Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study • Hacker News Board

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#121

Post by yason » Mon, Mar 28, 2016, 9:47 PM UTC

justsaysmthng wrote: post #27

HN is the most intelligent and open minded online community of this size that I know online. I have deep respect for you guys and girls and your opinions are always enlightening and thought provoking. I really feel much smarter because I have access to all these very valid points of view that you are surfacing. But even this community suffers from this strange phenomena of "group think" which leads me to go into this…

I don't really care enough to self-censor and I often play a game of negative karma with myself here.

To motivate myself to finish the comment I know won't be taken well in the average I first remind myself that the point of my comment isn't to cater to the consensus of the majority of the HN crowd but the reason I started writing it was because I felt something needed to be said and if there is one other person who finds my comment valuable, I have succeeded regardless of everything else. Secondly, in entering the game of negative karma I expect downvotes with the idea that the more I get the more sure I am I did strike the right chord there. It doesn't always work and I get a wave of upvotes instead, but you get the idea. I rarely look back except when my karma changes a lot overnight which is when I might take a look at what happened.

Note that I don't, or at least I don't intend to, troll, insult, or talk off-topic in order to hog downvotes for my game. The downvotes themselves aren't the goal: I just consider them an indicator of success when writing a comment I'm pretty sure I won't be getting many upvotes either. It's like targetting controversy. Ideally, I aim to make remarks that question the status quo or find blind spots in collective assumptions.

To close, I'm thinking about your question in the end. I think that self-censorship is about the need to belong. If you're an independent individualist you have no need for self-censorship because you don't care if people were to oust you because of what you said. Yet humans need that feeling of belonging which I think is best reserved for people closest in your life. You can shrug off a lot of thoughts when it comes to your spouse, your kids, or good friends -- thoughts that you could defend and question till the end in principle, but because principles are merely mental tools you know you can afford to shrug off a few of them as between you and these people you (hopefully) have something that goes beyond mere mental gymnastics.

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#122

Post by lotharbot » Mon, Mar 28, 2016, 9:53 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #117

lotharbot wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in the past, pg has used the analogy that upvotes are not only for civility, so downvotes aren't restricted only to incivility. My own personal guideline: upvote = "I would like more comments like this" and downvote = "I would like less comments like this". My reason for wanting less comments of a particular type can be a lot of things -- incivility, factual incorrectness, being off-topic or distracting, being techni…

PG had a few comments about downvoting. Two were like you said - people use upvote for agree so it makes sense that they downvote to disagree. But he also said that downvote for disagreement was a problem. That's (one of the) reason(s) why comment scores are no longer visible. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=658683 Here's pg trying to address incorrect downvoting: http…

yeah, it's more nuanced than "downvote for disagree" or "downvote only for flagrant hostility".

It's clear that some people are using downvotes aggressively, and that needs managed. I actually had a period of time when every comment I posted (no matter what time of day or what topic) received exactly one downvote between 5 and 6 pm in my time zone, as if I'd offended someone and they were retaliating. But I've also seen people post comments that are purely inflammatory with no worthwhile content (along the lines of "[group] is evil", where [group] is mainstream -- not ISIS or Nazis, but like, Republicans or Muslims) that didn't get downvoted. So the issue is more than "too few downvotes" or "too many downvotes".

So I try to be part of HN's corrective mechanism. If I see something blatantly inappropriate, I downvote and flag if appropriate. If I see something reasonable that's grayed out, I upvote. If I see something non-gray that I think is of negative value, I downvote, and I hope that if I misjudged it someone else will come along and cancel out my vote.

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#123

Post by nickbauman » Mon, Mar 28, 2016, 9:53 PM UTC

justsaysmthng wrote: post #27

HN is the most intelligent and open minded online community of this size that I know online. I have deep respect for you guys and girls and your opinions are always enlightening and thought provoking. I really feel much smarter because I have access to all these very valid points of view that you are surfacing. But even this community suffers from this strange phenomena of "group think" which leads me to go into this…

Groups will always enforce group-think especially as they age. Clay Shirky covers this extremely well.

http://www.shirky.com/writings/herecomeseverybody/group_enem...

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#124

Post by javajosh » Mon, Mar 28, 2016, 9:56 PM UTC

eternalban wrote: post #50

justsaysmthng wrote: post #27

HN is the most intelligent and open minded online community of this size that I know online. I have deep respect for you guys and girls and your opinions are always enlightening and thought provoking. I really feel much smarter because I have access to all these very valid points of view that you are surfacing. But even this community suffers from this strange phenomena of "group think" which leads me to go into this…

> even this community suffers from this strange phenomena of "group think" There is absolutely no social cost for downvoting without commenting. Adding costs and accountability: - force comment box on downvotes - deduct from karma - flagging only Is it important for HN's community to have a "psychologically safe" [1] at this point in time? I can not think of a more critical time for the "STEM" crowd to have a viable…

The idea of forcing a comment on downvote is an excellent one, and I for one would like to try that for a little while. (I say this as someone who tries to only downvotes for tone and trolling, never for disagreement.)

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#125

Post by Grishnakh » Mon, Mar 28, 2016, 9:56 PM UTC

fweespee_ch wrote: post #95

Grishnakh wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not "just karma". This isn't Reddit. On here, low karma means you can't downvote (while higher-karma people can, so they can use that to suppress the opinions of the low-karma people), which effectively makes you a second-class citizen here. Even worse, if the mods disagree strongly with your post, they'll happily detach it (so no one else can see it) and threaten to ban you.

It is to me. I've got ~9 HN accounts over 1k and I cycle to a new one every so often because that is how little I care about the features that karma-gated. If you take HN seriously enough to care, ummm, why? No offense but this place largely acts like a more technically sophisticated Reddit with everything from downvoting factual statements to upvoting provably false opinion. That doesn't include the inherent bias in…

How long have you been on here? I've been on here a few months I think, and I'm just a little over 400. I'm still a long way from 1000, and that's just one account. So to me, karma is pretty important; AFAIC, I'm just a second-class citizen here at this point.

I do agree about your comparison to Reddit. Honestly, if my workplace didn't block Reddit, I probably wouldn't spend much time here.

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#126

Post by fweespee_ch » Mon, Mar 28, 2016, 10:02 PM UTC

Grishnakh wrote: post #125

fweespee_ch wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is to me. I've got ~9 HN accounts over 1k and I cycle to a new one every so often because that is how little I care about the features that karma-gated. If you take HN seriously enough to care, ummm, why? No offense but this place largely acts like a more technically sophisticated Reddit with everything from downvoting factual statements to upvoting provably false opinion. That doesn't include the inherent bias in…

How long have you been on here? I've been on here a few months I think, and I'm just a little over 400. I'm still a long way from 1000, and that's just one account. So to me, karma is pretty important; AFAIC, I'm just a second-class citizen here at this point. I do agree about your comparison to Reddit. Honestly, if my workplace didn't block Reddit, I probably wouldn't spend much time here.

> How long have you been on here?

This account got over 300 karma in 20 days. ~60-90 days is how long it usually takes me to hit 1000+.

On and off since 2010.

If you want, I could probably give you one of my 1000+ accounts. I'm not sure if that is against the guidelines tho. I suppose I could email dang. xD

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#127

Post by ionforce » Mon, Mar 28, 2016, 10:03 PM UTC

fweespee_ch wrote: post #95

Grishnakh wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not "just karma". This isn't Reddit. On here, low karma means you can't downvote (while higher-karma people can, so they can use that to suppress the opinions of the low-karma people), which effectively makes you a second-class citizen here. Even worse, if the mods disagree strongly with your post, they'll happily detach it (so no one else can see it) and threaten to ban you.

It is to me. I've got ~9 HN accounts over 1k and I cycle to a new one every so often because that is how little I care about the features that karma-gated. If you take HN seriously enough to care, ummm, why? No offense but this place largely acts like a more technically sophisticated Reddit with everything from downvoting factual statements to upvoting provably false opinion. That doesn't include the inherent bias in…

Why do you care to care so little? Why not just stick to one account?

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#128

Post by fweespee_ch » Mon, Mar 28, 2016, 10:08 PM UTC

ionforce wrote: post #127

fweespee_ch wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is to me. I've got ~9 HN accounts over 1k and I cycle to a new one every so often because that is how little I care about the features that karma-gated. If you take HN seriously enough to care, ummm, why? No offense but this place largely acts like a more technically sophisticated Reddit with everything from downvoting factual statements to upvoting provably false opinion. That doesn't include the inherent bias in…

Why do you care to care so little? Why not just stick to one account?

Why would I care more?

My HN account provides me with no financial benefits and exists purely for entertainment value.

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#129

Post by jacquesm » Mon, Mar 28, 2016, 10:08 PM UTC

imron wrote: post #100

eternalban wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> even this community suffers from this strange phenomena of "group think" There is absolutely no social cost for downvoting without commenting. Adding costs and accountability: - force comment box on downvotes - deduct from karma - flagging only Is it important for HN's community to have a "psychologically safe" [1] at this point in time? I can not think of a more critical time for the "STEM" crowd to have a viable…

I like the idea of downvotes costing you karma. Forcing the comment box is also interesting. Maybe only make the downvote available to people who have already replied to a post.

Karma economy: Every submitted link or comment: +1 karma, every upvote, another +1, but a -1 for the upvoter. In the case of a downvote on a comment: -1 for the comment writer, -1 for the downvoter.

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#130

Post by mreiland » Mon, Mar 28, 2016, 10:13 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #29

justsaysmthng wrote: post #27

HN is the most intelligent and open minded online community of this size that I know online. I have deep respect for you guys and girls and your opinions are always enlightening and thought provoking. I really feel much smarter because I have access to all these very valid points of view that you are surfacing. But even this community suffers from this strange phenomena of "group think" which leads me to go into this…

I'd encourage you to stop 'self-censoring'. What matters a few karma points, if you have something important to say? You'll find that often an initial knee-jerk downvoting can turn around half a day later, as more considerate users join the conversation.

except that it can get you banned or harassed. I had deng(dang?) follow me around, and he (she?) was obviously prepping for a ban.

At one point he wholesale deleted a comment of mine because it was widely misinterpreted in a sexist way (I clarified to multiple people, but it wasn't enough apparently). The sad part is the only ones being sexist were the ones interpreting it that way, I was personally shocked that so many people thought I was being sexist.

And that was just the last time he stepped in, he had been threatening me repeatedly, and why? My best guess is either

a) because I was having a conversation with another poster in which he came in and bitched at them, only I defended that poster, or b) after I was "flag bombed" (I think that's the term?) for having an opinion many didn't like [1].

I'm not sure which because they were both a part of the same thread, but immediately after I started seeing deng everywhere, threatening me repeatedly. I've been online long enough to know what being targetted by a mod looks like.

This idea that you shouldn't be self censoring on HN is naive. It means you haven't attracted deng's ire (or one of the other mods) or said something that was truly an "unsafe" minority opinion.

There's apparently another person who won't allow linking from HN I believe? I don't know the full story behind that, but I can absolutely understand that person's opinion of HN.

HN is honestly one of the oppressive environments for actual discourse I've seen and that's not a joke. The only site I can think of off the top of my head that's unequivocally worse is hubski.com.

The poster who spoke about 4chan is spot on. You can optimize for good discussion or you can optimize for feel good politeness, but you can't optimize for both. Most communities attempt to balance it, but HN leans far to the side of feel good politeness. You don't actually come to HN for discussion, you come to HN to make comments on random things that pop up. Unfortunately, some mistake that for discussion, but I'm of the opinion those folks don't actually understand what a good discussion is.

To end this post, I'm just going to say I find your opinion to be horrifically naive. Even now I know the reaction is going to be folks piling on to tell me how great a person deng is, and I'll find myself taking another multi-month long hiatus from HN until deng (once again) forgets about me.

I've been online for entirely too long.

[1] The poster I defended took issue with my opinion and we were going round and round about it and deng apparently thought he was getting too heated. I was the recipient of said "heat" and I disagreed.