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

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#61

Post by ywecur » Mon, Mar 28, 2016, 8:34 PM UTC

ars wrote: post #41

ywecur wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn't agree more. I'm not sure how to solve the problem though, other than trying to teach people to treat the down vote button more respectfully. IMO there shouldn't be a down vote button at all, and to be honest I can't see its purpose. If a comment is trolling or being aggressive then you should flag it, so where is there room for the down vote button? It becomes quite intuitive to just use it for what you co…

The downvote button is supposed to be for non-constructive (i.e. stupid/useless) or offtopic messages. Flag is for spam and very very inflammatory stuff. It is NOT supposed to be used for incorrect messages! (Or at least, if the message is grey, don't keep downvoting it just because there is a mistake in it. One downvote is enough.) And most especially it is not for disagreeing with someone - that's what the reply bu…

What you said is of course correct, but what I'm saying is that while the concept of a down vote button is useful, people end up using it in the fashion I described because of its convenience.

Maybe merging them isn't the best idea, but changing it to mimic the flag button (i.e. moving it and requiring a reason to be specified before submission) would probably fix this issue, I'd wager.

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#62

Post by tomjen3 » Mon, Mar 28, 2016, 8:35 PM UTC

13thLetter wrote: post #45

im_down_w_otp wrote: post #21

Interesting. I would expect it to also foster radicalism. By creating an environment where only the most-vocal, least-risk-averse adherents to a particular way of thinking are willing to risk making their ideas known. If you make an environment where only those who are willing to face death, imprisonment, or harassment for their ideas are the ones doing the talking, then you make the only voice being heard be one of…

Yep, you can see that happening right now in various tech fields. The scope of opinions that one can publicly hold without risking doxxing and mob harassment has been narrowed tremendously, with the result that while many have been bullied into resentful silence the ones still willing to talk have been thoroughly radicalized.

And when only the radicals talk, those who have been forced into silence (or feel they are forced into silence) ends up being radicalized too. I think a lot of Trumps support comes from that fact (along with the genuine frustrations of blue collar workers) and also because he can be counted on not to apologize.

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#63

Post by kstenerud » Mon, Mar 28, 2016, 8:36 PM UTC

dhimes wrote: post #42

p4wnc6 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. I have sometimes faced reply comments that are quite unreasonable and at times meant solely as insult. It's very rare here, but still a risk. But what's far worse is that the moderation of Hacker News functions with very little transparency. Even just Googling for the moderator `dang` turns up a lot of angry rants on other blogs and in other sections of the internet, full of people who feel wronged by bla…

I had no idea this kind of thing happened. I've never seen it (and known what I was looking at anyway). I have, however, looked at some hellbanned accounts to see what caused the hellbanning and sometimes it's not apparent- that is, replies that aren't particularly insulting or vapid or anything obviously antisocial. I figured they were banned for some other reason- like sneaking advertisements in or something (that…

Posts don't get removed, even if they're ads. Do a perusal of hellbanned accounts and you'll find about 20% of them didn't deserve to be. In fact, a large chunk of that 20% continue posting, blissfully unaware that they've been hellbanned.

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#64

Post by DanBC » Mon, Mar 28, 2016, 8:37 PM UTC

kup0 wrote: post #52

ars wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The downvote button is supposed to be for non-constructive (i.e. stupid/useless) or offtopic messages. Flag is for spam and very very inflammatory stuff. It is NOT supposed to be used for incorrect messages! (Or at least, if the message is grey, don't keep downvoting it just because there is a mistake in it. One downvote is enough.) And most especially it is not for disagreeing with someone - that's what the reply bu…

I think the mentality that downvote = disagreement is widespread on any site with a karma/voting mechanism. Many subreddits themselves say right in the sidebar (and often elsewhere) that "downvote only if something is off-topic or does not contribute to discussion", but everyone still tends to use it that way. So I think the issue is somewhat bigger than reddit or HN or even just a certain slice of users. It seems to…

I agree that some people will always downvote to disagree. (I do, but I'm trying to stop it (to the point where I'm going to greasemonkey a script to take the button away)).

I also agree that people should probably not downvote to disagree.

But also, when other people see a grey comment and they think it's unfairly downvoted they should supply a corrective upvote. I know some people on HN do this, but I get the impression that not enough people do.

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#65

Post by ywecur » Mon, Mar 28, 2016, 8:39 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…

Adding to this: Replace the down vote icon completely with the flagging icon, as the down vote icon probably encourages aggravated people to use it in the wrong way.

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#66

Post by kstenerud » Mon, Mar 28, 2016, 8:40 PM UTC

kup0 wrote: post #52

ars wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The downvote button is supposed to be for non-constructive (i.e. stupid/useless) or offtopic messages. Flag is for spam and very very inflammatory stuff. It is NOT supposed to be used for incorrect messages! (Or at least, if the message is grey, don't keep downvoting it just because there is a mistake in it. One downvote is enough.) And most especially it is not for disagreeing with someone - that's what the reply bu…

I think the mentality that downvote = disagreement is widespread on any site with a karma/voting mechanism. Many subreddits themselves say right in the sidebar (and often elsewhere) that "downvote only if something is off-topic or does not contribute to discussion", but everyone still tends to use it that way. So I think the issue is somewhat bigger than reddit or HN or even just a certain slice of users. It seems to…

It's human nature. If something offends you, you WANT it to be wrong/unfair/trolling. And so it becomes just that, and then your downvote is justified.

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#67

Post by nsns » Mon, Mar 28, 2016, 8:42 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…

Well, a community needs certain borders to become one; these may be implicit, but they certainly exist here. What's special in this forum, imo, is the level of discussion and the willingness to listen carefully and to react thoughtfully, and not its realization of some utopian ideal freedom (which probably would have destroyed it as a community).

Yet again, an online community is obviously not a nation-state: one has chosen voluntarily and consciously to participate in it, and could always decide to leave and go elsewhere.

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#68

Post by ikawe » Mon, Mar 28, 2016, 8:42 PM UTC

kirykl wrote: post #49

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…

Maybe there's something to be said that the users with downvote ability have earned enough karma through upvotes. The community determines in this way that the only ones that can silence others are those with majority valued opinions

I really like discourse's stance on this which also gives points to users for reading posts.

It's the lurkers who only give input when it's compelling and thought out that I want to hear from, vs jerks like me that spout their opinion on everything.

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#69

Post by jandrese » Mon, Mar 28, 2016, 8:42 PM UTC

erichocean wrote: post #56

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 do the same on HN (self-censor, constantly) and have come to peace with it. I don't submit over 80% of the HN posts I write, and I immediately delete anything that gets one down vote. Furthermore, if I do post something that gets a down vote, I update my "don't post" probabilities to match, meaning I post even less. I'd encourage you to try and not feel bad about the situation. It's not your job to provide insight…

I on the other hand assume that random downvotes are part of the system and don't worry about them overly much. I also don't check on my post history except to see if there are replies to my comments.

I have been kicked out of online communities for not aligning with the groupthink, but I tend to see that as a positive for me in the long run. If I'm so disliked by a community then I'm not going to force it. I one angered a guy so much he made up some random bullshit about me being a pedo and the mods bought it hook line and sinker. I decided that any place where the mods will ban you and never even respond to or probably even read your appeals is not worth the effort. That said, I don't go looking for fights. I'm not going to register a StormFront account anytime soon because everything I might say on there would just cause arguments and strife.

Be an adult and stand by your opinions. Other people may disagree, but that's life. Sometimes you may even be wrong and change your mind later, but that's also life. The situation may also change and invalidate your old opinion. Most importantly don't be a dick.

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#70

Post by gdwatson » Mon, Mar 28, 2016, 8:43 PM UTC

BasDirks wrote: post #46

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…

Besides the ones you mentioned, are there other such topics that tend to be taboo? I would like to keep an eye out, just for curiosity's sake. I don't know if high intelligence within a group bodes well for freedom of ideas. Intelligence itself is a form of censorship.

Socially conservative views often get downvoted, but it seems to depend heavily on the thread. Whether it's a function of a given thread's topic or its participants is hard to say.

The discussions of Brendan Eich's appointment and resignation contain lots of examples.