Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stuff You Can't Say in Silicon Valley

elaineou.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 307 posts

Re: Stuff You Can't Say in Silicon Valley

#281

Post by cpitman »

angry_octet wrote: post #278
angry_octet wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When they are watching Fox they are not being silenced, they are being programmed. They start to believe they are being silenced, but their views are just being opposed and offended and that they are (at long last) being told that other people think their positions are discriminatory. And without the visible and palpable sense that their views are not mainstream any longer, what is their incentive to change?

Predictably, I've offended you and you've downvoted. I win.

No, that wasn't me. I think you are incorrect, though. Fox was only an example, this story was carried by most national outlets. And I've never met anyone who changes their mind because the majority is against them and is silencing them. It just brews resentments and causes people to dig in.

If people changed their minds just because everyone else disagrees with them loudly and violently, how would any previous social change have come about? New thoughts and perspectives always start as minority views. So majority consensus must not be enough to change someone's mind.

Also, this really isn't about winning. We're all losing right now.

Re: Stuff You Can't Say in Silicon Valley

#282

Post by asabjorn »

bostik wrote: post #251
asabjorn wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who decides what is the correct opinion and what is not? There is a reason why advanced societies are ruled by the rule of law and not the rule of the mob.

Since we're on the topic of questioning dogmas: is that the rule of law or the rules set by the biggest mob?

I don't see the analogy. In the rule of law you have a code of law, judges, juries and long deliberations. In criminal law the bar of evidence is preponderance of evidence, while in mob rule you need no evidence and you do not have to listen to both sides.

Re: Stuff You Can't Say in Silicon Valley

#283

Post by gkop »

dang wrote: post #242
gkop wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All of these are typical responses to articles with a large heat-to-substance ratio. To save others from having to look it up themselves: according to [0], it took 13 hours for Sam's article to fall off the front page, while this article fell off after about 1 hour. dang didn't say it was ONLY heat-to-substance ratio causing the downmod. Clearly, there are other factors than heat-to-substance ratio causing it thoug…

This is a hard comment to respond to because there appear to be several misapprehensions in it, and at the same time I find it hard to understand what you're saying. Let me try to address a few though. You say "clearly" and then switch to "hard to dismiss the suspicion". There's no "clearly" there, just suspicion. I'm sure it's a natural suspicion or you wouldn't be posting it, but it lands with me as strange somehow…

Thanks dang!

All I meant by “clearly” was that the signal-to-heat was the same between the two articles.

Sometimes user flags are overridden by mods, so it seemed like maybe that’s what happened on Sam’s article but not on this one?

I am worried by your argument that we just discussed his yesterday so let’s not today, it’s just as much about the articles as the discussion, this article has substance and is a neat counterpoint to Sam's article, don’t you think? Perhaps in these cases lock comments but leave the article on the front page?

Regarding the influence of HN, please don’t ignore that Sam is YC’s president and YC operates HN, so maybe the issue is just that HN isn’t sufficiently independent from YC? Under the status quo the optics look really bad.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply and your hard work! It reassures me that you take the judgment calls you make seriously. Communities like HN are challenging to moderate indeed.

Re: Stuff You Can't Say in Silicon Valley

#284

Post by angry_octet »

cpitman wrote: post #281
angry_octet wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Predictably, I've offended you and you've downvoted. I win.

No, that wasn't me. I think you are incorrect, though. Fox was only an example, this story was carried by most national outlets. And I've never met anyone who changes their mind because the majority is against them and is silencing them. It just brews resentments and causes people to dig in. If people changed their minds just because everyone else disagrees with them loudly and violently, how would any previous socia…

Sorry I wasn't talking to, but the people not commenting, I should have made that clear.

I don't mean angry disagreement and antifa, I mean social disapproval.

Re: Stuff You Can't Say in Silicon Valley

#285

Post by camel_Snake »

candiodari wrote: post #267
chasing wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good point to bring up. I don't think those people were silenced. They went to a public protest in a public place to make a statement. That statement was broadcast across the country and the world. The opposite of being silenced. Now, they faced consequences for what they said. But that's what happens when you say things. Words have meaning and you can say words which will cause people to no longer want to a…

By that standard Saudi Arabia has freedom of speech. There's just consequences - sometimes beheading. Getting fired is only marginally better. But glad you support repression when it supports you.

Except there's a huge difference between being punished by the government for your opinions and being judged by your peers and coworkers for your opinions.

If I were a huge proponent of NAMBLA I'd recognize that being a public advocate of such would negatively effect my social status as well as potentially attract negative attention to any brand I associate myself with. That doesn't mean I'm being silenced or censored.

Re: Stuff You Can't Say in Silicon Valley

#286

Post by camel_Snake »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #216
jonathankoren wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re confusing the state with a private actor. Yes, private actors have a lot of power in this world, but that’s not what the law is about. The law is about the government, not private actors. If you don’t allow businesses to fire people, then you’re compelling speech. Think about it. Say you’re a restaurant and you have a waiter that habitually refers to guests with a constant stream of expitives that would make a…

> The law is about the government, not private actors. So, what are your thoughts on compelling speech in this case? https://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminat...

IANAL nor am I the parent you replied to but that seems more like a discrimination suit against a business, not the individual.

Re: Stuff You Can't Say in Silicon Valley

#287

Post by dang »

gkop wrote: post #283
dang wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a hard comment to respond to because there appear to be several misapprehensions in it, and at the same time I find it hard to understand what you're saying. Let me try to address a few though. You say "clearly" and then switch to "hard to dismiss the suspicion". There's no "clearly" there, just suspicion. I'm sure it's a natural suspicion or you wouldn't be posting it, but it lands with me as strange somehow…

Thanks dang! All I meant by “clearly” was that the signal-to-heat was the same between the two articles. Sometimes user flags are overridden by mods, so it seemed like maybe that’s what happened on Sam’s article but not on this one? I am worried by your argument that we just discussed his yesterday so let’s not today, it’s just as much about the articles as the discussion, this article has substance and is a neat cou…

I sure appreciate the good faith here, especially where we disagree.

Re yesterday: if we didn't moderate HN like this the front page would consist mostly of repetitive stuff. There's no doubt in my mind that the community wouldn't like that, and certainly it would make HN a different place. Intellectual curiosity shrivels under repetition.

Re: Stuff You Can't Say in Silicon Valley

#288

Post by bostik »

asabjorn wrote: post #282
bostik wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since we're on the topic of questioning dogmas: is that the rule of law or the rules set by the biggest mob?

I don't see the analogy. In the rule of law you have a code of law, judges, juries and long deliberations. In criminal law the bar of evidence is preponderance of evidence, while in mob rule you need no evidence and you do not have to listen to both sides.

> you have a code of law

Q.E.D.

Re: Stuff You Can't Say in Silicon Valley

#289

Post by rectang »

koverstreet wrote: post #274
rectang wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Defend the unjust status quo, squealing at the most minor affronts and drawing false equivalencies. It will last as long as you live, and you'll never give up. Society will just have to leave you behind.

Holy crap, talk about false equivalencies. The parent was disagreeing with your tactics, and you equate that with defending the status quo. You crusaders and your "You're either with us or against us" mentality are the worst.

It seems that you have chosen to ignore upthread accusations of McCarthyism by the same author. That's not constructive criticism over tactical disagreements, it's concern trolling.

Re: Stuff You Can't Say in Silicon Valley

#290

Post by BrendanEich »

cannonedhamster wrote: post #271
pretendscholar wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is fine but the parent comment was trying to say he wasn't fired for his views. He was clearly fired for his political views.

Yes I must not have made my point. His political views matter only because the company is based upon values such as openness and inclusiveness. As the one running the ship his political views would have been antithetical to the company mission based on his current actions, which is why the employees revolted.

Fake news. Employees didn’t revolt - it looks as if you may be referring to six Mozilla Foundation employees who tweeted. They worked for a different organization. They almost all left soon after I did anyway.
Post reply on HN