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

Cancel We The Web? (2020)

wetheweb.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 280 posts

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#81

Post by jimbob45 »

jonathanlb wrote: post #74
jimbob45 wrote: post #66

Individuals get canceled when their support dries up from those would previously have offered them funding and employment. How then does one go about avoiding cancel culture? Simple. You just avoid cancel culture. Anyone who claims to support BLM or ActBlue or any liberal politician who has support cancel culture in the past should be avoided with extreme prejudice. These organizations actively fight free speech and…

> You just avoid cancel culture. Anyone who claims to support BLM or ActBlue or any liberal politician [...] should be avoided with extreme prejudice. So, to avoid cancel culture, you should cancel others?

No, not others. Just those who would themselves cancel. After all, how did we solve McCarthy if not by removing him from power?

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#82

Post by Barrin92 »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #71
Barrin92 wrote: post #34

>For many, the conclusion was clear: Richard Stallman must be “cancelled.” Many failed to make any distinction between what Stallman had done, question age-of-consent laws, and an actual pedophile or child rapist. These discussions about cancel culture truly have taken a strange turn. I hope the author is not suggesting that the barrier for getting fired is to be an 'actual child rapist'. The response to that is pris…

Sounds like you didn't understand the piece.

care to enlighten me on what part I didn't understand?

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#83

Post by qiqitori »

1024core wrote: post #33
duck wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is the thread in question: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1172283772428906496.html

This Sarah Mel character is the one who should be "cancelled".

I just took a look at her recent Tweets and TBH she doesn't seem much different from Stallman. Confrontational and set in her ways -- her mission just appears to be different from Stallman's mission and they crossed paths in an unfortunate manner. Both have great missions, and she shouldn't be "cancelled" either. (Stupid word, surely there had to be a better one)

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#84

Post by mjg59 »

Any writeup of this that concentrates on external responses and ignores the strong response from many within the communities that RMS led is failing to tell the complete story. There's no shortage of people extremely familiar with his work and behaviour who felt his continued involvement was inappropriate, but instead we're exposed to story after story about how a group of people pushing a one sided narrative unjustly silenced RMS. Which is ironic, given that they're only presenting one side of the events in question.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#85

Post by adolph »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #35
mimikatz wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't. The rules people claim are the rules aren't the rules. There is a different set of rules, but they change all the time so you have to be on top of it and follow those. It sounds hard, but really you just do what everyone else is doing and you will be fine. Step outside what everyone else is doing and you are at risk.

It's not that simple. Do that today and you're not in trouble today. You may be tomorrow, though, because the rules change overnight. And when they do, there's no forgiveness based on "it was within the rules at the time I did it".

How many years will pass before George Washington is impeached for owning slaves?

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#86

Post by lsiebert »

tryonenow wrote: post #77
ComputerGuru wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is some McCarthy level witch-hunting: > The fourth @fsf board member is Benjamin Mako Hill - @makoshark - seems super involved with Wikipedia, which is also known as an extremely hostile community towards women. What a leap! Just make crazy allegations and move on to the next name on the list! I always post online knowing someone might come digging, but I didn’t realize the bar for extortion-worthy material was…

And how laughable, given wikipedia's heavy progressive bias. These people seek out and peddle victimhood as currency. Truly McArthy-esque, to see villains (in our times "oppressors") behind every shadow... Even manufactured self righteousness must be addictive.

What heavy progressive bias is that?

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#87

Post by [deleted] »

donsupreme wrote: post #25

> Sarah Mei then went through the board members involved one by one, digging into each of their histories, and tweeting what she viewed as fire-worthy infractions. The crimes included: “being super involved with Wikipedia,” retweeting a “hideous” New York Times editorial, and being friendly with famed democracy activist and law professor Lawrence Lessig. Publicly calling out each board member in turn with a clear imp…

[deleted]

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#88

Post by DubiousPusher »

klodolph wrote: post #38
r3trohack3r wrote: post #6

A different take: Microsoft, Oracle, et. al. waged a war against OSS in the 90s. They went as far as using mental illness as a weapon against the community (equating participation in the commons as an equivalent to mental illness). It’s not a coincidence the class of human that weathered the storm looks like Stallman, Linus, ESR, et. al. That’s what it took. The toxicity in these communities is a result of what was l…

I think that this is just an attempt at explaining away toxic behavior without taking responsibility for it. People in the OSS community can, at times, glorify toxic behavior. I know people who take it as a badge of honor to "speak the truth", "speak directly", or "have no filter". Speaking directly and speaking the truth are good ideals to have, but if you really want to PROVE that you speak the truth and don't fear…

That may be but there is something to the OP's point. The big 5 personality test which is the only personality test rally taken seriously in clinical psychology, has an aspect called agreeableness.

Having high or low agreeableness has a tremendous correlation with all kinds of outcomes. It's highly tied to success in corporate, church, and government settings. It's very likely that to be set enough to go against the majority in your field and build an alternative infrastructure in the face of a great deal of obstacles is going to attract a higher amount of diaageeable people. Now if you ask me, it's possible to be quite diaageeable and remain polite but I wouldn't be surprised if these sort of outsider niches often have an abrasive personality edge.

And when the elites start telling you to tilt you moral compass a certain way, you probably start bumping into some oppositional defiant disorder which correlates with low agreeableness.

A similar thing can be seen when substances are prohibited. People who normally would not do a more serious crime begin doing them because their desire for a drug already brings them outside the law.

Obviously finding ways to build alternative communities with a welcoming and conciecous spirit would be a great problem to solve. But I believe we will always bump into this.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#89

Post by [deleted] »

qiqitori wrote: post #83
1024core wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This Sarah Mel character is the one who should be "cancelled".

I just took a look at her recent Tweets and TBH she doesn't seem much different from Stallman. Confrontational and set in her ways -- her mission just appears to be different from Stallman's mission and they crossed paths in an unfortunate manner. Both have great missions, and she shouldn't be "cancelled" either. (Stupid word, surely there had to be a better one)

[deleted]

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#90

Post by square_usual »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #73
duck wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is the thread in question: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1172283772428906496.html

This is some McCarthy level witch-hunting: > The fourth @fsf board member is Benjamin Mako Hill - @makoshark - seems super involved with Wikipedia, which is also known as an extremely hostile community towards women. What a leap! Just make crazy allegations and move on to the next name on the list! I always post online knowing someone might come digging, but I didn’t realize the bar for extortion-worthy material was…

It's also amazingly stupid because a lot of Benjamin Mako Hill's work is in maintaining communities. He used to post about them: https://mako.cc/copyrighteous/
Post reply on HN