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

Some tactics for writing in public

jvns.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 215 posts

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#21

Post by ChrisSD »

ghaff wrote: post #5
mjb wrote: post #3

This is really great, actionable, sensible, advice for folks who write on the internet. It agrees with my experiences, too. On the other hand, it's sad that the culture we have built on the internet forces talented people like Julia to censor themselves and narrow the scope of their writing. > So I have a weird catalog in my head of things not to mention if I don’t want to start the same discussion about that thing f…

I'm not sure I'd use censor in the context of Julia's post. It read more like the next thing you quoted. Something's well-trod and people have strong opinions but absolutely no one is going to change their mind or really make a novel point or learn anything new. I do think there are things that many people self-sensor, e.g. opinions that fall outside or on the edges of the orthodoxy of some bubble and is just going t…

Imagine, for example, there's a really interesting scientific paper someone would love to talk about but it's in the field of Climate Science. Everyone knows the comments a blog post on it is going to get. And they're (almost) all going to be the same no matter what the paper is actually about. Every time.

Should someone feel they have to self-censor just to avoid this?

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#22

Post by zer8k »

wrp wrote: post #8

Summary of her rules for defensive posting: 1. Talk about facts 2. Tell stories 3. Ask technical questions 4. Fix mistakes 5. Ask for examples, not opinions 6. Start with a little context 7. Avoid flamebait triggers 8. Preempt common suggestions 9. Ignore people who challenge your viewpoint (my interpretation) 10. Don't pursue arguments 11. Pay attention to critical feedback Number 9 is I think not as defensible as t…

Up/down vote systems, especially ones that punish the poster quickly by rendering their post unreadable, create a hivemind of people who agree. HN posters LOVE to point out the fact it's "not like Reddit" when, in fact, it is. If you say something factual but disagreeable with the current zeitgeist of HN (usually mid-to-far-left social policy) you will be met with downvotes. Even a small amount begins to add up until eventually your account is auto-dead (shadowbanned). This is especially bad because each downvote is not required to have a retort. Since the downvoter is not subject to the same rules it can happen freely and without consequence. New accounts are most susceptible to this. It's often better to post extremely agreeable, astroturfed, opinions just to collect enough internet points to protect you from driveby downvoting later.

The result is a hivemind no different than Reddit. People here are just as afraid to post their opinions on language/framework/policy as they are on Reddit. None of these rules matter because the assailant (downvoter) can do what they do best without consequence. At least in a meatspace debate/talk/whatever the disagreeing party must reveal themselves to make a case.

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#23

Post by OJFord »

> Recently on Mastodon I complained about some gross terminology that I’d just noticed in the dig man page. A few dudes in the replies asked me to prove that the original author intended it to be offensive (which of course is besides [sic] the point) or tried to explain to me why it actually wasn’t a problem.

> So I blocked a few people and wrote a quick post:

Of course I understand no responsibility to 'prove' anything and can guess the comments weren't written well - but I think there may be a genuine misunderstanding and miscommunication here, or maybe it's even a BrE/AmE thing, because 'to grope' around for something (often blindly in the dark or similar) isn't at all sexual, typically not even an animate thing you'd be groping for (e.g. a light switch) - and I'm fairly certain that that usage isn't by analogy to sexual assault.

Or am I just repeating what's 'besides the point'? I don't think it is, words can have multiple meanings, be used in foul ways, but still be usable fairly and legitimately. 'I coloured in a picture' isn't 'gross'? My 'garden hoe' is fine?

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#24

Post by mattlutze »

mjb wrote: post #3

This is really great, actionable, sensible, advice for folks who write on the internet. It agrees with my experiences, too. On the other hand, it's sad that the culture we have built on the internet forces talented people like Julia to censor themselves and narrow the scope of their writing. > So I have a weird catalog in my head of things not to mention if I don’t want to start the same discussion about that thing f…

>> So I have a weird catalog in my head of things not to mention if I don’t want to start the same discussion about that thing for the 50th time.

> Somehow we've built a culture where its socially acceptable, and even rewarded, to behave online in ways that would never be acceptable in other social settings. The exact flavors of that on HN, Slashdot, Twitter, Tumblr, etc are different, but the core issue is the same everywhere.

People tend to enjoy bikeshedding when presented the opportunity to, and it's a good idea to avoid bringing up the bikesheds you don't want to debate.

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#26

Post by noelwelsh »

teddyh wrote: post #17

[flagged]

Nah. There are certain things that one might post that are worth saying, because they push back against bullshit, but are certainly not worth discussing with peddlers of such bullshit. Just think of any conspiracy theory (e.g. anti-vaxers) as really obvious examples.

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#27

Post by wrp »

n4r9 wrote: post #20
wrp wrote: post #8

Summary of her rules for defensive posting: 1. Talk about facts 2. Tell stories 3. Ask technical questions 4. Fix mistakes 5. Ask for examples, not opinions 6. Start with a little context 7. Avoid flamebait triggers 8. Preempt common suggestions 9. Ignore people who challenge your viewpoint (my interpretation) 10. Don't pursue arguments 11. Pay attention to critical feedback Number 9 is I think not as defensible as t…

I think you're being a little unfair about #9. Setting boundaries is different to ignoring challenges. If I made a comment about politics and someone demanded that I present a solid case that black people have ever been mistreated, obviously it's fine to ignore. It's tangential and agenda-driven, just like the example in OP. Some conflicts are simply not worth pursuing. Even Bertrand Russell refused to debate Oswald…

I did editorialize on #9 because I wanted to draw attention to it and get some discussion. My feeling is that her take is not entirely healthy.

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#28

Post by ghaff »

ChrisSD wrote: post #21
ghaff wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I'd use censor in the context of Julia's post. It read more like the next thing you quoted. Something's well-trod and people have strong opinions but absolutely no one is going to change their mind or really make a novel point or learn anything new. I do think there are things that many people self-sensor, e.g. opinions that fall outside or on the edges of the orthodoxy of some bubble and is just going t…

Imagine, for example, there's a really interesting scientific paper someone would love to talk about but it's in the field of Climate Science. Everyone knows the comments a blog post on it is going to get. And they're (almost) all going to be the same no matter what the paper is actually about. Every time. Should someone feel they have to self-censor just to avoid this?

If it seriously challenged the orthodoxy of, say, HN, nothing's keeping me from submitting it but, no, I probably wouldn't comment even if it made what I think are some interesting points, in part because I'm not an expert on the area.

There are some topics guaranteed to attract 500+ comments that are mostly nothing but rants about big companies, Musk, the US, etc. Better to just avoid.

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#29

Post by wrp »

tayo42 wrote: post #15
wrp wrote: post #8

Summary of her rules for defensive posting: 1. Talk about facts 2. Tell stories 3. Ask technical questions 4. Fix mistakes 5. Ask for examples, not opinions 6. Start with a little context 7. Avoid flamebait triggers 8. Preempt common suggestions 9. Ignore people who challenge your viewpoint (my interpretation) 10. Don't pursue arguments 11. Pay attention to critical feedback Number 9 is I think not as defensible as t…

how did you come up with number 9 from this post? fwiw, all the people who dont read the articles, 9 isnt in there. its actually "set some boundaries"

Fair criticism. I should have been more clear.

Re: Some tactics for writing in public

#30

Post by [deleted] »

noelwelsh wrote: post #26
teddyh wrote: post #17

[flagged]

Nah. There are certain things that one might post that are worth saying, because they push back against bullshit, but are certainly not worth discussing with peddlers of such bullshit. Just think of any conspiracy theory (e.g. anti-vaxers) as really obvious examples.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN