Live data from Hacker News

Man Who Built the Retweet: “We Handed a Loaded Weapon to 4-Year-Olds”

buzzfeednews.com

111–120 of 148 posts

Re: Man Who Built the Retweet: “We Handed a Loaded Weapon to 4-Year-Olds”

#111
post #84

It's so annoying when platforms and product managers think they know better than their users. People want to retweet and they will even if you remove this feature (as they were before it existed). It basically comes off as Twitter doesn't like the users they have or the behavior they want. It's really hilarious that they use Gamergate as an example of why retweets are bad. That was a massive manifestation of the abov…

i find it hard to believe that people think it's as simple as gamers just plain hating women for no reason, but it seems to be repeated all the time

A lot of the people you're referring to don't think it's "as simple" as "just plain hating" for "no reason". Reality is more complex, but it's a pretty reasonable opinion, based on observation and direct experience, that a lot of Gamergate revolved around calling any women involved whores, calling any men involved cucks, and calling any Jews involved kikes. I'm not sure how it's possible to expect people to not get from there to the feeling that one of the primary front-facing attributes of Gamergate was hatred.

Re: Man Who Built the Retweet: “We Handed a Loaded Weapon to 4-Year-Olds”

#112
post #54

So tired of these "OMG What Did I Create?" stories from social media devs. How about you grow a conscience _before_ you build these things? I have told managers to go f themselves for: Content that would demean people Lying to or misleading customers *Hosing over my fellow engineers ... among other things I don't think it's that special of a thing to do but reading these things makes it seem like it is.

I would just like to understand the mental process that evolves a conscience from "This is probably fine" to "That’s what I think we actually did [just handed a 4-year-old a loaded weapon]". In my moral calculus giving a 4-year-old a loaded weapon is pretty damn distinct from implementing a social media button for teens and older which among its negative aspects facilitates cyber bullying or other negative social beh…

Have to normalize that into utilitons first. :)

Giving one 4 y/o a gun is pretty bad. Giving one teen a retweet button is much less bad. Giving _all_ teens and teen-minded people retweet buttons is as bad as a sum of all negative (and positive) consequences.

Once you do that you might reasonably arrive at equivalence.

Re: Man Who Built the Retweet: “We Handed a Loaded Weapon to 4-Year-Olds”

#113
post #97

Reading through some of the comments here, it occurs to me that there's a moral trilemma at play here: you can have power , you can have righteousness , or you can have impartiality , but you must pick 2 out of 3. If you bring something new into the world that gives new voice or new capabilities to previously disenfranchised groups, then you have a choice between explicitly selecting who you bestow this power on (in…

"Choose two out of three" triangles are sexy, but I fail to see how this applies here. Doing nothing doesn't really mean choosing to be impartial and righteous at the same time, and there is no way to both moderate and be impartial if you actually run a platform. I see it as every platform being able to choose a point on a sliding scale between enforcing its morality and being impartial. The more moderation you do, t…

You can choose one or none if you want to. You just can't choose all three, because then you're doing what the article's subject described as 'handing a loaded weapon to 4 year olds'.

Re: Man Who Built the Retweet: “We Handed a Loaded Weapon to 4-Year-Olds”

#114

It's so annoying when platforms and product managers think they know better than their users. People want to retweet and they will even if you remove this feature (as they were before it existed). It basically comes off as Twitter doesn't like the users they have or the behavior they want. It's really hilarious that they use Gamergate as an example of why retweets are bad. That was a massive manifestation of the abov…

I always roll my eyes when HN falls for interviews with "random engineer or product person responsible for [feature]", as if that automatically confers authority like they're Richard Stallman or Tim Berners-Lee. Combining the fact that they have nothing insightful to say with the ego boost from being interviewed in visible articles means that people like this are going to say whatever they think will provide a punchy…

For me, the motivation is that it's interesting to see someone grapple with the consequences of their work.

This guy is clearly no guru. And the sensationalism of the title is just media being media.

Re: Man Who Built the Retweet: “We Handed a Loaded Weapon to 4-Year-Olds”

#115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You don't live up to your own argument!" is an attack on the person, not the argument -- a form of ad hominem . Just because someone doesn't take their own advice doesn't mean that the advice itself is unsound. As the old saying goes, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

How is it not a reflection on the argument? If I say something is good advice but don't follow it, I clearly don't believe it myself in every respect. That seems highly relevant.

Again, that says something about you, not about the argument.

I say people should get some exercise every day. In practice, however, I only get to the gym once or twice a week. That means I'm a hypocrite (and a lazy one at that), but it doesn't mean people shouldn't get some exercise every day.

Re: Man Who Built the Retweet: “We Handed a Loaded Weapon to 4-Year-Olds”

#116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it wasn't. I actually looked into the whole saga as I kept on hearing about it (back in 2015ish). From what I could gleen there were some individual women that said disparaging remarks about a whole group of individuals and were surprised when they got push back from the rest of the community which btw included women. I've noticed more generally that one person will say something quite rude about a whole group of…

Then you didn't look at it that deep because it's generally agreed that what started the saga was a jilted boyfriend of a woman who created a video game accused a publication of giving her game a favorable review because the reviewer slept with her. The entire accusation is bunk because it wasn't even the person accused of that didn't even review the game.

I looked plenty deep enough. That series of events is a very very dishonest and incomplete attempt at re-framing the whole issue and all the people involved.

I have very little to do generally with games, but I've had a similar situation (but at a much smaller scale) where people have claimed bullying (no such thing happened) after basically upsetting a large number of the group.

I am also old enough and seen enough scandals play out similarly in other spheres of the media. I have actually been at an event and the media mis-represented what happened. So I wouldn't trust a journalist as far as I can throw them.

Re: Man Who Built the Retweet: “We Handed a Loaded Weapon to 4-Year-Olds”

#117
post #39

It's so annoying when platforms and product managers think they know better than their users. People want to retweet and they will even if you remove this feature (as they were before it existed). It basically comes off as Twitter doesn't like the users they have or the behavior they want. It's really hilarious that they use Gamergate as an example of why retweets are bad. That was a massive manifestation of the abov…

Gamergate was a harassment movement aimed at women in videogames that had some very smart people thinking of justifications and excuses to protect it in public.

Gamergate was an INSANELY complex situation, involving thousands of actors with differing and intentionally unclear motivations. It was eventually labeled as a "movement" by the opposition, not by the "members" of the "movement", in order to paint a picture of their persecution, whether valid or invalid. They wanted a platform. They were given one. And they exploited it.

I mean, Jesus, just read the wikipedia article.

> Frank Lantz of NYU's Game Center wrote that he could not find "a single explanation of a coherent Gamergate position". Christopher Grant, editor-in-chief of Polygon, told the Columbia Journalism Review: "The closest thing we've been able to divine is that it's noise. It's chaos [...] all you can do is find patterns. And ultimately Gamergate will be defined—I think has been defined—by some of its basest elements."

That's because there Was No Movement! The pattern recognition centers in human brains go beyond confusion when presented with a situation like this. You know how whenever Anonymous comes up in the news, it's always labeled "the online hacker group Anonymous"? It's utter insanity. It's not a group. It's not a movement. They don't have weekly meetings down at the VFA. It's just an asshole with a computer. And, in the case of Gamergate, there was a cultural zeitgeist involved. A thousand people send disgusting messages on Twitter; our brains have to believe there's a pattern, that there's organization. But what if there isn't? Because, well, there wasn't with Gamergate. It was just mob mentality.

Frankly, we're all better off just putting both sides of that whole shitstorm behind us, like most internet food fights. The assholes who harassed people were, well, assholes. The women they harassed didn't deserve what happened to them, but they also handled it very poorly. Streisand Effect hits. Now Anonymous has a spotlight, and you know they're going to abuse that. It's no longer about what they actually believe. Now, it's about Chaos. Because Chaos is Fun. You call them sexist. You call them bigots. They laugh. They don't care what you call them. But: You care what they're calling you. Now, they're in control. They have the power. You gave it to them.

Afterward, everyone rational is trying to figure out what happened, trying to derive a pattern and point fingers. It has to be someone's fault; we need content for this clickbait we're writing about it. The people involved are still laughing, because they're STILL controlling you. Just stop. Don't engage terrorists.

Re: Man Who Built the Retweet: “We Handed a Loaded Weapon to 4-Year-Olds”

#118
post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you realize you are employing typical defence of any conspiracy theory when facing the fact that an alleged conspiracy doesn't look consistent to be real? And I mean absolutely literally. That exact statement I heard from people who believe in ZOG.

We know gamergate was a conspiracy because someone found the IRC channel where the conspirators were conspiring.

The proof of which existed only in form of a picture posted by 'someone' who (mildly speaking) was deeply involved in the controversy.

Re: Man Who Built the Retweet: “We Handed a Loaded Weapon to 4-Year-Olds”

#119

It's so annoying when platforms and product managers think they know better than their users. People want to retweet and they will even if you remove this feature (as they were before it existed). It basically comes off as Twitter doesn't like the users they have or the behavior they want. It's really hilarious that they use Gamergate as an example of why retweets are bad. That was a massive manifestation of the abov…

I always roll my eyes when HN falls for interviews with "random engineer or product person responsible for [feature]", as if that automatically confers authority like they're Richard Stallman or Tim Berners-Lee. Combining the fact that they have nothing insightful to say with the ego boost from being interviewed in visible articles means that people like this are going to say whatever they think will provide a punchy…

Why do you say "HN" is falling for it? Hacker News did not write the article. Buzzfeed did. We're simply commenting on it.

Re: Man Who Built the Retweet: “We Handed a Loaded Weapon to 4-Year-Olds”

#120

Reading through some of the comments here, it occurs to me that there's a moral trilemma at play here: you can have power , you can have righteousness , or you can have impartiality , but you must pick 2 out of 3. If you bring something new into the world that gives new voice or new capabilities to previously disenfranchised groups, then you have a choice between explicitly selecting who you bestow this power on (in…

Often it just comes down to pure metrics for them. If it increases engagement metrics, keep it. If it decreases those numbers, drop or revise. Local maxima optimization.
Post reply on HN