Did the early internet activists blow it? • Hacker News Board

Re: Did the early internet activists blow it?

#111

Post by ggm » Tue, Feb 18, 2020, 6:42 AM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #76

hitekker wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That criticism wasn’t against you; I was actually thinking about how the community handled Hans Reiser 10 years ago. If you feel personally attacked, though, then that might warrant some introspection.

If he was being unreasonably well-treated, why did ReiserFS for the most part get dropped like a hot coal just for being associated with him?

I think you inverted the logic. His case is "Hans Reiser was an outsider, but when he turned out to be a killer (which does not strictly relate to his FS work) we dropped him like a hot potato. Contrast that with Mike Godwin, who did a thing (the respondand thinks is) reprehensible, but because he is a big name, we give him leeway"

he's making a compare-and-contrast argument, as I understood it.

The difference is, Hans Reiser was a murderer. Mike Godwin is just conflicted between his belief in a greater good outcome and his role as a PIR/ISOC conflicted person. I think its a bit apples-and-fishcakes as comparisons go, but I sort of get it.

Re: Did the early internet activists blow it?

#112

Post by Dylan16807 » Tue, Feb 18, 2020, 8:21 PM UTC

ggm wrote: post #111

Dylan16807 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If he was being unreasonably well-treated, why did ReiserFS for the most part get dropped like a hot coal just for being associated with him?

I think you inverted the logic. His case is "Hans Reiser was an outsider, but when he turned out to be a killer (which does not strictly relate to his FS work) we dropped him like a hot potato. Contrast that with Mike Godwin, who did a thing (the respondand thinks is) reprehensible, but because he is a big name, we give him leeway" he's making a compare-and-contrast argument, as I understood it. The difference is, Ha…

"our community[...]tend to forgive"

"I was actually thinking about how the community handled Hans Reiser"

That sure looks like an example to me, not a contrast.

But maybe you're right.

Re: Did the early internet activists blow it?

#113

Post by heartbeats » Tue, Feb 18, 2020, 10:39 PM UTC

bsder wrote: post #110

heartbeats wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hogwash. We have harassment, stalking, libel, defamation, and slander laws in meatspace for a reason. The fact that doing it on the Internet exempts you from these laws because enforcement isn't "cost effective" is a problem. All those are illegal online too. But if I go to the pub and discuss some harassment with my friends that I'm going to do later, the pub clearly isn't held liable for this. Why? Because even i…

> My opinion is this: people should grow thicker skin. A motivated harasser or mob can basically force you completely offline. You cannot answer that with "grow thicker skin". The problem is especially acute if your harasser or mob is in a different state, for example. > It used to be the case that people were recommended to not use their real name on the Internet for basic safety reasons. And what about if your busi…

> A motivated harasser or mob can basically force you completely offline. You cannot answer that with "grow thicker skin".

If they have observed proper precautions, the psychological issues are the only factor that remains. Those are solved by growing a thicker skin.

> And what about if your business is online? Most states require that your public business filing include your real name.

If so, they should vote with their feet and observe proper precautions, such as incorporating in a jurisdiction with strong privacy laws, or not incorporating at all (Bitcoin). Examples of the former include New Mexico, Wyoming, Nevada, Seychelles, British Virgin Islands, and more.

> Your glib solutions betray your lack of experience with the problem.

No, your glib solutions betray your lack of experience with the problem. Censorship is never an answer as it is, unto itself, a moral failure.

Re: Did the early internet activists blow it?

#114

Post by dragonsngoblins » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 2:31 AM UTC

Barrin92 wrote: post #75

dependenttypes wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that children instinctively have when they're told to go to bed and start throwing a tantrum Would you be happy if right now someone forced you to go to bed at arbitrary times when you are not tired and potentially had work to do? > who in many ways were juvenile adults Are you calling them immature, youthful, or something else? > a more adult one No, a more authoritarian/collectivist one that consider abstract con…

> Would you be happy if right now someone forced you to go to bed at arbitrary times the issue is of course, and that's what children don't realise, that seemingly arbitrary rules exist for good reason. In this particluar case it's because children are not able to delay immediate gratification. And I, as an adult, am in fact still constantly obligated to participate in farely arbitrary rituals, at work or otherwise.…

>the issue is of course, and that's what children don't realise, that seemingly arbitrary rules exist for good reason

Maybe you were a lucky child where that was always the case. For myself and many people I know a lot of the rules/commands leveled at us were genuinely arbitrary, and the presence of arbitrary rules like that has a way of delegitimizing ones that only seem arbitrary.