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

Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 204 posts

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#71

Post by maxerickson »

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…

Why do you give such importance to individual clicks?

I really don't get it. You reward a person whose opinion you disagree with, punish yourself (in a very minor way) and take away any chance that other people will click the other button.

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#72

Post by id »

DanBC wrote: post #59
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd encourage you to stop 'self-censoring'. What matters a few karma points, if you have something important to say? You'll find that often an initial knee-jerk downvoting can turn around half a day later, as more considerate users join the conversation.

> What matters a few karma points Aren't there effects of downvotes like rate limiting and post position?

Or shadow bans even ...

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#73

Post by maxerickson »

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…

And 50 jumping jacks for upvotes.

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#74

Post by guessbest »

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…

HN is just aggressively positive. I miss Slashdot. I liked that it had people who had industry knowledge who would post as an Anonymous Coward to correct someone who was being idealistic. I don't know where those people have gone, but it is certainly not here. They probably were dispersed to other sites.

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#75

Post by cryoshon »

>“The fact that the 'nothing to hide' individuals experience a significant chilling effect speaks to how online privacy is much bigger than the mere lawfulness of one's actions. It's about a fundamental human right to have control over one's self-presentation and image, in private, and now, in search histories and metadata,” she said.

Even the bootlickers censor their more controversial opinions, leading to a thought monoculture in which there is no dissent of any kind. This should be evidence that mass surveillance and any government which supports it needs to go, pronto.

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#76

Post by striking »

ywecur wrote: post #65
eternalban wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

HN rules don't say anything about the "wrong way" to use the downvote button. If anything, we're encouraged to use it in the way we feel is best.

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#78

Post by gaur »

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 immediately delete anything that gets one down vote.

That's a problem that's on you to solve, not the HN community. You should stand by your comments instead of just deleting them, and you shouldn't take downvotes as an indication that you should post less.

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#79

Post by clumsysmurf »

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…

> If one of the most intelligent and open minded online communities can exhibit censorship or can determine users to self-censor, then what can be said about other communities/platforms ?

Climate researchers are also self censoring, but for slightly different reasons. Given the stakes, its also an interesting case study.

"In several important respects the modelling community is self-censoring its research to conform to the dominant political and economic paradigm"

http://www.fdsd.org/what-we-are-reading/duality-in-climate-s...

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#80

Post by Grishnakh »

jandrese wrote: post #69
erichocean wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ang…

The problem is that karma is all-important on this site, and ends up creating different social strata, and a feedback mechanism which is what these other posters are complaining about.

On Reddit, for example, it really doesn't matter if you get a few downvotes. Your post is still visible, and you still have the ability to up or downvote anyone else. You are not a lesser member of the community on that site when you get some downvotes.

On here, you are. The system is explicitly designed to make it an echo chamber. If you have low karma, you can't downvote people, you can't post very much, and there are probably other more subtle ways they punish you for having low karma.

So it's absolutely to your advantage, if you want to be a member of this "community" and actually have your posts seen and commented on so you can participate in useful and interesting discussion, to self-censor.

Post reply on HN