I Am Deleting the Blog • Hacker News Board

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#541

Post by bregma » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 1:09 PM UTC

nojs wrote: post #438

gringoDan wrote: post #394

Reading this made me think of two essays I've recently revisited. 1. The Sound of Silence, by Jessica Livingston Three years ago she argued that the smartest people are silencing themselves because the downside risk of being attacked for (misinterpretations of) their opinions are too high. People are wary of sharing useful information outside of trusted circles, which serves to consolidate power with insiders – those…

Where can one go to learn these controversial truths? I would love to see a list of these facts that apparently only insiders can talk about. Are they literally so confronting/offensive that they don’t exist on the internet?

There is a pizza restaurant in suburban Arlington, Virginia in which these truths are stored in a filing cabinet in the basement. Certain inner-circle members of those who know are familiar with its whereabouts and its indexing system.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#542

Post by shawnz » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 1:10 PM UTC

tosers4 wrote: post #515

_wldu wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great post. I wish more people would genuinely listen to those they disagree with. When we shut people down or make them feel uncomfortable/threatened to the point that they won't speak, what have we gained?

this forum literally hides opinions people disagree with. The up and down arrow are really bad icons for UX.

I think the up and down arrows are perfect representations for what they do: "I want people to see this" vs "I don't want people to see this".

The problem is when someone believes that people shouldn't see any opinions that they disagree with. How do you stop them from downvoting substantive content? Personally I don't think changing the icons will help

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#543

Post by kerkeslager » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 1:10 PM UTC

Damn. I've been reading Slate Star Codex for a long time, and he's always been one of the most insightful voices on the internet. I'm really sorry to see him go.

After reading this, I looked up NYT's policy of using real names, and it turns out this isn't the worst time that the NY Times has done this[1].

I've long said that if you want to know who an organization serves, see where its money comes from. The NY Times gets 60% of its money from subscriptions, but it also gets 30% of its money from advertisers[2]. Keep in mind that subscribers can be hard to court, and losing one advertiser is a bigger chunk of money, so the NY Times is likely to be disproportionately influenced by the 30% of their income that comes from advertisers.

We're better off with organizations who receive their money from donations. I have been constantly impressed with the reporting of Mother Jones[3] and ProPublica[4] and would encourage you to both read and donate.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/sep/26/new-york-times...

[2] https://dashboards.trefis.com/no-login-required/5gNimvTR/New...

[3] https://www.motherjones.com/

[4] https://www.propublica.org/

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#544

Post by hejgkrorjjfk » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 1:10 PM UTC

globular-toast wrote: post #520

gringoDan wrote: post #394

Reading this made me think of two essays I've recently revisited. 1. The Sound of Silence, by Jessica Livingston Three years ago she argued that the smartest people are silencing themselves because the downside risk of being attacked for (misinterpretations of) their opinions are too high. People are wary of sharing useful information outside of trusted circles, which serves to consolidate power with insiders – those…

That Paul Graham essay is fantastic. It really helps me to put into place things that I've been realising over time. For a long time I've had showdead enabled and I always go looking for the buried comments to see what I'm not allowed to say. I suggest everyone does.

From my observations nuclear energy is the holliest cow on HN.

Raising any sort of doubt regarding nuclear energy safety will quickly get you downvoted, flagged or banned:

Fukushima proved that nuclear energy is not that safe.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#545

Post by throwaway4666 » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 1:11 PM UTC

fny wrote: post #459

throwaway4666 wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay but what does this have to do with the thread? Scott isn't being silenced, he's shutting down his blog out of concern that his relationship with his patients may be jeopardized if they could look him up on the NYT. (Whether he's justified I'm not qualified to say as I'm not a psychiatrist.) What's the hidden truth, controversial opinion or super secret insight at stake here?

This is pretty easy. Scott does have controversial opinions at times. He uses a pseudonym to make them public without fear of that impinging on his life and work. So yes. He's being silenced because he cannot enjoy speaking publicly without fear of retribution.

What do these controversial opinions have to do with the NYT writing a piece about Scott's early warnings about covid, and Scott's assessment that it would damage his relationship with his patients? Are you arguing that warning everyone ahead about the virus was controversial?

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#546

Post by antepodius » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 1:11 PM UTC

matwood wrote: post #497

_wldu wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great post. I wish more people would genuinely listen to those they disagree with. When we shut people down or make them feel uncomfortable/threatened to the point that they won't speak, what have we gained?

> I wish more people would genuinely listen to those they disagree with. I had a bit of this discussion on HN not long ago. I love to debate and hear ideas from those I disagree with. But, that's not what people are often doing today. They are using your statement to appeal to others to listen and accept their clearly racist ideas or provable wrong, anti-science ideas. IMO, it's intellectually dishonest and a debate…

That's what it means to truly disagree with someone- to hate them.

Your policy is still the one that brought us down this path, and will (or has) plunge the western public into a debilitating purity spiral, as the overton windows shrinks and more and more viewpoints become 'clearly x-ist' or 'provably wrong', according to the crowd.

Good! Let it all burn.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#547

Post by entropyneur » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 1:11 PM UTC

sbuttgereit wrote: post #525

entropyneur wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love "What You Can't Say" and have incorporated the conformist test into my moral compass. But I think the shift to use of shame for society regulation is a positive development. I'd much rather be downvoted on HN or called names on Twitter than beaten up or deprived of freedom. But maybe that's just me.

Luckily, one can never lead to the other.

It's irrelevant whether one thing can lead to the other. What's important is how often it does. If there's significantly less violence, it's a win.

I guess it could be a bit difficult to see from the US where you had the first amendment forever. But the rest of the world is not like that.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#548

Post by ghaff » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 1:12 PM UTC

dilandau wrote: post #410

gringoDan wrote: post #394

Reading this made me think of two essays I've recently revisited. 1. The Sound of Silence, by Jessica Livingston Three years ago she argued that the smartest people are silencing themselves because the downside risk of being attacked for (misinterpretations of) their opinions are too high. People are wary of sharing useful information outside of trusted circles, which serves to consolidate power with insiders – those…

Both of those are right on point, and match my observations within my own circles. For me stallmans cancellation was a big turning point. I'm using a pseudonym everywhere now. I can't risk someone pulling up a comment or post years from now and using it to ruin my reputation or career, simply because i may have voiced an unpopular or controversial opinion that did not age well. It seems, too, that making jokes is ver…

Per a comment up-thread, I wouldn't place too big a bet on pseudonyms remaining pseudonyms forever. Sure, absent a real effort to unmask you, you'll probably be fine. But sustained efforts to figure out pseudonymous identities often succeed.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#549

Post by throwaway4666 » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 1:12 PM UTC

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #452

nojs wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where can one go to learn these controversial truths? I would love to see a list of these facts that apparently only insiders can talk about. Are they literally so confronting/offensive that they don’t exist on the internet?

I am going to respond with a paraphrasing of a well known quote about one such truth. The truth is that you are a slave in a prison without walls where prisoner never dreams of escaping. They exist, but the woke crowd is purging them hard now. Any moment now I expect Columbus city to be renamed.

We live in a prison because some folks are doing a historical reckoning about Columbus' past exactions?

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#550

Post by hackissimo123 » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 1:13 PM UTC

sxp wrote: post #5

> He told me it would be a mostly positive piece about how we were an interesting gathering place for people in tech, and how we were ahead of the curve on some aspects of the coronavirus situation. It probably would have been a very nice article. Unfortunately, he told me he had discovered my real name and would reveal it in the article, ie doxx me. ... When I expressed these fears to the reporter, he just said that…

FWIW the CEO of Lambda School had the following to say on Reddit regarding whether the piece would really be positive ("you" in this quote is addressed to Scott):

> I don’t want to be the bearer of bad news, but they’re going to say you’re a far-right racist who supports eugenics, based on you not immediately supporting the firing of Hsu. I know this probably sounds improbable to you because the author was pleasant, but they’ll have a quote from you they’ll strip of nuance and context to make it clear that you’re evil. Probably something about why you want to remain anonymous and they’ll paint it as you wanting to be anonymous because your views are beyond the pale or a dog whistle or something.

> ... It was absolutely going to be a hit piece and they don’t tell you that upfront because they need your participation.

> Pui doesn’t care, she’s cracking open champagne right now. This is what she thinks their job is. Exposing everything because reasons and feeling good about it.

> It will absolutely be a hit piece, probably call SA a racist, and will be unapologetic. To expect anything different is impossible if you’ve spent a lot of time around this particular brand of new age journalist.

> ... The editor SA is referring to is a known quantity in many circles, including mine, as is the author of the piece (I know people who were asked for comment; all refused). This is a win in their book, and they couldn’t care less about whether SA’s life will be destroyed.