5 ms·

No, it's absolutely not out of line. Gaslighting, astroturfing, and worse are real things that happen on the internet. Note that I never said shill, though I wo

No, it's absolutely not out of line. Gaslighting, astroturfing, and worse are real things that happen on the internet. Note that I never said shill, though I would if I saw evidence that warranted it. I simply pointed out a relevant post from the commenter's history. If you'll note, I think that engi_nerd and I achieved an amicable understanding of each other at about the same time you were posting your comment.

dang 11y ago
> it's absolutely not out of line It's my job to draw the line. > I never said shill My comment was addressed to the three of you. [I deleted an unfair bit here.] > Gaslighting, astroturfing, and worse are real things that happen on the internet Yes, I spend my days combating those things on HN and my evenings writing code to combat them on HN. Something else that's real on the internet, and poisonous, is commenters groundlessly accusing each other of those things, or insinuating them. That affects civil discourse the way salt affects a slug. We're not letting it become a thing here. See https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix=true&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment&query=by:dang%20astroturfing https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix=true&page=0&dateR... for countless further explanations. Anyone with genuine concerns about astroturfing on HN should email them to us at hn@ycombinator.com. We promise to take them seriously. We also promise to look for evidence. > engi_nerd and I achieved an amicable understanding of each other I hope so. I don't believe anyone meant harm or even did anything very harmful, but we've learned that places like HN are vulnerable to tragedies of the commons: small, unintentional slips add up to systemic toxicity. That's the default, so there has to be a countervailing vector. Also, the ganging-up-on spirit that was emerging there was dismaying.
- enraged_camel 11y ago
  >>Indeed, I spend my days combating those things on HN and my evenings writing code to combat them on HN. >>Something else that's real on the internet, and poisonous, is commenters groundlessly accusing each other of those things, or insinuating them. But you haven't demonstrated why engi_nerd is not gaslighting and astroturfing. No one is denying that he has experience that's relevant to the topic. What people have an issue with is that he has repeatedly defended major shortcomings in the design of the craft with shoddy reasoning such as "oh, guns won't come into play in most combat scenarios, so it's OK for the guns on the F-35 to not work." If that's the type of low-quality discourse you want on HN, fine. We'll stop pointing it out. But accusing us of unreasonably calling him out is pretty shitty.
  - dang 11y ago
    > But you haven't demonstrated why engi_nerd is not gaslighting and astroturfing. That's not where the burden of proof lies. You can't accuse someone of these things on HN without evidence. An opposing opinion is not evidence. It's true that working on something professionally biases one. But (a) we're all subject to that, and (b) distance from a situation has biases too. It's a foul to invoke these things as personal weapons, and we intervene when people do it because it tears the fabric of the community. If what someone says is wrong, refute it. If you're right, you should be able to demonstrate it civilly.
    - enraged_camel 11y ago
      >>If what someone says is wrong, refute it. If you're right, you should be able to demonstrate it civilly. That's what I'm saying: it's not about being right or wrong. Engi_nerd has responded to every criticism thrown at the F-35 by using shoddy reasoning and hand-waving, such as "The F-35 is a complex answer to a complex question, and it cannot be so simply understood." I mean, seriously? That sounds like something a politician would say. Or a company spokesperson. So of course everyone got the impression that he has an ulterior motive. Anyway, I'm going to stop here, but I want to say that I'm disappointed in the way you handled this. I hope you understand. Have a nice day.
      - dang 11y ago
        There might be a misunderstanding here. I'm not endorsing engi_nerd's arguments. I haven't properly read them. They may be just as you say. But even if they're that and worse, you can't commit the foul of accusing someone without evidence. This is a narrow, procedural point. It has nothing to do with anyone's shoddy arguments, let alone anyone's trillion-dollar fighter plane, but only with the HN community, which we all have to take care of. Making wrong and evasive arguments is bad, but destroying civil discourse (which such accusations do) is, to use a good military-industrial phrase, an existential threat. That's why we intervene when we see it.
        engi_nerd 11y ago
- engi_nerd 11y ago
  As I said earlier, dang, I am happy to reach out to you or someone else with HN and address any concerns you might have if you would like. All I wanted to do was discuss an area I have professional expertise in. It's a niche area so I don't get to discuss it much...
  - dang 11y ago
    Thank you; I don't think it's necessary. Your comments have been civil and substantive and interesting. We very much want people who work in a given area to be discussing their area on HN. It raises the quality of the threads, often dramatically. (I don't know who's right about the F-35, and haven't even read the comments from that angle. My point is procedural: debates here must stay factual and not go personal.)
    - engi_nerd 11y ago
      I believe it is probably like most things in this world. It is far better than its most virulent critics would have you believe, and probably worse than its most ardent defenders would have you believe. The truth is somewhere in the murky middle.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  It's my job to draw the line. Yeah well umm... Fair enough, you got me dead to rights on that one. >You tried to dig up dirt on someone from their history. Not that it was dirt, I was looking to see if the poster ever had anything to say about any other topic. It wasn't dirt, it was a fact. It was the poster's own words. Words to the effect that they are employed in aerospace, which was disclosed elsewhere ITT, and was directly responsive to the parent, and isn't worth concealing in any case. >but the intent to use it personally makes it so. Now you're being unfair to me. It's not personal. Authentication and trust are hard in a plain ASCII message board, even harder in Unicode; it's just a condition of discussion boards. Think of it as diligence. >Indeed, I spend my days combating Gratzi, and bless you for it. (in the non-theistic sense, or by a deity of your choosing). >I don't believe anyone meant harm or even did anything very harmful... No, and you're right. I am grateful to have smart people to argue with, and grateful that this place isn't a wasteland. >There has to be a countervailing role, and for the time being that's me. Thanks for reaching out instead of reaching for the banhammer & enjoy your weekend.
  - dang 11y ago
    > Now you're being unfair to me. In that case, I'm sorry. I wasn't happy with how I worded that bit, and I've deleted it from my comment. I don't agree with you about diligence, though. There's something not right about searching through someone's personal or posting history for ammunition in an argument. It seems to me a foul in the local sport. But I don't yet know how to express this precisely.
    - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
      No worries. This is the first time I've interacted with you, and I don't completely agree with everything you've said, but I do think you've been completely fair. I don't mind if you're a bit more pre-emptory than I might have been if it keeps the knives put away in these threads. >There's something not right about searching through someone's history But those are things that the person posted publicly. Why is there anything untoward about browsing a person's public comment history (for relevant posts)? What else is it there for? They can and should delete it if they don't want it to remain. Sometimes a quick check of a comment history is all that's needed to see a pretty consistent bias (or other problems). I'm talking about really obvious stuff. It's a reddit reflex, and not all that useful here compared to there.

dang 11y ago

> it's absolutely not out of line It's my job to draw the line. > I never said shill My comment was addressed to the three of you. [I deleted an unfair bit here.] > Gaslighting, astroturfing, and worse are real things that happen on the internet Yes, I spend my days combating those things on HN and my evenings writing code to combat them on HN. Something else that's real on the internet, and poisonous, is commenters groundlessly accusing each other of those things, or insinuating them. That affects civil discourse the way salt affects a slug. We're not letting it become a thing here. See https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix=true&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment&query=by:dang%20astroturfing https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix=true&page=0&dateR... for countless further explanations. Anyone with genuine concerns about astroturfing on HN should email them to us at hn@ycombinator.com. We promise to take them seriously. We also promise to look for evidence. > engi_nerd and I achieved an amicable understanding of each other I hope so. I don't believe anyone meant harm or even did anything very harmful, but we've learned that places like HN are vulnerable to tragedies of the commons: small, unintentional slips add up to systemic toxicity. That's the default, so there has to be a countervailing vector. Also, the ganging-up-on spirit that was emerging there was dismaying.

enraged_camel 11y ago
>>Indeed, I spend my days combating those things on HN and my evenings writing code to combat them on HN. >>Something else that's real on the internet, and poisonous, is commenters groundlessly accusing each other of those things, or insinuating them. But you haven't demonstrated why engi_nerd is not gaslighting and astroturfing. No one is denying that he has experience that's relevant to the topic. What people have an issue with is that he has repeatedly defended major shortcomings in the design of the craft with shoddy reasoning such as "oh, guns won't come into play in most combat scenarios, so it's OK for the guns on the F-35 to not work." If that's the type of low-quality discourse you want on HN, fine. We'll stop pointing it out. But accusing us of unreasonably calling him out is pretty shitty.
- dang 11y ago
  > But you haven't demonstrated why engi_nerd is not gaslighting and astroturfing. That's not where the burden of proof lies. You can't accuse someone of these things on HN without evidence. An opposing opinion is not evidence. It's true that working on something professionally biases one. But (a) we're all subject to that, and (b) distance from a situation has biases too. It's a foul to invoke these things as personal weapons, and we intervene when people do it because it tears the fabric of the community. If what someone says is wrong, refute it. If you're right, you should be able to demonstrate it civilly.
  - enraged_camel 11y ago
    >>If what someone says is wrong, refute it. If you're right, you should be able to demonstrate it civilly. That's what I'm saying: it's not about being right or wrong. Engi_nerd has responded to every criticism thrown at the F-35 by using shoddy reasoning and hand-waving, such as "The F-35 is a complex answer to a complex question, and it cannot be so simply understood." I mean, seriously? That sounds like something a politician would say. Or a company spokesperson. So of course everyone got the impression that he has an ulterior motive. Anyway, I'm going to stop here, but I want to say that I'm disappointed in the way you handled this. I hope you understand. Have a nice day.
    - dang 11y ago
      There might be a misunderstanding here. I'm not endorsing engi_nerd's arguments. I haven't properly read them. They may be just as you say. But even if they're that and worse, you can't commit the foul of accusing someone without evidence. This is a narrow, procedural point. It has nothing to do with anyone's shoddy arguments, let alone anyone's trillion-dollar fighter plane, but only with the HN community, which we all have to take care of. Making wrong and evasive arguments is bad, but destroying civil discourse (which such accusations do) is, to use a good military-industrial phrase, an existential threat. That's why we intervene when we see it.
      - engi_nerd 11y ago
engi_nerd 11y ago
As I said earlier, dang, I am happy to reach out to you or someone else with HN and address any concerns you might have if you would like. All I wanted to do was discuss an area I have professional expertise in. It's a niche area so I don't get to discuss it much...
- dang 11y ago
  Thank you; I don't think it's necessary. Your comments have been civil and substantive and interesting. We very much want people who work in a given area to be discussing their area on HN. It raises the quality of the threads, often dramatically. (I don't know who's right about the F-35, and haven't even read the comments from that angle. My point is procedural: debates here must stay factual and not go personal.)
  - engi_nerd 11y ago
    I believe it is probably like most things in this world. It is far better than its most virulent critics would have you believe, and probably worse than its most ardent defenders would have you believe. The truth is somewhere in the murky middle.
fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
It's my job to draw the line. Yeah well umm... Fair enough, you got me dead to rights on that one. >You tried to dig up dirt on someone from their history. Not that it was dirt, I was looking to see if the poster ever had anything to say about any other topic. It wasn't dirt, it was a fact. It was the poster's own words. Words to the effect that they are employed in aerospace, which was disclosed elsewhere ITT, and was directly responsive to the parent, and isn't worth concealing in any case. >but the intent to use it personally makes it so. Now you're being unfair to me. It's not personal. Authentication and trust are hard in a plain ASCII message board, even harder in Unicode; it's just a condition of discussion boards. Think of it as diligence. >Indeed, I spend my days combating Gratzi, and bless you for it. (in the non-theistic sense, or by a deity of your choosing). >I don't believe anyone meant harm or even did anything very harmful... No, and you're right. I am grateful to have smart people to argue with, and grateful that this place isn't a wasteland. >There has to be a countervailing role, and for the time being that's me. Thanks for reaching out instead of reaching for the banhammer & enjoy your weekend.
- dang 11y ago
  > Now you're being unfair to me. In that case, I'm sorry. I wasn't happy with how I worded that bit, and I've deleted it from my comment. I don't agree with you about diligence, though. There's something not right about searching through someone's personal or posting history for ammunition in an argument. It seems to me a foul in the local sport. But I don't yet know how to express this precisely.
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    No worries. This is the first time I've interacted with you, and I don't completely agree with everything you've said, but I do think you've been completely fair. I don't mind if you're a bit more pre-emptory than I might have been if it keeps the knives put away in these threads. >There's something not right about searching through someone's history But those are things that the person posted publicly. Why is there anything untoward about browsing a person's public comment history (for relevant posts)? What else is it there for? They can and should delete it if they don't want it to remain. Sometimes a quick check of a comment history is all that's needed to see a pretty consistent bias (or other problems). I'm talking about really obvious stuff. It's a reddit reflex, and not all that useful here compared to there.