally loaded language. Blatant fact framing. Suppositions. Presenting one side of a controversial issue as an opinion of absolute majority. Manufacturing "context" out of true, but mostly unrelated facts. It's especially striking in contrast to the original, reasonably balanced, text. Sort of like "before" and "after" pictures.
- tptacek 11y ago
  Here is a breakdown of the article, helpfully numbered by paragraph. https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=9870891 https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=9870891 Here is the actual article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/technology/ellen-pao-reddit-chief-executive-resignation.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/technology/ellen-pao-reddi... My challenge to you: Either (1) tell me which of those paragraph summaries is inaccurate, and how the accurate summary would reveal "suppositions" and "manufactured context", or (2) tell me which of those paragraph summaries directly implicates either of those two things. Again, you made a list of things that bother you about news stories, but also affirmatively claimed that the article printed suppositions and manufactured context, so I'd like to see if you can back those two specific arguments up with evidence. Thanks!
  - gambler 11y ago
    I'm going to ignore your implication that other problems I mentioned are unimportant. Supposition: "If she eventually succeeds in convincing a three-judge panel that the trial was unfair" Aren't news supposed to be about what happened, not about what might happen if something else happens? I could understand if the story was about the trial, but it isn't. Which brings me to the manufactured context part. The story is about resignation from Reddit. I understand that sometimes you need to provide more information about the subject so your reader fully understands what's going on. However, information about the lawsuit against an entirely different company under different circumstances does nothing of this sort. The only seeming reason it's included (and takes almost half the space) is because it supports meta-narrative NYT chose to pursue.
tptacek 11y ago
Why is it bad? Because you don't like Mitch Kapor? Seriously asking.
- cma 11y ago
  Just guessing, but it could be because he runs a competitor to Kleiner Perkins, who were tarred in the updated peice.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    Kapor isn't quoted about the Pao lawsuit. He's quoted about the demographics of Reddit and the virulence of misogyny on Reddit. The conflict of interest in that seems six- degrees- of- Kevin- Rose to me.
- rory096 11y ago
  Do you think Kapor really supports additional censorship on reddit? My issue isn't with what he said in his quote. It's that the Times changed their well-balanced piece into one that implies the crappy parts of reddit need to be brought under 'control' and quoted a sentence from Kapor that lends support. I may be wrong (and to be honest I don't personally know much about Mitch), but I'd be surprised if a founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation feels that reddit should be more restrictive on speech it hasn't moderated to this point. While his quote doesn't directly say he supports more censorship by any means, including it in the context of that article misconstrues his (probable) beliefs.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    If you're going to make an argument that this piece is "pro-censorship", you're going to have to support it with evidence from the text. I just took the time to reread it, and I do not see support for censorship in it.
    - rory096 11y ago
      I'd specifically point to the Hero vs Angry Mob motif and the quote "bullying, harrassment[sic] and ugly behavior are out of control on the web," which implies that they must be brought under control. Obviously within the context of the overall spin towards sexism as the sole cause we discussed over there -> (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9871281 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9871281)

by rory096 11y ago

notcensorship 11y ago

It is not censorship to say that a private entity has the right to choose who gets kicked out of their dinner party. I keep hoping that somebody will write about the difference between censorship and private parties choosing not to support and/or tolerate certain behaviors. It shouldn't be necessary, but there's a generation of people so incredibly entitled and so incredibly insane that they actually need a primer on reality.

rory096 11y ago
Sure it is. It's just not freedom of speech. > Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
- notcensorship 11y ago
  It's incredibly disingenuous to claim that having some guidelines on a private forum (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html) counts as "Internet Censorship". You are actively supporting hatred by making that argument. It is not censorship or suppression of speech to tell a bigot that they can no longer borrow your megaphone. The bigot remains free to buy, build, or borrow another megaphone, a fact demonstrated clearly by the rise of voat. It is morally reprehensible to argue that taking away a privately owned megaphone is equivalent to censorship. It diminishes the meaning of the word, and boils it down to nothing. You should be ashamed of yourself for making such a truly insane and asinine argument. edit: rory is lying when he claims that the original draft was just me calling him out. I know, I know... it's shocking that somebody who thinks that conde needs to actively support hate speech is a lair, but he is. edit2: rory, it is BATSHIT FUCKING INSANE that you think that a private entity has some sort of duty to provide their megaphone to any bigot for any purpose. edit3: rory, you are one of the most entitled human beings on the planet. Reddit owes you nothing. edit4: i was stuck with editing existing posts because I'm banned from making new posts, and I respect HN enough not to work around their rules.
  - rory096 11y ago
    Let me be clear. I do not support the offensive behavior on reddit. I just think censorship and moderation is not an effective or desirable solution.
    - DanBC 11y ago
      The only good bits of Reddit are heavily censored by reddit users, not admins. Admins have not censored unpleasant subs; admins have removed subs that engaged in active harassment of people in other subs, in other forums, or AFK. EDIT: also, parent comment being downvoted and flagged is ironic.
      - rory096 11y ago
        Sure, but the article is talking about the stuff on reddit that wasn't removed. Doesn't calling it "out of control" imply a desire to start controlling it? (grandparent was edited after flag, even more ironically by a mod I think) EDIT: In fact, let's all just take a second to appreciate the irony here. A guy made a throwaway account, called me an idiot, and (lamely) doxxed me – all in order to argue for restricting lowbrow content on internet forums. Love it.
    - rory096 11y ago
      Now that it's edited to somewhat more than just calling me out personally (and yes I'm a white guy, I currently live in Virginia and my startup is linked on my profile), there's a couple points to respond to. (I'd argue that your post just underwent self- or moderator censorship, of the justified sort.) > It's incredibly disingenuous to claim that having some guidelines on a private forum (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html) counts as "Internet Censorship". > You are actively supporting hatred by making that argument. > It is not censorship or suppression of speech to tell a bigot that they can no longer borrow your megaphone. The bigot remains free to buy, build, or borrow another megaphone, a fact demonstrated clearly by the rise of voat. > It is morally reprehensible to argue that taking away a privately owned megaphone is equivalent to censorship. It diminishes the meaning of the word, and boils it down to nothing. You should be ashamed of yourself for making such a truly insane and asinine argument. Let's call a spade a spade. It's absolutely censorship by the definition of the word. You believe it's justified censorship. "It" is somewhat unclear - but let's call it moderation beyond what is currently exercised by reddit, in order to remove the unpleasant content we saw in the wake of the FPH and Victoria incidents and is excoriated by this article. I argue against it for precisely the same reason you think it's justified. The range of human opinion on every topic is incredibly broad. That means that there's a tiny minority of people who hold truly outrageous and objectionable views. If you simply hide those people with deletions and shadowbans, you relegate them to their tiny corner of the internet where they're free to reinforce each other's insane ideals. One of the greatest things about reddit is that though it's divided into subreddits, it's one big place - and any given user's reddit lineup will have slightly different posts than another's, whether cat photos or racism. That means you get cross-pollination (or -contamination), which offers a chance to change those people's minds. Yes, the crazies will show up in big community threads. But that means the sanes get a chance to teach them why they're wrong, whether by shaming them like sama, convincing them with reasoned argument (lol), or just downvoting them into oblivion and sending some irrational flames back (your choice!). When you destroy the centrality of reddit, even if by cutting out really bad stuff, you encourage the sharding of the web into isolated echo chambers. EDIT: No, I think you're absolutely right that reddit has zero obligation to allow any content. I'm merely arguing that though the content may be reprehensible and censorship is legal and even justifiable, it would not improve reddit to remove it.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - rory096 11y ago
    I disagree. Even flagging notcensorship's personal attack (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9870590 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9870590) is a form of censorship. It's certainly not First Amendment protected, and you're absolutely correct that he retains the right to call me out anywhere else on the internet (or world). It might even be morally justifiable. But that doesn't mean it's not censorship. Wikipedia adds: > Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship. When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of their own works or speech, it is called self-censorship. Censorship may be direct or it may be indirect, in which case it is called soft censorship. It occurs in a variety of different media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of claimed reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children or other vulnerable groups, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel. > Direct censorship may or may not be legal, depending on the type, place, and content. Many countries provide strong protections against censorship by law, but none of these protections are absolute and frequently a claim of necessity to balance conflicting rights is made, in order to determine what can and cannot be censored. There are no laws against self-censorship.
shredprez 11y ago
>It shouldn't be necessary, but there's a generation of people so incredibly entitled and so incredibly insane that they actually need a primer on reality. We best get used to it, the baby boomers will be with us for a while.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jsprogrammer 11y ago
How is intentionally suppressing speech that you don't like, not censorship? It would seem to be the very definition of censorship.
- arrrg 11y ago
  … but that comment is then written as though every form of censorship is obviously immoral and bad which is self-evidently not true using this definition of censorship. Because according to this definition what an editor at a newspaper engages in is censorship - and no one takes issue with that. It is an self evidently reasonable position to like or even love that kind of censorship – but the comment writes about it as though any endorsement of this kind of censorship were self-evidently evil, something not many people will agree with. You can use this definition of censorship – but then also know that liking or loving censorship in certain situation is also quite reasonable. I want my censors to be fierce and awesome! I want to, after all, read a newspaper worth reading. And why not also moderate much more heavily at Reddit? Is that somehow evil? I think it would be awesome.
  - rory096 11y ago
    I mostly intended my comment to be a shot at the Times' shoddy reporting on this one. You're right that censorship is certainly justified in many contexts. But the article quoted a founder of the EFF in its clear bias towards more.
- mahranch 11y ago
  I think it depends on the context. If I'm a mod on reddit and I remove a submission because it's a clear rule breaker, am I censoring the person who posted it, or am I performing content curation? Which is the more accurate term to use? It might be technically correct to call water a 'clear liquid', but isn't there a better term or name to use, a more accurate and descriptive term to use? A clear liquid can also refer to vodka or rubbing alcohol or even many types of acids. Being clear and using the correct terms are important to the discussion. Overusing the word "Censorship" just because it might be technically correct dilutes the word's meaning. Especially since what's happening most of the time is content curation.
mwfunk 11y ago
I'm really curious how these people are going to feel about themselves in 10-20 years when (hopefully) many of them realize how they're coming across to the non-feral, socialized bulk of humanity. Even into my 20s I thought and said some things that just horrify me now. This was back in the '80s and early '90s, so fortunately none of it's on permanent record the way things are now. I'd like to think I wasn't a bad person, just a product of my environment, but I cringe just thinking about it sometimes.

mingus68040 11y ago

This article was exactly on point. If you think this is off-base then you've been living in a reddit filter bubble; the dialogue there is skewed toward outright slander and misogyny from the most juvenile perspective.

leereeves 11y ago
And how does that relate to the complaints from the moderators of IAmA, Science, etc? Are you calling them juvenile and misogynist too?
- mingus68040 11y ago
  Insofar as they went along with the overall thrust of the "blackout", yes; that is support of a mysoginist agenda. However /r/science tried to sit on the fence by claiming they had to make their subreddit private due to its frequent collaboration with /r/IAma -- a reason which was nonsensical. None of this began until Reddit's administration indicated its intention to begin banning certain subreddits. The mindless culture of harassment and hate which has festered on reddit over the last couple of years couldn't tolerate a woman of color being behind this perceived attack on their majority-young-white-male "freedom". It's a joke to think that any of this would have happened with a white male as CEO.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - nbouscal 11y ago
    How about an older white male, from a business background, who was openly trying to institute censorship and monetization and was unabashedly ignorant of Reddit culture? I'm fairly confident that a CEO like that would have been significantly more hated by Redditors. The issue wasn't race or gender, it was culture.
    - TorKlingberg 11y ago
      The hate for Ellen Pao on Reddit seemed to start with her gender discrimination lawsuit. Also what monetization?

bobbyi_settv 11y ago

It seems kind of self-defeating to wish that news outlets would avoid mentioning one of the most noteworthy parts of a story because having it in the open may somehow hurt "freedom of speech".

rory096 11y ago
Mention, sure. Highlight, sure. But this is the top article on a CEO's departure and it doesn't even mention the trigger incident until the 5th paragraph, below the second picture. It says nothing about /r/fatpeoplehate, even though that would support its argument that the internet is 'cruel' (though not that it's sexist). It solely tries make Ellen Pao into a martyr for anti-sexism in SV. And don't get me wrong, the nasty behavior on reddit probably warrants an article. I'd argue that the prescription shouldn't be to hide people's behavior through censorship but to change it, whether by convincing them to self-censor or better changing people's minds, which I think sama did well in his announcement. But as a summary overview of why Reddit has a new CEO, this article failed miserably.
- toufka 11y ago
  Further, it might be burying the trigger precisely because the trigger itself (firing of Victoria) runs against the tone of the (new) article. The whole reason reddit went into lockdown mode was because one of their most beloved employees (who happens to be a woman) was fired. The uproar didn't happen because people were generically upset with Ms. Pao, but because they were passionately upset with how she handled the dismissal a person reddit loved.
  - jolux 11y ago
    Almost no company will say why they fire someone. reddit is not unique in that regard. Personnel retention is a private concern, regardless of how it makes the community feel.
    - makomk 11y ago
      It's not just that they didn't mention why they fired her, it's that they didn't seem to have any plan in place to handle the work that she did, or indeed enough clue about her job to understand that they even needed one. If I remember correctly, one celebrity literally flew out to New York to do an AMA with her assistance and found when he got there that she'd been fired and it wasn't going ahead, and the admins didn't handle the other future AMAs that were relying on her any better.

gambler 11y ago

Yeah, it's a pretty good example of what has become of news reporting. It has an instance of almost every common issue, except misinterpreting statistics. Emotionally loaded language. Blatant fact framing. Suppositions. Presenting one side of a controversial issue as an opinion of absolute majority. Manufacturing "context" out of true, but mostly unrelated facts. It's especially striking in contrast to the original, reasonably balanced, text. Sort of like "before" and "after" pictures.

tptacek 11y ago
Here is a breakdown of the article, helpfully numbered by paragraph. https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=9870891 https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=9870891 Here is the actual article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/technology/ellen-pao-reddit-chief-executive-resignation.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/technology/ellen-pao-reddi... My challenge to you: Either (1) tell me which of those paragraph summaries is inaccurate, and how the accurate summary would reveal "suppositions" and "manufactured context", or (2) tell me which of those paragraph summaries directly implicates either of those two things. Again, you made a list of things that bother you about news stories, but also affirmatively claimed that the article printed suppositions and manufactured context, so I'd like to see if you can back those two specific arguments up with evidence. Thanks!
- gambler 11y ago
  I'm going to ignore your implication that other problems I mentioned are unimportant. Supposition: "If she eventually succeeds in convincing a three-judge panel that the trial was unfair" Aren't news supposed to be about what happened, not about what might happen if something else happens? I could understand if the story was about the trial, but it isn't. Which brings me to the manufactured context part. The story is about resignation from Reddit. I understand that sometimes you need to provide more information about the subject so your reader fully understands what's going on. However, information about the lawsuit against an entirely different company under different circumstances does nothing of this sort. The only seeming reason it's included (and takes almost half the space) is because it supports meta-narrative NYT chose to pursue.

tptacek 11y ago

Why is it bad? Because you don't like Mitch Kapor? Seriously asking.

cma 11y ago
Just guessing, but it could be because he runs a competitor to Kleiner Perkins, who were tarred in the updated peice.
- tptacek 11y ago
  Kapor isn't quoted about the Pao lawsuit. He's quoted about the demographics of Reddit and the virulence of misogyny on Reddit. The conflict of interest in that seems six- degrees- of- Kevin- Rose to me.
rory096 11y ago
Do you think Kapor really supports additional censorship on reddit? My issue isn't with what he said in his quote. It's that the Times changed their well-balanced piece into one that implies the crappy parts of reddit need to be brought under 'control' and quoted a sentence from Kapor that lends support. I may be wrong (and to be honest I don't personally know much about Mitch), but I'd be surprised if a founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation feels that reddit should be more restrictive on speech it hasn't moderated to this point. While his quote doesn't directly say he supports more censorship by any means, including it in the context of that article misconstrues his (probable) beliefs.
- tptacek 11y ago
  If you're going to make an argument that this piece is "pro-censorship", you're going to have to support it with evidence from the text. I just took the time to reread it, and I do not see support for censorship in it.
  - rory096 11y ago
    I'd specifically point to the Hero vs Angry Mob motif and the quote "bullying, harrassment[sic] and ugly behavior are out of control on the web," which implies that they must be brought under control. Obviously within the context of the overall spin towards sexism as the sole cause we discussed over there -> (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9871281 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9871281)