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

Cancel We The Web? (2020)

wetheweb.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 280 posts

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#181

Post by Rule35 »

klodolph wrote: post #103
Clewza313 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So expressing sincerely held beliefs in a personal forum like his own website is in and of itself "toxic"? Many of RMS's beliefs are indeed well outside the mainstream, but as far as I'm aware nobody has ever accused him actually doing anything abusive to anybody.

> So expressing sincerely held beliefs in a personal forum like his own website is in and of itself "toxic"? That's a loaded question... it looks like you're making some wild assumptions about whether I think Stallman is toxic, and the reasoning for that. > Many of RMS's beliefs are indeed well outside the mainstream, but as far as I'm aware nobody has ever accused him actually doing anything abusive to anybody. So,…

>> RMS’s loss of MIT privileges and leadership of the FSF are the appropriate responses

> I think it's clear that the GNU project needs a code of conduct

Why? It seems from your quote that people can be removed without a code and, as the FAANGs show us, a written criteria just gets gamed. A code of conduct is redundant and problematic. It victimizes the trustworthy.

> if the leader is opposed to the idea as much as Stallman is, then it's correct to replace him

The ultimate crime - even above anything in a code of conduct - is not wanting a code of conduct? Is anything else an absolute?

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#182

Post by preommr »

boulos wrote: post #45
seebs wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a fascinating take, but I don't think it's particularly related to what actually happened. I wasn't toxic because of some Microsoft FUD, I was toxic because I was a teenager with low empathy who hadn't learned things yet. I grew out of it. Lots of people in open source were never particularly toxic, and there's no reason they should have been. Even granting the existence of the external stress (and it really w…

What, if anything, would you update in your post from a decade ago [1] on Steve Jobs, RMS, and empathy? (My guess is not much, other than maybe a personal preference on the empathy side?) [1] https://www.seebs.net/log/post/2011/10/11/why-steve-jobs-did...

Is seebs someone that's particularly famous? The parent comment seems to imply they were part of the "Stallman, Linus, ESR, et. al."

And their profile just says "that seebs".

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#183

Post by saagarjha »

etchalon wrote: post #178
saagarjha wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the biggest conflict here is the fact that most people are not actual pedophiles or sexual assault defenders; however, many may have confused, internally inconsistent or overly simplistic views on those topics. To that end, I really think you need to put on a Stallman hat to understand his viewpoint. (Not that I’m not saying this is something you should wear normally, this is just an attempt to interpret his…

His argument wasn't difficult to understand, and I accepted it in good faith. He believed the term "sexual assault" should be reserved for those cases where content was affirmatively withdrawn, and physical violence was used. He believed that the broadening of term would lead people to believe someone accused of "sexual assault" was guilty of the most morally reprehensible version of the crime imaginable (formal with…

I disagree with your interpretation, so clearly it's not as simple as you are laying it out to be. I did interpret it the same as this:

> In this specific case, he believed that his friend hadn't committed "sexual assault", under his preferred definition, and found it more plausible that his friend thought the victim was willing, or was lead to believe she was.

but I disagree on how I think he is describing sexual assault. I think he brings up violence and withdrawal of consent as what he believes most people think when they imagine sexual assault (without actually defining it as limited to those categories). He seems to believe that it is possible that his friend was mislead, which he then laments is not the situation most people think of when they hear "sexual assault" (which conjures up active malice). This is kind of what you are saying, but the big difference here is that I think his main point was more "I think the words being used describe Minsky as doing something he did not do" and less "I think what he did was right".

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#184

Post by mst »

mjg59 wrote: post #84

Any writeup of this that concentrates on external responses and ignores the strong response from many within the communities that RMS led is failing to tell the complete story. There's no shortage of people extremely familiar with his work and behaviour who felt his continued involvement was inappropriate, but instead we're exposed to story after story about how a group of people pushing a one sided narrative unjustl…

I think RMS' documented behaviour within communities over the years absolutely justified consequences of some sort.

I also think the blatant lying about him by people outside of those communities should have attracted consequences as well, and the fact that it largely didn't makes it annoyingly easier for people to make those stories look plausible.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#185

Post by mst »

dralley wrote: post #52
ApicalDendrite wrote: post #28

Wasn't part of the issue with Stallman that his behavior, not just his ideas, were problematic. Like telling a college freshman that he'd kill himself if she didn't go out with him: https://daringfireball.net/2019/09/richard_stallmans_disgrac...

Yes. https://medium.com/@thomas.bushnell/a-reflection-on-the-depa... (Above is a piece by someone who worked with RMS for years, explaining why it was not this one event that got him canned, but a long pattern of poor behavior, which he partially bore witness to)

The long term poor behaviour is a reasonable argument for the end result.

I just wish the people lying about him to make him look even worse than the facts did had faced some consequences for that as well.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#186

Post by strken »

_euac wrote: post #76
r3trohack3r wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Good times breed weak [humans]” But I see it differently. I feel the wolves are in sheep’s skin, and are trying to convince me the sheep are wolves.

I'm always curious about this line of thinking. What exactly do you think people are gaining by - say - denouncing sexism or other kinds of awful behavior? What's so wolfish about that?

People who denounce sexism because they've got a moral framework or intuition that tells them sexism is bad are principled actors. People who denounce sexism because they're trying to get likes on social media, because it grants them social approval, or because they've made a job out of it are acting out of self-interest. Not everyone who is in the second group knows what their motivations are: people usually come up with seemingly altruistic reasons for self-interested behaviour, and genuinely believe those reasons, even though they wouldn't behave that way if they weren't getting anything out of it.

As per the article, "punishment should be proportional to the offence", and punishments should ensure the offender will "constructively come to understand, repent, and make amends for an infraction". The first group can be relied upon to see transgressions in light of their broader moral principles. They won't always seek punishments that are proportional and restorative, because those are moral principles in themselves, but they'll at least be trying to do what they believe is a good thing.

The second group is scary because they just don't stop. They'll keep doing things in order to get the reward of social approval or social media, for as long as that reward lasts. Even worse, because they don't have good introspection about the underlying rewards that incentivise them, they'll reward each other for escalating. They'll tear people's lives apart without a shred of guilt, because they're getting something out of it, which is why they're seen as predators.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#187

Post by mst »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #173
CanceledAccount wrote: post #40

I was canceled on Twitter last year. Hundreds of people were harassed for being associated with me, my social circles were ripped to shreds, and I feared for my safety. I got into right wing shitposting and logs from a small private chat group were leaked. It was one of the worst experiences of my life and I haven’t recovered. They feel like they’ve made the world a better place.

> I got into ...shitposting ... It was one of the worst experiences of my life and I haven’t recovered. It sounds like you got your arse kicked for being a jerk. Oops. There's a psychological model for this called DARVO, knowing about it might help you recover. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARVO DARVO is an acronym for "deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender". It is a common manipulation strategy of psychol…

No matter what else is in play, "hundreds of people were harassed for being associated with me" doesn't strike me as effective praxis.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#188

Post by klodolph »

Rule35 wrote: post #181
klodolph wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So expressing sincerely held beliefs in a personal forum like his own website is in and of itself "toxic"? That's a loaded question... it looks like you're making some wild assumptions about whether I think Stallman is toxic, and the reasoning for that. > Many of RMS's beliefs are indeed well outside the mainstream, but as far as I'm aware nobody has ever accused him actually doing anything abusive to anybody. So,…

>> RMS’s loss of MIT privileges and leadership of the FSF are the appropriate responses > I think it's clear that the GNU project needs a code of conduct Why? It seems from your quote that people can be removed without a code and, as the FAANGs show us, a written criteria just gets gamed. A code of conduct is redundant and problematic. It victimizes the trustworthy. > if the leader is opposed to the idea as much as S…

> Why? It seems from your quote that people can be removed without a code [...]

Just because someone can be removed from a position of power without a code of conduct does not mean that the process was correct. You can also throw people in jail without a trial, but you shouldn't.

The code of conduct provides a process for people to address grievances. I believe this makes it more likely that grievances get addressed, and reduces the amount of personal bias.

> ...as the FAANGs show us, a written criteria just gets gamed.

I don't think it's easy to game a code of conduct. Could you explain, or give an example?

> The ultimate crime - even above anything in a code of conduct - is not wanting a code of conduct? Is anything else an absolute?

You're confusing "crime" with "not doing a good job". I said that he should be replaced because he wasn't doing a satisfactory job.

His job was to run the FSF and the GNU project. He was doing that job poorly. Therefore, he should step down and let someone else run it.

Honestly, I think that some of these problems could have been avoided if he made a stronger distinction between the GNU project and the FSF. He could have handed management of the GNU project off to someone else and focused more on the FSF, which is where his strengths lie.

Not wanting a code of conduct is not a "thoughtcrime". It's just bad policy for large projects. "Bad" as in "incompetent", not as in "morally wrong".

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#189

Post by klodolph »

bill_mon wrote: post #174
klodolph wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Toxic" does not mean "dangerous" in this context. The lingustic phenomenon is called polysemy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polysemy It's like how when I "execute" a program, you understand that I am not killing the program as punishment. Even though the word "execute" has that meaning, it only applies in other contexts.

Toxicity is a serious thing. We label toxic chemicals with labels and warnings because they're dangerous. Serious business. When we apply "toxic" to a person or his behaviour, we borrow that seriousness. That's why we choose that specific, strong words with a well-known meaning. I oppose calling "I disagree with your world view" toxic. A serial killer might deserve the term.

> When we apply "toxic" to a person or his behaviour, we borrow that seriousness. That's why we choose that specific, strong words with a well-known meaning.

So, you knew what the meaning of "toxic" was all along, but you pretended to not know what the meaning was in order to make some kind of point? I would prefer a direct discussion.

> I oppose calling "I disagree with your world view" toxic. A serial killer might deserve the term.

Mr. X isn't toxic for his world view, it's his actions--his actions are to call people stupid over their religious beliefs.

Stallman isn't "toxic" for writing a couple essays or emails, but you could argue that he's toxic for the way he treated people over the past decades.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#190

Post by lambda_obrien »

oaiey wrote: post #158
wyldfire wrote: post #9

> Activists quickly found his reputation for asking women out and making jokes about “EMACS virgins." I'm all in favor of believing victims of sexual harassment and assault. Those claims are so very rarely made falsely that they should be taken very seriously. But what about claims that a man/woman made sexual jokes or "inappropriate" innuendo? Certainly they can be cause for concern if the accused is someone who has…

He was actively avoided by the women of the MIT media Lab. That speaks a lot just by itself. Flirtation is game around boundaries. When you overstep once, society/the woman will look over it. If you do all the time you will be labeled and avoided. Maybe he applies his stubbornness to everything in life. Which can have outcomes from the awesomeness of a FSF, to isolation or to a lifelong sentence in a prison. Depends…

People avoid weirdo dudes who act weird, even if they're not sexual predators.
Post reply on HN