Jon Ronson: How a Tweet Can Ruin Your Life • Hacker News Board

Re: Jon Ronson: How a Tweet Can Ruin Your Life

#221

Post by StavrosK » Thu, Mar 05, 2015, 1:56 PM UTC

cantankerous wrote: post #214

StavrosK wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> She overheard a conversation that wasn't directed at her. In the middle of a conference she was hopefully not coerced at attending and should be paying attention to the speaker I don't think you're supposed to ignore what's going on around you just because it wasn't directed at you and you're at a conference. The other reasons are valid, but this one doesn't strike me as such.

On the flip side, you're not supposed to get involved in everything that's going on around you just because it's going on. It's pretty easy to mistakenly thunder in on a half-heard conversation without any context.

Definitely, there's a balance there. That does mean that the GP post of "wasn't supposed to do it" isn't always right.

Re: Jon Ronson: How a Tweet Can Ruin Your Life

#222

Post by BSousa » Thu, Mar 05, 2015, 1:57 PM UTC

interpol_p wrote: post #92

near wrote: post #44

The world is replete with examples of why you should never use your real name with your online identity in any way (although in this case, the guy's employer found out over a photograph; which is even more troubling.) If there's anyone worse than Adria in this story, it's both Hank's and Adria's former employers. You don't destroy a person's life over a comment or a blackmail threat. But as they say, if corporations…

I don't think it's a lack of empathy. It feels like anger at a system that caters to men in a field she very much enjoys and wants to be included in. Unfortunately Hank happens to be a fairly good guy who is defended by this system and oblivious to it. He's an unintended casualty of her anger at something bigger. I had many of the same reactions as you when I read her words. But I've been trying very hard to imagine…

I'm sorry, Hank got more than he deserved (edit: being fired not the harassement), but not Adria. She posted the tweet WITH the photo. She started this. She (if I remember correctly) was some PR/evangelist in the company. What she did was exactly the opposite.

I could understand if she tweeted about 'two men' making those jokes/whatnot and complain about it, BUT without a picture. With it, I honestly believe she got off easy... If it was me (regarding of it being a joke that was taken out of context or not), posting my picture like that would make me try and do everything to get damages from her, and her employer if she was there in any official capacity.

I believe we should be inclusive of women in tech in all capabilities, and even admit it was an unfortunate joke, which I probably wouldn't make in that scenario, but what she did was actually a set back to the 'women in tech' movement. She was selfish and after the whole mess, still unapologetic. I'm sorry to say, but I'm pretty sure this brought even more doubts to folks wanting to hire women in their companies, let they now get another Adria.

Re: Jon Ronson: How a Tweet Can Ruin Your Life

#223

Post by alextgordon » Thu, Mar 05, 2015, 1:57 PM UTC

fpgeek wrote: post #116

theorique wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Not too bad, he's a white male. I'm a black Jewish female." Nice quote here. As you say, it really does make Richards look empathetic. /s But seriously, this is not good for her image.

No, she doesn't look empathetic, but, considering the broader context, how much empathy can you reasonably expect? He lost his job and got a new one "right away" (according to the article). She also lost her job, was bombarded with all kinds of threats (death, rape, etc.), had to go into hiding and still doesn't have a new job (at least as of her interview for the piece). I'm sure she could improve her image if she w…

I would hope that she would use the time for some introspection, and correct her racist attitude. Then she might find it easier to get a job.

Re: Jon Ronson: How a Tweet Can Ruin Your Life

#224

Post by tzs » Thu, Mar 05, 2015, 1:58 PM UTC

What astounds me is that all this fuss was made over a silly dongle joke.

If the guy had been overheard quietly telling his friend a joke like, say, The Aristocrats, then I could understand someone getting seriously offended. You don't tell a joke like that where there is even a small chance unintended people will here it.

But a lame joke based on "dongle" sounding like a dirty word? That's a joke that could be told on a children't show on TV and not even draw complaints from parents in the Bible Belt.

This kind of humor is acceptable for a general family audience on prime time television. For instance, in The Simpsons episode "Bart, the Mother", Bart raises a pair of lizards that are an illegal invasive species, and Skinner is explaining why they must be killed.

Skinnner: It's already wiped out the Dodo, the Cuckoo, and the Ne-Ne, and it has nasty plans for the Booby, the Titmouse, the Woodcock, and the Titpecker.

Similarly, in the episode "You Kent Always Say What You Want", where Kent Brockman says a very nasty swear word on live TV, and apparently has gotten away with it.

Grampa Simpson: I can't believe Kent Brockman got away with it. Back in my day TV stars couldn't say boobie, tushie, burp, fanny burp, water closet, underpants, dingle dangle, Boston marriage, LBJ, Titicaca, hot dog or front lumps!

Heck, I could easily see a "big dongle" joke being told on NPR on a Saturday morning by Garrison Keillor during the annual "Prairie Home Companion" joke show (which is hilarious, BTW).

If your reaction to overhearing such a joke is anything more than rolling your eyes at the childish humor, your offensiveness sensor needs recalibration. I've heard that getting a pet can bring calmness and help you recalibrate. A bird could be a good low maintenance pet for this. I recommend a Titpecker.

Re: Jon Ronson: How a Tweet Can Ruin Your Life

#225

Post by briandear » Thu, Mar 05, 2015, 1:58 PM UTC

probably_wrong wrote: post #119

stfu wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you really think that conferences' code of conduct should regulate what two friends are saying to each other privately?

Whether they should ? I don't know. Maybe. Sexism in tech is a weird and hard problem, and if regulating private conversations helps solving it, then I'm cautiously willing to give it a try. Whether they do ? Yes. From the CoC[1]: > Be careful in the words that you choose. Remember that sexist, racist, and other exclusionary jokes can be offensive to those around you. Excessive swearing and offensive jokes are not ap…

Define offensive. if I think cat photos are offensive would I be in my rights to kick someone out of a conference? I'm not sure what the "offense" was. If someone says "damn," that might be offensive to my dad, but to my coworkers that might be completely fine.

In this case, there was nothing anti-women or racist that any reasonable person would infer. So where's the line? Perhaps we could create some new Orwellian language for conferences and have everyone in a tape delay so the offensive-content censors would have time to bleep it out. Reminds me of the swearing fines in that movie Demolition Man.

Re: Jon Ronson: How a Tweet Can Ruin Your Life

#226

Post by interpol_p » Thu, Mar 05, 2015, 2:00 PM UTC

tie_ wrote: post #193

interpol_p wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly it. We find it so hard to understand how that joke is threatening. It's almost impossible to imagine. It just sounds like a dumb joke. But look at how Adria describes her feelings in the article: “Have you ever had an altercation at school and you could feel the hairs rise up on your back?” she asked me. “You felt fear?” I asked. “Danger,” she said. “Clearly my body was telling me, ‘You are unsafe.’” I…

> But we are oblivious to it, we can't even imagine how it feels. Nobody can imagine how would a random nerd from a 800-people conference would feel over a joke. Shall we ban joking? Fine people that use "dirty" words? "Your tone of voice makes me feel deeply offended, thus I have all the right to sue you" ? Where does this road end? What makes me feel extremely annoyed is the whole political correctitude and feeling…

No, we shouldn't ban any of that.

Why would that be your take-away from this?

The problem is the lack of diversity in our field leads to these horrible, unfortunate situations where people feel threatened and jokes which are not intended to be harmful are felt to be much worse.

It means that we shouldn't be dismissing Adria and feeling for Hank because that's what always happens and what will keep causing these situations to happen in the future.

If we want to feel safe about making bad sex jokes then we need diversity in our field. We need everyone to feel safe just being there before we can all act like we're safe and comfortable enough to be ourselves.

Re: Jon Ronson: How a Tweet Can Ruin Your Life

#227

Post by Anderkent » Thu, Mar 05, 2015, 2:00 PM UTC

StavrosK wrote: post #179

outworlder wrote: post #39

I remember this episode well. Adria is more immature than the jokes that she supposedly got offended by. Let's ennumerate: - She overheard a conversation that wasn't directed at her. In the middle of a conference she was hopefully not coerced at attending and should be paying attention to the speaker - She took a picture of two people, without asking for permission - She twitted said picture with negative comments -…

> She overheard a conversation that wasn't directed at her. In the middle of a conference she was hopefully not coerced at attending and should be paying attention to the speaker I don't think you're supposed to ignore what's going on around you just because it wasn't directed at you and you're at a conference. The other reasons are valid, but this one doesn't strike me as such.

Uhm actually listening to a clearly private conversation is a breach of manners, if nothing else.

Re: Jon Ronson: How a Tweet Can Ruin Your Life

#228

Post by mkr-hn » Thu, Mar 05, 2015, 2:01 PM UTC

This debacle was a helpful reminder that we all do things that, out of context, can look really awful, and should be mindful of this when calling people out publicly. Neither of them deserved to be fired or harassed over this.

Personally, I have trouble seeing how a lewd joke about one man forking another man's repo (and following up with dongle jokes) involves or threatens women in any way, but I wasn't there.

I almost had sympathy for her, but she blamed the guy for the harassment he faced. That's bordering on unforgivable.

Re: Jon Ronson: How a Tweet Can Ruin Your Life

#229

Post by akerl_ » Thu, Mar 05, 2015, 2:01 PM UTC

probably_wrong wrote: post #80

codecondo wrote: post #3

Say what you like, but Hank didn't do anything wrong here. In fact, he only expressed everything that had happened to him, and it just so happened that many people decided to stand up for him in what seems to be a situation of very, very poor judgement. On the other hand, great and naturally flowing writing by the author, really enjoyed swimming through the story!

> Say what you like, but Hank didn't do anything wrong here. I think he did: there seems to be no discussion that he violated the conference's code of conduct. If we want to reduce the sexism in tech, I think reporting these instances is perfectly fine, and even commendable. However. She could have asked them politely to stop. If she didn't feel safe doing that, she could have talked in private to the conference's or…

Reporting instances of sexism is perfectly fine. Reporting a joke that is sexual and claiming it's sexism is not fine.

Their joke didn't involve women, reference women, reference men being better than women, reference superiority or inferiority of anyone, or as far as I can tell even imply any other jokes that would do those things.

Re: Jon Ronson: How a Tweet Can Ruin Your Life

#230

Post by TeMPOraL » Thu, Mar 05, 2015, 2:01 PM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #200

edw519 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why you should never use your real name with your online identity in any way I believe exactly the opposite. People say horrible things hiding behind anonymity. Those of us who freely identify ourselves actually attempt (albeit sometimes feebly) to talk to others as if we were in person. If we just treated each other on-line like we did in person, most of this shit would never happen. - Proud self-identified member o…

This works up until the point when some belief you expressed years ago becomes outmoded. Look at Brendan Eich; a political donation from 7 years prior, of which he made no public note and was only attached to him because of legal reporting requirements, was trudged up and used against him. I know this isn't an example of an online anonymity issue, but it shows the very dark path of intolerance we're going down, and t…

This is something that we need to take a strong stand against, actually. It's totally wrong that such things happen - that you can be fired from your job over something irrelevant that was both legal and OK back then, just because Internet fashions change.

EDIT: Also, how Brendan Eich is an argument for on-line anonymity again? All the actions that led to him getting fired were tied to his off-line identity.