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

241–250 of 280 posts

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#241

Post by seebs »

Clewza313 wrote: post #57
klodolph wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that this is just an attempt at explaining away toxic behavior without taking responsibility for it. People in the OSS community can, at times, glorify toxic behavior. I know people who take it as a badge of honor to "speak the truth", "speak directly", or "have no filter". Speaking directly and speaking the truth are good ideals to have, but if you really want to PROVE that you speak the truth and don't fear…

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.

There is a big difference between what's reasonable and acceptable in random people and what's reasonable and acceptable in people who are established or establishing themselves as Community Leaders. We expect leaders to model good behavior and take additional steps to avoid modeling harmful behaviors, because other people will emulate them.

He's been accused of things that are at the very least Somewhat Creepy. "Abusive" is a pretty high standard to reach, but I also think it's irrelevant. The way he treated people, coming from a person with power or authority, was likely to make people feel unsafe, and he was unwilling to recognize that the desire to have that position of social authority implied an obligation to mitigate such behaviors.

I think the community would be richer and better (and probably noticably more diverse in a number of ways) if either he'd changed his behavior and recognized the importance of these effects, or he'd been considered a non-leader of the community and merely an active contributor with strong opinions.

It's easy for people not familiar with these dynamics to massively underweight how much implied social pressure comes with being hit on by a person in a position of power within an organization. My usual assumption for someone with as much implied social authority as he had at MIT would be that it would basically be generally inappropriate for them to be hitting on anyone who wanted to be in or work in the lab or department they were affiliated with, because even if this specific person genuinely wouldn't abuse their power, many other people in comparable situations would and it's not really reasonable to expect people not to react to the possibility when it's such a widespread problem. (And yeah, that can sorta suck if you're lonely but in a position that makes it hard for you to hit on people without making them uncomfortable or afraid. One alternative is not to pursue or remain in such a position if it's a problem for you.)

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#242

Post by bill_mon »

Const-me wrote: post #235
bill_mon wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UN humans rights are not law in the USA. The first amendment says that the government can't make laws about religion. In the USA, people are free to have whatever religion they want, which is great. Pointing out that all available research points to some religious claim being wrong is not harassment.

All available research also points man and women are different physiologically, neurologically and psychologically. Yet if one goes around pointing that out to women for no good reason, some people will view such speech as discriminatory and will act accordingly. I don’t necessarily agree with these people, but that’s how it works in practice in many places. According to US federal laws, religion is a protected class…

This is getting off topic. Stating facts about the world is not discriminating. As an employer, I can choose not to hire stupid people.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#243

Post by visarga »

throwawaysea wrote: post #147
visarga wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pedro Domingos has published an article about how to combat cancel culture. > Beating Back Cancel Culture: A Case Study from the Field of Artificial Intelligence https://quillette.com/2021/01/27/beating-back-cancel-culture... TL;DR: Find your friends, Know what to expect, Don’t back down, Don’t let them make it about you, Hold the moral high ground, Mock them mercilessly, Don’t let their narrative outrun yours, Goad…

I am still in shock at what Anima Anandkumar attempted and cannot believe that she is still employed by Nvidia. It’s hard for me to view them as anything but safe harbor for aggressive totalitarian ideologues when someone like that is permitted to remain in a highly visible position. For those who aren’t familiar, Wikipedia has a brief summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anima_Anandkumar#Public_Contro...

She only cooled off when Pedro sent a complaint to NVIDIA. Apparently the threat of cancelling works.

A quote from PD:

> I have reached out to @NeurIPSConf, @Caltech and @NVIDIA about curtailing @AnimaAnandkumar's disgraceful behavior. Let's see how they respond.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#244

Post by mixmastamyk »

etchalon wrote: post #223
saagarjha wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 as…

I did not imply that he said, or believed, that what Minsky did was "right", and I fail to see how your interpretation is any different than mine.

I'll be a little more blunt because you two seem to be incapable of subtlety.

The dictionary definition of assault is "a violent attack, or threat of..." https://www.dictionary.com/browse/assault

Neither of those things happened according to our current, best knowledge, or at the time of the statements.

At best, we can say a third-party did the threatening beforehand. A third-party that was neither Minsky or Stallman.

To clarify further, assault does not mean... "ooh, I did something bad and failed to verify something I'm required to, but didn't want to, because reasons…". Expanding the definition of assault to include any poor behavior under the sun (in order to score virtue/outrage points) does not help anyone.

IANAL, and until we know more, I'd say a more accurate term for Minsk's misdeeds would be statutory-rape and perhaps "negligence."

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#245

Post by etchalon »

etchalon wrote: post #223
saagarjha wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 as…

I did not imply that he said, or believed, that what Minsky did was "right", and I fail to see how your interpretation is any different than mine.

You're making the exact same argument the RMS made, using the same logical construction that I laid down as being the argument RMS made, while arguing that I do not understand RMS's point.

I understood his point. I understood your point. I find the point to be pedantic.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#246

Post by _euac »

strken wrote: post #236
dguaraglia wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand your argument, but wouldn't be the opposite be true too? Aren't RMS's comments defending Minsky just a form of 'clout seeking' and being argumentative for arguments sake? If people are making the case that RMS is neurodivergent and therefore his behavior should be tolerated, shouldn't we be making exactly the same argument about the people you put on the latter group? Or is it only people we agree with t…

The argument was explaining why Twitter mobs form and what they're getting out of it, not in favour of RMS. I think the general principle of scepticism towards people who benefit from the stance they hold applies to you and I, to RMS, and to his detractors. That being said, I don't think he expected to benefit socially from the opinions that got him cancelled in general, or from complaining about the term "assaulting…

This seems like a very arbitrary and capricious partition between those doing something for 'clout' and those doing it because they can't help themselves.

Do you think the people now being attacked in this thread because they originally called for Richard Stallman to face consequences are being 'canceled'? I see a lot of people claiming nobody should take them seriously ever again, blah blah blah. Sounds like 'canceling' to me. Is this mob any better than the supposed 'cancel culture' mob?

In other words: should we stop using the term 'cancel culture' only in one direction?

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#247

Post by mixmastamyk »

etchalon wrote: post #245
etchalon wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did not imply that he said, or believed, that what Minsky did was "right", and I fail to see how your interpretation is any different than mine.

You're making the exact same argument the RMS made, using the same logical construction that I laid down as being the argument RMS made, while arguing that I do not understand RMS's point. I understood his point. I understood your point. I find the point to be pedantic.

You're not the only one here? And pedantry is rather immaterial in the long run.

Stallman certainly fits the bill, but when it is time to render a judgement we all need to focus on the details. We need to render a judgement on what actually happened, not what quick-to-outrage folks imagined happened. Details matter here.

A few people appear to believe that when something very bad happens we need to expand culpability to include everyone in the neighborhood who's not sufficiently condemning. I hope it is a minority viewpoint.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#248

Post by Rule35 »

klodolph wrote: post #188
Rule35 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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,…

> The code of conduct provides a process for people to address grievances.

No, that's the general procedure for handling adding and removing board members. It's the same procedure you'd follow if someone was arrested in the middle of the meeting.

A code of conduct is about the specific conduct. Picking your teeth, insulting tall people, etc.

> I don't think it's easy to game a code of conduct. Could you explain

If there is a written code it has to declare where the lack of gender recognition offense is compared to screaming at someone, for instance. If the code lists your pet offense above screaming, which they all do, then you can scream at people about your pet issue all day with zero risk.

If none of this is mentioned then it all falls back to the law. This is better because more skilled people have done more work on it, and because it's outside of the group's mandate so they can let members deal with it outside of the group. I can't follow you through a 7-11 yelling at you so you can apply the same rules to our official interactions and call the police if I act unruly in a meeting, no vote required.

Also, how does voting work when not only the level of offense, but the standard of offense itself is subjective. Does an accused director get to vote on whether the claimed offense falls into a listed class, but then have to recuse themselves for the vote on the seriousness of the specific claim? Or are they expected to recuse themselves from everything? How many directors do you need to accuse at once before quorum is you alone?

Generally nobody sees why you can't tell people about the specific anti-fraud rules until they work in a fraud-rife industry and watch the arms race. If you haven't been involved with multiple non-profits you might not have experienced this yet.

> I said that he should be replaced because he wasn't doing a satisfactory job.

But the thing he wasn't satisfying you by doing was enacting a code of conduct?

> I think that some of these problems could have been avoided if he made a stronger distinction between the GNU project and the FSF

Good point. I think everyone running things should try not to co-mingle their jobs. But this isn't a code of conduct issue, it's more appropriate as one of the basic requirements for a director. No conflicts of interest.

> Not wanting a code of conduct is [...] just bad policy for large projects

No, a code of conduct is a kiss of death. It adds nothing that honest members of the group need but gives trolls and ideologues a field day.

A group should never have rules about things outside of its core tasks, unless it wants 90% of its time to be spent arguing about things outside of its core tasks.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#249

Post by Dma54rhs »

duck wrote: post #29
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…

Here is the thread in question: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1172283772428906496.html

At what point more people start calling out mental illness?

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#250

Post by b215826 »

tomjen3 wrote: post #232
Clewza313 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Last night I posted about the term “domain driven design,” frequently abbreviated “DDD” - which is a common large bra measurement in the US, & often part of dirty movie titles. ...wow. Also, did she just call human sexuality "dirty"? I would have thought that was a cancellable offense these days.

>often part of dirty movie titles. As always, one wonders how she knows this.

She read about it in People.
Post reply on HN