Live data from Hacker News

Cancel We The Web? (2020)

wetheweb.org

131–140 of 280 posts

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#131

Ms. Strossen's response is actually quite well argued and uses principles of mainstream American Liberalism that cannot be dropped without significant modification to the school of thought itself. Anyway, no one is stupid enough to talk about lots of interesting problems in public anymore. The Internet isn't a safe place to do so. That's okay. But I wonder if there is a safe way with a discovery medium built in. Mayb…

It can be perfectly safe again once PR departments realize they can ignore the vocal minorities of Twitter without negative consequences to their bottom line.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The word "toxic" has been so overused as to become meaningless.

Strongly disagree. While people do misuse the word, it has meaning and can be figured out from context.

The problem is that the meaning blends together subjective offense and a desire for professional sanction in a way which makes the term very hard to actually engage with. Challenging whether some particular behavior is toxic comes across as nitpicking, while challenging whether people should get in trouble for toxicity comes across as minimizing legitimately bad behaviors.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#133
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I was toxic because I was a teenager with low empathy who hadn't learned things yet. I grew out of it. Participation in political mobs can serve as a surrogate replacement for empathy. A change in political allegiance is far easier to enact in an individual than a change in personality.

Would you agree then that participating in the 'anti-anti' mobs is also a possible form of feigned 'empathy'?

To the extent there is an anti-anti mob, sure.

Be skeptical of any actions that are hateful on their face, regardless of how impeccable the argument justifying them is. Judge people by whether they actually make your project nicer to be part of, not some theorycrafted definition of inclusivity. Common sense and human judgement are an infinitely better way to decide who to welcome, who to tolerate, and who to exclude (because some people have incompatible cultures, so any space will exclude some people), than any amount of political theory.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#134
post #42

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…

Hmm. I think RMS’s anti-establishment push was so much earlier (mostly against Bell Labs, etc.) that “the 90s” don’t really apply. If anything, it’s just his personality: he takes hardline positions and holds onto them. You might be right about hardliners being the only folks who have enough persistence to come through (vis a vis survivorship bias), but then you’re also just including the leaders of those companies y…

“What was left” certainly applies. These are predominantly the personality types, and socio-economic groups, that made it through this time period in open source.

It isn’t easy being on the receiving end of this: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Comes-3096.pdf

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#135

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…

> Take Mr. X, who is outraged by Microsoft's behavior and refuses to buy Microsoft's products, tells other people about his problems with Microsoft, and tells everyone to use FOSS alternatives? Now, Mr. X also thinks that it's stupid to believe in god, and is not afraid to say it to everyone he meets. He's suddenly changed from "FOSS advocate" to "toxic workplace on legs".

What's toxic about this? Two perfectly sensible points of view and you think Mr. X is dangerous to be around?

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#136
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TBH, I has been participating in open source since the 1990s, and I never seen the actual stigma like you describe. Yes, OSS projects were laughed at, dismissed as hobbyist and unserious, insinuated to be low quality and "worth exactly how much you pay for it" - all that happened all the time. But implying OSS people are mentally ill... maybe somebody did it, but I've never seen it. And I did work with people from Mi…

Here is a nice document about their approach to “evangelism” http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Comes-3096.pdf And some nice documentation on patent trolling to make the commons financially unviable, this destroyed lives: http://techrights.org/2007/10/22/lasuit-evolution-linux/ And examples of when they paid folks to go spread a bunch of misinformation about the commons: http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/AstroTurfing

I would like to thank you for the efforts you have made in writing this article. I am hoping the same best work from you in the future as well. In fact your creative writing abilities has inspired me to start my own Blog Engine blog now. Really the blogging is spreading its wings rapidly. Your article is a fine example of it. https://www.sevenmentor.com/angularjs-training-in-pune.php

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#137

>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…

Yeah you said it best. RMS shouldn't be the head of FSF. I say it as someone who does't think he is malicious at heart. He's got a string of behaviours towards women that would drive them away.

Maybe someone should email him these classic papers on sexism in tech. They are old but still relevant. Seems like many here need to read them too:

[1] Why are There so Few Female Computer Scientists (Ellen Spertus, 1991)

https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7040

[2] How to Encourage Women in Linux (Val Henson, 2002)

https://tldp.org/HOWTO/Encourage-Women-Linux-HOWTO/

[3] What Happens to Us Does Not Happen to Most of You (Kathryn S. McKinley, 2018)

https://www.sigarch.org/what-happens-to-us-does-not-happen-t...

[4] Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing (Jane Margolis and Allan Fisher, 2001)

https://www.amazon.com/Unlocking-Clubhouse-Women-Computing-P...

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> People in the OSS community can, at times, glorify toxic behavior. I wouldn't go so far as to glorify toxic behaviour, but some of what is seen as toxic by some is IMO just frankness or a tactic to bring the conversation back into a realm of technical discussion.

In my experience, people who have technical discussions are often blind to their own emotions and the effect that their words have on the people around them. In good this can be solved. In bad cases, people talk about "discussing technical issues" and "directness" as a shield for their poor behavior.

An example from real life: A student, Y, was having a problem with her CS lab assignment, and talked to her professor, Prof. Z. She described what she had done and he said, "Well, that was stupid." In his mind this was just something that you say about bad code you've written. However, he was a professor, and he was saying this about a student's code, and he didn't think of the incredible negative impact that his statement made on his student.

In real life, this interaction took the "good path". They had a conversation, he apologized, and he changed how he spoke to students.

The "bad path" (which didn't happen) is where he justified/defended what he said or minimized/ignored the student's feeling.

Everyone comes to these decision points over and over again in their lives. It's inevitable. We all hurt other people. If we always defend our actions as being in the interest of "technical discussions" or state other reasons why our behavior is correct, is it likely that we are simply good people who never say bad things? Or is it likely that we are ignoring/justifying our poor behavior, and failing to learn and grow?

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#139
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Would you agree then that participating in the 'anti-anti' mobs is also a possible form of feigned 'empathy'? You have misread the comment twice over. I wrote nothing that would preclude your scenario from being a possibility, and I also wrote nothing about assuming a false pretense. In my opinion, wrt "empathy", most of the mob participants are just fooling themselves, and the cynical drivers of these controversies…

> You have misread the comment twice over. I didn't. > I wrote nothing that would preclude your scenario from being a possibility That's kind of my point: there's a lot of questioning the motivations of the 'cancel culture mob' around these parts recently, but very little questioning of the motivations of the 'anti cancel culture mob'. It almost feels like there's a gaping blind spot there. Unsurprisingly, a signific…

I just don't agree with the symmetry you're drawing here. Pointing to a group of people and saying "I think they're engaged in a moral panic" doesn't make me part of an equal and opposite panic. If I were going around saying we've gotta ostracize the cancellers before they cancel us, that would certainly deserve some serious introspection - but I'm not, and neither is the original commenter.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> given wikipedia's heavy progressive bias. Do you have a robust academic citation for this? None of the sources here ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedi... ) suggest a heavy bias, and overall it seems that bias is attenuated with stronger participation. I haven't been able to find sources other than those linked.

It seems to me that being fact-oriented, especially when preferring facts from authorities and institutions, tends to get a source labeled as liberal-biased.
Post reply on HN