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

Shame Storm

firstthings.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 247 posts

Re: Shame Storm

#231

Post by Grue3 »

BryantD wrote: post #37

I have a pretty simple algorithm for articles about the dangers of public shaming. If they fail to catalog GamerGate and the online shaming of Zoe Quinn as an example of the problem, they are probably not a balanced look at the phenomenon. I find Justine Sacco's case is a reasonable metric for the other half of the equation.

The difference is that Quinn was widely praised by the media, and ended up getting a book and movie deal out of it. It's a poor example of "dangers of public shaming". Sacco, like many other victims, was vilified by the media and lost everything.

Re: Shame Storm

#232

Post by petra »

NathanKP wrote: post #135
zestyping wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's weird to me that almost all posting/commenting platforms are about the same. You get a series of small boxes with text in them and a small box to type into, usually too small to fit more than a couple of sentences, perhaps a button to promote, a button to reshare, and that's it. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Medium, Disqus... all the same. We've explored so little of the design space. If I had to hazard in extrapo…

> We've explored so little of the design space. The design space that we are willing to explore is limited by the fundamental evolutionary drive of social media platforms to hold your attention as long as possible by feeding you little hits of dopamine for minimal effort. Social media platforms thrive on size and activity and neither can be established by raising the bar, only by lowering it to new depths.

We've seen similar limited designs in forum systems. And they aren't necessary driven by the social media economics.

So why are they so similar?

Re: Shame Storm

#233

Post by leereeves »

cabalamat wrote: post #145
zestyping wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's weird to me that almost all posting/commenting platforms are about the same. You get a series of small boxes with text in them and a small box to type into, usually too small to fit more than a couple of sentences, perhaps a button to promote, a button to reshare, and that's it. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Medium, Disqus... all the same. We've explored so little of the design space. If I had to hazard in extrapo…

> Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Medium, Disqus... all the same. Of the ones I've used I like Reddit the most. It allows long posts, uses Markdown, and is threaded. > We've explored so little of the design space. I've recently started writing a federated blogging platform which will use the ActivityPub protocol. One nice advantage of federated platforms, is they can share each others' messages meaning it's easier for th…

Reddit is no better.

The majority of posts on /r/popular are shaming, harassment, mocking, etc. Whole subs are devoted to that.

Re: Shame Storm

#234

Post by jf- »

hnuser1234 wrote: post #229
jf- wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s your point, that we can’t ensure perfect rules so let’s not have any? By extension we can’t ensure perfect government or laws so let’s not bother? I’m looking for a more charitable interpretation but there isn’t one. Maybe some level of democratisation or at least community engagement, but there will always be people who are dissatisfied.

The only hard rule I'll agree to is no direct threats of violence. Shame storms would be most effectively fought with better education, not moderators. Don't make judgements based on hearsay. Internet moderators don't help when a shame storm grows larger than the internet. Bit from the article: The solution, then, is not to try to make shame storms well targeted, but to make it so they happen as infrequently as possi…

In other words, the honour system. People will just be good by themselves, despite all of the incentives to act badly. Good luck with that.

I find it interesting that in any real life situation people would want rules to protect people from one another, but online they will argue that they aren't needed.

Re: Shame Storm

#235

Post by PavlovsCat »

cabalamat wrote: post #145
zestyping wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's weird to me that almost all posting/commenting platforms are about the same. You get a series of small boxes with text in them and a small box to type into, usually too small to fit more than a couple of sentences, perhaps a button to promote, a button to reshare, and that's it. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Medium, Disqus... all the same. We've explored so little of the design space. If I had to hazard in extrapo…

> Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Medium, Disqus... all the same. Of the ones I've used I like Reddit the most. It allows long posts, uses Markdown, and is threaded. > We've explored so little of the design space. I've recently started writing a federated blogging platform which will use the ActivityPub protocol. One nice advantage of federated platforms, is they can share each others' messages meaning it's easier for th…

> Sometimes a post can be short because a short post is all that is needed. E.g someone might ask me a question that the answer might simply be "yes". I would find it annoying to have to artificially pad the length.

> But longer posts should always be possible and the user interface shouldn't discourage them.

Yeah! For example, this is a node with two subnodes, one of which has a title and description and everything, the other just a body, so it gets a little permalink thingy:

https://i.imgur.com/tESzN5O.png

These are posts in a CMS and not comments, but the principle is the same. Just don't display gigantic things inline by default and there is no reason for big and small posts can't coexist.

Re: Shame Storm

#236

Post by zozbot123 »

mcguire wrote: post #200
AcerbicZero wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding of the GG drama was that it started fairly unsavory, but rapidly became about something entirely unrelated to Zoe and her relationships. The reaction from the gaming media organizations being accused of serious (if video games can be serious) lapses of journalistic integrity, complete with multiple examples of it just poured fuel onto the fire. After that, I stopped following it, but it does seem tha…

I'm afraid I only saw the GG thing after it had stopped being about journalistic integrity and video games (whatever the hell that is). Unsavory is a pretty mild description.

Spoiler: there's no "before" and "after". It was always about /v/ trolling Zoe Quinn. And to some people, I suppose, it was about journalistic integrity and video games (to channel '45'). Does one negate the other? That's a hard question, and a matter of interpretation - no matter where you stand, you'll never get everyone on the same page.

Re: Shame Storm

#237

Post by perfmode »

lifeformed wrote: post #102
jerf wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stand in his place for a week and tell me that. To echo manfredo, if the only people we can nominate to the Supreme Court are people who can just calmly sit there while the absolute worst accusations possible are flung against them, we're not going to be nominating new justices any time soon (Democrat or Republican). Or, alternatively, we're going to get a very, very distorted set of justices who lack all emotional a…

In Kavanaugh's case, the problem is deeper than the rape accusation itself. False accusations are horrible but we have to stop pretending that the people pushing for his nomination even cared if it was true or not. A majority of Republicans polled said that he should be confirmed even if it is proven he is a rapist. The Republican senators said they'd push the nomination through no matter what was found. It's clear f…

Thanks for taking the time to write this analysis.

Re: Shame Storm

#238

Post by pmarreck »

dang wrote: post #95
pmarreck wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not support the right of religious believers to promote their unsubstantiated-at-all-by-the-evidence causes, such as promise rings to prevent teen pregnancy, or that an abortion of a 5 day old embryo is morally equivalent to the murder of an adult human. Things like that are rationally indefensible. In short, I cannot stand idly by while BS is being promulgated. The sphere of permitted discussion should mainly i…

Religious flamewar isn't allowed on HN. Please don't post like this here.

If emphasizing rational discussion (even if it flaunts someone's non-empirical belief) is wrong, then I don't really want to be right.

Re: Shame Storm

#239

Post by pmarreck »

harimau777 wrote: post #94
pmarreck wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not support the right of religious believers to promote their unsubstantiated-at-all-by-the-evidence causes, such as promise rings to prevent teen pregnancy, or that an abortion of a 5 day old embryo is morally equivalent to the murder of an adult human. Things like that are rationally indefensible. In short, I cannot stand idly by while BS is being promulgated. The sphere of permitted discussion should mainly i…

Regardless of what you think the public sphere should include, restricting religious opinions from it is discrimination and should be condemned.

I guess you can go condemn governments, then

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9088352/Christians...

Re: Shame Storm

#240

Post by BryantD »

Grue3 wrote: post #231
BryantD wrote: post #37

I have a pretty simple algorithm for articles about the dangers of public shaming. If they fail to catalog GamerGate and the online shaming of Zoe Quinn as an example of the problem, they are probably not a balanced look at the phenomenon. I find Justine Sacco's case is a reasonable metric for the other half of the equation.

The difference is that Quinn was widely praised by the media, and ended up getting a book and movie deal out of it. It's a poor example of "dangers of public shaming". Sacco, like many other victims, was vilified by the media and lost everything.

I have good news for you! Sacco was hired as Director of Communications by FanDuel about 6 months after IAC fired her from a similar director-level position. She was promoted to VP at FanDuel two years later, and she is currently the VP of Communications for Match. (Which, as it happens, is owned by IAC.)

But that's not really the point. Let's say that Sacco's life really was destroyed... isn't that an even better reason to compare and contrast the two cases? Instead, the article we're talking about implies that the right never shames people. I sort of feel like that's a bad approach to the question.

Post reply on HN