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

211–220 of 280 posts

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#211

Post by eeZah7Ux »

yellowapple wrote: post #206
r3trohack3r wrote: post #6

A different take: Microsoft, Oracle, et. al. waged a war against OSS in the 90s. They went as far as using mental illness as a weapon against the community (equating participation in the commons as an equivalent to mental illness). It’s not a coincidence the class of human that weathered the storm looks like Stallman, Linus, ESR, et. al. That’s what it took. The toxicity in these communities is a result of what was l…

A different take on your different take: it might not be coincidental that said current wave of villification coincides with large technology corporations (ostensibly) embracing "open source". The causality is unclear - it could be some nefarious attempt by corporate interests to weaponize public sentiment against "obstacles" to said corporate interests, or it could simply be corporate interests becoming more 21w/ill…

Not much tinfoil: big corporations successfully coopted the Free Software movement into Open Source and finally into unpaid labor for SaaS corporations.

Then, they start banning GPLv3.

Next, the same "Linux is cancer" microsoft now "loves Linux" and buys GitHub.

The EEE process is going strong.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#213

Post by matheusmoreira »

donsupreme wrote: post #25

> Sarah Mei then went through the board members involved one by one, digging into each of their histories, and tweeting what she viewed as fire-worthy infractions. The crimes included: “being super involved with Wikipedia,” retweeting a “hideous” New York Times editorial, and being friendly with famed democracy activist and law professor Lawrence Lessig. Publicly calling out each board member in turn with a clear imp…

It's like we're back in the middle ages.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#214

Post by AdmiralGinge »

ryandrake wrote: post #97
smsm42 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, she is the character that needs to be ignored. That's the proper way to deal with trolls - not feeding them, not fighting them but starving them of attention they so desperately crave.

This is why you should just ignore “people on Twitter.” People like this only have power if you pay attention to them. I’m not on Twitter and have never been. People could be “canceling” me there right now and I’d have no idea, and it wouldn’t affect me in the slightest. We give people power by paying undue attention to them.

I think Twitter in general is such a harmful thing. There's very little worth saying that can be compressed into 280 characters beyond "I'm right, you're wrong, anyone who disagrees with my subjective opinion is scum" yet somehow it's become the platform of choice for journalism in general.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#215

Post by calvinmorrison »

mimikatz wrote: post #26
calvinmorrison wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You also should not tell racist jokes, sexist or other off color jokes etc at work. However everyone is able to discuss how they loved the new Chappelle skit. How does that make sense? Context maybe, but I'm not sure.

It doesn't. The rules people claim are the rules aren't the rules. There is a different set of rules, but they change all the time so you have to be on top of it and follow those. It sounds hard, but really you just do what everyone else is doing and you will be fine. Step outside what everyone else is doing and you are at risk.

Only the jester can make fun of the king I guess

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#216

Post by koheripbal »

AussieWog93 wrote: post #93

My Lord. If Stallman truly is the reason that this Sarah Mei character didn't participate in Open Source for over a decade, I think the best thing we can do as a community is to make as many clones of him as possible.

I wonder if maybe we need age segregated social media sites. I wonder if twitter/facebook/reddit segmented their content so that teenagers and young adults could run amok, without it being visible to the adults on the site - if that would stop companies from taking all this bullying seriously.

Sarah Mei herself isn't a teenager, but looking at the comments that she got, a huge percentage of the people that liked/shared/upvoted are.

Teenagers and young adults amplify irrational voices on social media. We need to give them their own playground.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#217

Post by moistbar »

sneak wrote: post #202
ggm wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I don't agree. He was partly punished for what people THOUGHT he had said, and for past transgressions, and in large part for what people were TOLD he had said. Not for what he actually said.

He wasn't punished, he was fired. You're allowed to revoke consent to an interaction or business relationship at any time. It's not a punishment to anyone else to say "this situation (employing rms) isn't for me and I don't want to be in it any longer". Firing isn't punitive.

Firing is absolutely punitive.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#218

Post by moistbar »

sneak wrote: post #201
ggm wrote: post #2

Well worth reading. Lucid, clear. Didnt make me like Stallman more, but articulated some of the issues well. On the whole, I think the cancel/trigger thing has got out of hand. People need to be accountable for what they say, not what people believe they think.

> People need to be accountable for what they say, not what people believe they think. I disagree. What people believe what someone thinks, even if incorrect, is a legitimate basis for someone's choice of free association. It's entirely legitimate for someone to avoid someone else (including fire them) on the basis of false beliefs about that person, due to failing to spend enough time understanding the nuance of the…

So every alleged criminal should be treated as guilty until proven innocent?

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#219

Post by Const-me »

bill_mon wrote: post #196
klodolph wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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. Yes, I knew all along that "toxic" means "dangerous". When we're not talking about eg. plutonium, we at least borrow the seriousness of that use. It's a very strong word. > [...] his actions are to call people stupid over their religious…

Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human...), and if you're in US you have 1-st amendment there.

For this reason, verbally harassing people for their faith is IMO more toxic than "I disagree with you" or even "I disagree with you and I think you're stupid".

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#220

Post by wayneftw »

r3trohack3r wrote: post #6

A different take: Microsoft, Oracle, et. al. waged a war against OSS in the 90s. They went as far as using mental illness as a weapon against the community (equating participation in the commons as an equivalent to mental illness). It’s not a coincidence the class of human that weathered the storm looks like Stallman, Linus, ESR, et. al. That’s what it took. The toxicity in these communities is a result of what was l…

> They went as far as using mental illness as a weapon against the community (equating participation in the commons as an equivalent to mental illness).

They went as far as fantasizing about associating those who used competing tech with mental deficiency.

Here is the quote from page 55 of the document you cited [0]

> Ideally, use of the competing technology becomes associated with mental deficiency, as in, "he believes in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and OS/2." Just keep rubbing it in, via the press, analysts, newsgroups, whatever. Make the complete failure of the competition's technology part of the mythology of the computer industry. We want to place selection pressure on [people who use the competing tech]...

Do people really need a plan to talk this way though? I remember how Linux, Mac and Windows enthusiasts used to talk about each other in the 90s, early 2000s and even today. Even right here on HN. Is it all Microsoft's fault? I don't think so. This is how people behave, especially online.

[0] http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Comes-3096.pdf

Post reply on HN