Live data from Hacker News

PG on trolls

paulgraham.com

111–120 of 190 posts

Re: PG on trolls

#111
post #109
post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah go ahead.

To any disagreeable people reading this: please bear in mind that if you say the following ideas are incorrect, and that therefore I am incorrect to say morality can be approached objectively ... you will be contradicting yourself, because you will have made an assertion about the objective truth of the matter (that I am, in fact, mistaken). So some good goals, in my opinion: Long term: open-ended knowledge creation…

> you will be contradicting yourself, because you will have made an assertion about the objective truth of the matter

...unless I assert that morality is subjective. :-)

As for the rest of it ... well, I do disagree. I think Guy Kawasaki outlined it best in his book, "Rules for Revolutionaries". It has a section titled, if I remember correctly, "Don't let bozosity get you down".

A certain amount of criticism that a person will encounter will be, well, wrong. It can even be wrong when it's coming from an expert. You see this all the time in the business world. I can't tell here if you're suggesting that a person take all criticism to heart -- I think so, because of the way you talk about changing to adapt to criticism -- but, if you are, then you're suggesting that a person allow themselves to be buffeted by the winds of the popular and the trendy.

There's no way to always to always be correct, to always do the right thing. You might listen to a bunch of criticism, and a bunch of suggestions, and still make the wrong decision for all the right reasons. Listening to more criticism, and allowing that criticism to further change your habits, doesn't necessarily ameliorate that.

I counter that it's important to know when to accept criticism, and when to ignore it and forge ahead. I also posit that it's impossible to know that, so you just have to make your best guess.

Re: PG on trolls

#112
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To any disagreeable people reading this: please bear in mind that if you say the following ideas are incorrect, and that therefore I am incorrect to say morality can be approached objectively ... you will be contradicting yourself, because you will have made an assertion about the objective truth of the matter (that I am, in fact, mistaken). So some good goals, in my opinion: Long term: open-ended knowledge creation…

> you will be contradicting yourself, because you will have made an assertion about the objective truth of the matter ...unless I assert that morality is subjective. :-) As for the rest of it ... well, I do disagree. I think Guy Kawasaki outlined it best in his book, "Rules for Revolutionaries". It has a section titled, if I remember correctly, "Don't let bozosity get you down". A certain amount of criticism that a p…

Regarding subjectivity, if you assert morality is subjective, you don't have a leg to stand on in saying I was wrong. What would that even mean? I was right, for me, or whatever.

Regarding "forging ahead": Scheduling criticism is a different issue, and one well known to writers: if you keep editing the first chapter, you'll never finish. There certainly is a place for that kind of thing. It is really a separate (and large) issue.

-----

Of course you have to use your judgment about which criticism you think is correct. The point is not to dislike criticism generally, or to ignore it. Doing those things makes it harder to find and use good criticism.

To use a YC example, some people have posted here asking for comments and criticism for their fledgling startup. And people have blogged about how this criticism was harsh and hard to take, but made their startup better, so they encourage others to ask for comments/criticism as well.

This illustrates a few different attitudes. There are some people who are too scared of criticism to ask for any. Their startups won't get the improvement that some more bold or open minded people have gotten.

And then of the people who did ask for criticism, many still partially dislike it, which makes it harder to fairly evaluate the criticism (finding it somewhat painful is distracting!), and their distaste makes them overlook some other, more subtle opportunities to get more criticism, that a person who loves criticism would have found.

So this is an important and relevant issue even at an exceptionally enlightened place. There is no magic formula to always make correct decisions, but there are ways of life which are more effective and reliable.

Re: PG on trolls

#113
post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you will be contradicting yourself, because you will have made an assertion about the objective truth of the matter ...unless I assert that morality is subjective. :-) As for the rest of it ... well, I do disagree. I think Guy Kawasaki outlined it best in his book, "Rules for Revolutionaries". It has a section titled, if I remember correctly, "Don't let bozosity get you down". A certain amount of criticism that a p…

Regarding subjectivity, if you assert morality is subjective, you don't have a leg to stand on in saying I was wrong. What would that even mean? I was right, for me, or whatever. Regarding "forging ahead": Scheduling criticism is a different issue, and one well known to writers: if you keep editing the first chapter, you'll never finish. There certainly is a place for that kind of thing. It is really a separate (and…

> Regarding subjectivity, if you assert morality is subjective, you don't have a leg to stand on in saying I was wrong.

Well, subjectivity doesn't mean you're right in the objective sense. See, you opened your comment with a logical trick to prove the correctness of what you were about to say before you even said it, and you did so by deciding that there are intrinsically right and wrong moral decisions. I think that morality, specifically, happens to be an extremely subjective thing, first of all. It varies dramatically from culture to culture, society to society, era to era. Secondly, I think that was kind of an underhanded thing to do, and a friendly jest was my way of calling you on it. If I were to pull an equally underhanded trick, I might say that my reply is in fact a criticism of your thinking, and, according to your own principles, you must take it under consideration and use it to change the way you act.

> The point is not to dislike criticism generally, or to ignore it.

This part I like. It makes me really want to agree with what you're trying to say. But, then you go from that, to things like, "...more subtle opportunities to get more criticism, that a person who loves criticism would have found." I have a problem with that, because I think of criticism as a distraction that is sometimes an opportunity. To really love criticism is to dwell on what will ultimately be a distraction.

I really wish I could find my copy of Rules for Revolutionaries. (I really dig that book, and it was signed! Sometimes I loan it out ... rats.) It cited some specific examples of this, sometimes where businesses had too closely followed criticism and been hurt by that, and others where they hadn't followed it, and benefited from that.

So, it's not just scheduling criticism. In the book writing example, sometimes you have to know when to ignore your editor altogether.

Re: PG on trolls

#115
post #87
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favorite (upmodded 26 points as of 9pst): Regarding News.YC: "Your ancient ritual has summoned me to News.YC so those tight-assed holier-than-thou fucktards can be shown the error of their ways. Maybe the reason there aren't trolls is because NOBODY FUCKING VISITS THEIR SHITTY SITE."-- terwin, Reddit

THIS IS A GREAT SITE!!!! but it's got some kind of anti-troll field protecting it. The most perfect trolling oppertunities always seem to degenerate into civilized rational discussion.

I think what Paul said about "Hacker News readers feel about trolls the way exiles from Cuba or Eastern Europe feel about dictators" is right on the money. sic semper tyrannis

It's actually rather amazing that we are fairly unanimous in down-modding trollishness, without having community guidelines or a big discussion about it.

Re: PG on trolls

#116

I wonder if trolls can be categorized automatically. Caveats and all, trolls are characterized by their participation in negative-karma two-person conversations and down-voting of their comments by a diverse and changing set of users. A simple learning algorithm should zap the predictable ones. Trolls are nourished by attention and early detection and removal should nip that behavior in the bud.

I think the hardest problem with that approach would be avoiding a false-positive of detecting people who hold controversial opinions as trolls.

The moderation graph between users and comments would be really interesting. There's a lot of information in there to be mined.

Re: PG on trolls

#117
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've thought a lot about that. I wouldn't be surprised if current spam filters would work unchanged. There are not enough trolls on News.YC to make it worth investing time in such countermeasures, but it would be an interesting experiment to see if you could use statistical filtering techniques to detect trolls in some large public corpus like Digg or Reddit or Slashdot comment threads.

I don't think that would work; you would essentially require a filter that could actually understand the subject matter, in order to determine whether the purpose of the stated opinion was to bait people's responses. For example: "I've thought a lot about that. I would be surprised if current spam filters could work unchanged. There are not enough trolls on News.YC to make it worth investing time in trying to write i…

Not necessarily.

Spam filters routinely filter out emails based on a common set of words that are used without understanding the subject matter. For example, if an email contains the words viagara and store, the probability of that email being spam go up tremendously. Paul's "A plan for Spam" essay explains a lot more. And, from what I understand, Bayesian filtering is at the root of most spam blockers out there.

I'd be willing to wager that Bayesian filtering would be pretty powerful in filtering out trolls on social sites, as well. For example, if a post contains the words "asshole" and "fucktard" the probability of that post coming from a troll goes up exponentially.

If you trained a Bayesian filter, or spam algorithm well enough, it should be able to flag trollish posts fairly easily.

Re: PG on trolls

#118
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

THIS IS A GREAT SITE!!!! but it's got some kind of anti-troll field protecting it. The most perfect trolling oppertunities always seem to degenerate into civilized rational discussion.

I think what Paul said about "Hacker News readers feel about trolls the way exiles from Cuba or Eastern Europe feel about dictators" is right on the money. sic semper tyrannis It's actually rather amazing that we are fairly unanimous in down-modding trollishness, without having community guidelines or a big discussion about it.

...as of yet. I won't rest easy until Hacker News has 10 million visitors a day and the comments and stories still work out. Which I doubt they will with that many users.

Re: PG on trolls

#119
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish I had more votes to downmod you into prominence! J/k, I upmodded (for agreement)

Heh, it'd be funny to have the most negative karma on YC. The only reason I care about karma is cuz I want to change my header's color. Only 15 more points to go! Once there, I'll stick a post on the front page and get downmodded into oblivion.

I can't downmod stories? Not that I ever have too... It's easy enough to post a comments explaining why you don't agree with a story than to downmod it.

And that's where I take my queue for comments. If I agree/ laugh/ enjoy a comment I upmod it. If I don't agree I leave it. If the guy is trolling I downmod it.

Re: PG on trolls

#120
>One might worry this would prevent people from expressing controversial ideas, but empirically that doesn't seem to be what happens. When people say something substantial that gets modded down, they stubbornly leave it up. What people delete are wisecracks, because they have less invested in them.

How would you know? How would you know it does not stiffle unpopular opinions?

I think that I would personally practice self-censoring if I would lose karma by expressing unpopular opinions that are likely to be down-voted. I know that I already do on reddit, and there the down-votes are at least only temporary.

Not wanting to lose karma may seem a foolish reason for not expressing your opinions, and at first I din't mind. I kept writing my unpopular opinions on reddit, the down-votes made me put even more effort into them so that they would be above approach. But they' still only get a handful of points whereas one-liners expressing the popular opinion would get much more. So eventually I gave up.

Now I mostly just read a couple of stories a day, and occassionally write the one-liner comment.

As a final comment, I've always been disgusting by the way that people on reddit would constantly compare themselves, always favorable, to their bigger, would-be rival: Digg. Now you do the same thing towards reddit, and I can only shake my head in disgust. Learn to value your site in itself, not as the compare to other sites. It does not need to be a competition.

Post reply on HN