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

Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

numfocus.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 288 posts

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#71

Post by marcinzm »

smeeth wrote: post #45

Ok, I'm not heavily steeped in this, but at first glance this seems like total bullshit. Note that the original complaint was both 1) that the code of conduct people were being, well, total assholes, and 2) that the complaints were so obviously ridiculous that the entire exercise seemed like it could only be a power trip for those involved. The apology addressed neither. They apologized for being unclear about what s…

Why would you expect people who have shown little empathy up to this point and seem to enjoy their sense of power to suddenly act different when confronted? It's a bureaucratic BS statement from people who revel in bureaucratic BS.

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#72

Post by closeparen »

Xavdidtheshadow wrote: post #20
GiorgioG wrote: post #3

I'm going to get downvoted for this, but: I'm against code of conducts because they're worse than the problems they try to solve. edit: In my opinion, code of conducts become a distraction and a cause for worry to anyone contributing to these projects because someone inevitably gets their feelings hurt and points to some well-intentioned rule in the CoC to get the 'offender' shamed/removed even if no harm was intende…

I don't mean this as an attack, but I'm guessing you haven't been harassed/given unwanted attention at a conference. It's easy to see codes of conduct as draconian or unnecessary if you can't empathize with the people they're designed to protect. I'm not saying the CoC system is perfect or that there aren't false positives, but your statement here is _dramatically_ privileged.

This kind of argument often comes up. Two implicit premises should be questioned:

1) Liberal values are associated with privilege.

2) Because of this association we should embrace authoritarianism.

Is authoritarianism any less privileged? It assumes that the authorities are on your side and protecting your interests... that seems right down the middle of privilege. A low privilege person would probably benefit from liberal governance/norms that limit the damage hostile authorities can do.

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#74

Post by ReptileMan »

eckza wrote: post #10
GiorgioG wrote: post #3

I'm going to get downvoted for this, but: I'm against code of conducts because they're worse than the problems they try to solve. edit: In my opinion, code of conducts become a distraction and a cause for worry to anyone contributing to these projects because someone inevitably gets their feelings hurt and points to some well-intentioned rule in the CoC to get the 'offender' shamed/removed even if no harm was intende…

I'm probably going to go down with you; but can you elaborate on that a little?

It is the same problem as with censorship/fact checkers etc ... who do you trust to determine what is truth/fake news/coc violation and why do you trust them.

In abstract the CoC are fine if are written and enforced by impartial angels with well developed common sense.

The people that usually push for them are for politics and power.

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#75

Post by phkahler »

luckylion wrote: post #44
dagmx wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How else would you codify what is and what isn't acceptable behaviour? Is it just arbitrary? Do you just depend on more people enforcing their views out to stop harassment? If so, then why not codify it?

> Is it just arbitrary? Yes. Just as "kind" is. To the reporters and the officials, "saying somebody is wrong" is unkind, so it's clearly arbitrary.

The worst thing is when nobody is actually offended or hurt, and someone says your behavior could be considered offensive or insulting or whatever and takes action based on that. That's just someone wanting to exert their power for the wrong reasons.

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#76

Post by diehunde »

1123581321 wrote: post #38
Xavdidtheshadow wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mean this as an attack, but I'm guessing you haven't been harassed/given unwanted attention at a conference. It's easy to see codes of conduct as draconian or unnecessary if you can't empathize with the people they're designed to protect. I'm not saying the CoC system is perfect or that there aren't false positives, but your statement here is _dramatically_ privileged.

Do you think it’s possible to empathize with people who are harassed, or experience harassment, and oppose codes of conduct? Assume that empathy includes caring about protecting people.

Sounds like "I empathize with them but I don't care about protecting them"

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#77

Post by minimaxir »

rdtsc wrote: post #17

An interesting thing to think about is if they would apologize if this wasn't published in a blog and discussed online. Let's say Jeremy just walked away quietly in disgust and didn't say anything publicly. What would have they done? I would guess that they would have chucked it under "We did a great job enforcing the code of conduct. Problem solved".

I know a lot of Hacker News users don't like it, but fact is that getting to the top of Hacker News is often the most-successful driver for getting something fixed in the tech industry.

Another good example of the impact of HN was the Triplebyte profile controversy (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23279837) a few months ago, which 100% would have gone through unchanged if it weren't for HN driving awareness. (followup: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23303037)

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#78

Post by rmrfstar »

torstenvl wrote: post #33
eckza wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm probably going to go down with you; but can you elaborate on that a little?

I'm not the OP but: - There is no presumption of innocence. - There are no formal rights of an accused. - There is no clear delineation of what constitutes a violation. - There is no right to confront those making an allegation. - There are no negative consequences for making a false allegation. - All of which leads to a system whereby people are subjected to ostracism and official censure for violating unwritten rul…

There are people who are openly hostile to all of these ancient principles.

It's not just people who are too green to know better. I've seen a user with a 2007 vintage account and >30k karma extol the virtue of smear campaigns.

Scary times.

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#79

Post by bosie »

mnd999 wrote: post #25
Dylan16807 wrote: post #19

This is a good response as far as the actual process goes, but it doesn't really do anything to address the claims that "There were two totally different Codes of Conduct with different requirements linked in different places" and "I was held to a different, undocumented and uncommunicated standard"

It’s been passed to the board of directors to investigate further. I would expect to hear more once they’ve completed their investigation.

who seem to be overlapping quite a bit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24945944

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#80

Post by geofft »

eznzt wrote: post #27
Xavdidtheshadow wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mean this as an attack, but I'm guessing you haven't been harassed/given unwanted attention at a conference. It's easy to see codes of conduct as draconian or unnecessary if you can't empathize with the people they're designed to protect. I'm not saying the CoC system is perfect or that there aren't false positives, but your statement here is _dramatically_ privileged.

If you need a CoC to get rid of someone who harasses others what you have is a deeper problem

This is certainly true, but how else would you propose solving the deeper problem?

One option is to designate someone or some group as arbiters / benevolent dictators, and have the rule of "If so-and-so decides you're making the place worse, you're not welcome." It's certainly effective. But it exacerbates Jeremy Howard's complaint - which is not so much about CoCs per se as about the group of people who enforced them and the way in which they did so. I don't think getting rid of CoCs will really solve that problem.

One option is to have a closed or invitation-only group - but that's at odds with the goals of many communities. (And it doesn't reliably solve the problem, it just makes it less likely you'd run into it.)

Post reply on HN