>>It's not the engineers who built the web and these companies
I 100% disagree with this, the engineering level of silicon valley left the old "libertarian" hacker ethos behind a long time ago, at the engineering layer there is idea about using technology to build a "better society" where "better society" is ensuring people with "wrong opinions" isolated so they can not "harm" others with their "violence" and violence is now words on the internet.
In fact recent activism coming from the engineer levels at Big Tech (google, Amazon, FB, etc) has me believe that that administrative layer is not really in control, and the policy changes are a reflection coming from the activism in the engineering layer
We also see this through out Open Source with the raise of the CoC to implement systemic changes with in open source to ensure only those with "correct opinions" are allowed to contribute moving from just caring about code, to then caring about code and conduct with in a project and project related events, to now even more expansive monitoring of developers entire lives, and activities completely removed and unrelated to any development activities.
Exactly right. Most of the new engineers have nothing of the libertarian spirit of the 2600 era. It was engineers who implemented censorship at online platforms, most incredulous of which was PayPal charging customers $2,500 in damages for spreading "misinformation." I cancelled my PayPal account the moment I read the news.
For shame. But, things go in cycles. What was once great becomes a ruin, and then rises again. We are now in the heading steadily towards the ruin phase.
Preference falsification from engineers, which was normalized after James Damore had his character publicly assassinated. Throwing rotten tomatoes at him and screaming "shame shame" before chopping off his head was a warning to everyone else to keep quiet or echo the correct opinions.
There's a lot of tribal signaling and "don't hurt me I'm one of you".
Then there's a new brand of engineer, and some old gen converts, who are true believers in the new religion and programming is just a lucrative way to participate in late stage capitalism as a wage slave. Many among them are aggressive bullies and codify their beliefs into CoCs and concern themselves with purity testing.
> I 100% disagree with this, the engineering level of silicon valley left the old "libertarian" hacker ethos behind a long time ago
And thank fuck for that.
> at the engineering layer there is idea about using technology to build a "better society" where "better society" is ensuring people with "wrong opinions" isolated so they can not "harm" others with their "violence" and violence is now words on the internet.
People are so glib about this and it's such a catastrophic failure to engage in empathy and respect for other human beings that it simply blows my mind that people can say things like this and think they're in the moral correct. "Being bullied to death by the Internet" isn't even that uncommon anymore. Especially for people who will have a hard time finding community in the real spaces in which they live, Internet communities of like-people become a literal lifeline. Entire relationships both communal and intimate are carried out through the lens of online communication. "Words on the internet" indeed.
And if said words can be a lifeline of communication and community to like-minded people and alleviate suffering, you can be damn well assured that works the other way too. Having personally known and helped people through being the subject of online alt-right hate mobs, I assure you, "words on the internet" can absolutely kill people. I have watched in happen in real time and pulled people back from the precipice.
> We also see this through out Open Source with the raise of the CoC to implement systemic changes with in open source to ensure only those with "correct opinions" are allowed to contribute moving from just caring about code, to then caring about code and conduct with in a project and project related events, to now even more expansive monitoring of developers entire lives, and activities completely removed and unrelated to any development activities.
Yeah I don't particularly want to use software, especially pay to use software, made by people who want to exterminate people I call friends and family. If a developer comes out on their social media and broadcasts about how my friends are some combination of insane/dangerous for being who they are, no, I'm not using their product ever again and I will spread word about it to people I know who feel similarly. This is just how social networks (in the sociology sense, not the technological sense) work and always have.
I guess what I'm saying is if you want maximum capture on your product, tell your team to park their opinions on which groups of people deserve to die on personal, anonymous accounts. I don't think this is a massive ask, personally, but I also don't want anyone dead so I can't really comment on it.
This is the oddly standard wording used in defense of these newly-fashionable 'everything you've ever done ever can be used against you' contributor codes of conduct and I have to find it very disingenuous.
By and large nobody wants to exterminate anybody. People have legitimate differences of opinion and when they attempt to express them they're being told that even _thinking_ that opinion is tantamount to violence.
If you can't see it as anything other than a transparent attempt to restrict discourse I don't know what to tell you. It isn't like this is the first time this strategy has been used.
> This is the oddly standard wording used in defense of these newly-fashionable 'everything you've ever done ever can be used against you' contributor codes of conduct and I have to find it very disingenuous.
Please provide me an example of a code of conduct you find objectionable on these grounds. I have yet to see one that fits the language used both in this and the parent comment I originally replied to of being "orwellian."
Clearly you have not followed this topic closely, how about you look into the DruPal issues or "Dongle Gate" or the Firing the Firefox CEO, James Damore, or 100's of other examples of people being removed from projects for differences of opinions far far far far less than wanting to "exterminate" people
It's projection. The people making that accusation are themselves all-but-literally exterminating individuals from society. They are engaging in dangerous levels of othering using a cloak of false kindness.
I believe it is result of a raise in Authoritarian ideology in both technology and in wider society, This streak of Authoritarianism is coming from both "political sides"
The concepts of pluralism, tolerance, and peaceful coexistence with people whom we disagree is replaced with forced acceptance, mono-culturalism, speech controls and a rank intolerance of opposing views often supplanted with a rather obtuse perversion of the "paradox of tolerance" where by intolerant people of both political sides justify their actions actions as morally and ethically correct, as being on the "correct side of history" or other such platitudes
The "paradox of tolerance" is much better stated as the "contract of tolerance." Anyone who agrees to be tolerant, is entitled in turn to tolerance themselves. This ensures that intolerable views, such as the view that certain lifestyles are inherently immoral based on one's beliefs, are not respected. Because they shouldn't be. If your personal moral compass has decided that women deserve fewer rights, that's perfectly fine for any woman who also subscribes to that belief system to accept their reduced stature in society. Why they would do that, I have no idea, but if they want to, good for them. However you are not entitled to inflict that intolerance on other people who don't share that belief.
Ergo: if you treat everyone around you with the respect and recognition of their personhood, you in turn are 100% entitled to that same respect and recognition. If however you make statements or act in such a way as to diminish the personhood of others, you are no longer entitled to that respect.
I think it's a nice little system and resolves the paradox quite nicely. To promote a tolerant society means being intolerant of intolerance.
Easy, both are trying to enforce their view of culture on the other via law and other government regulation.
The right is most seen on this in the modern era Womens Rights, Schools, Gay Marriage, etc
The left is most seen on this with Speech Codes around "Hate Speech" and Pronouns, in Employment Regulations, in Equity Regulation (enforced by law not market) ,etc
No that is 2 very different mono-culture attempting to eliminate the other
You seem to believe that because 2 cultures exist it is "multicultural" but that is not the reality, "multicultural" would be accepting the other culture as equally as valid as your own, tolerating their existence in a legal and market framework (i.e willing to do business with them, and not use government power to make their culture illegal)
What we have today is 2 cultures attempt each attempting to banish the other both using markets, and using governments.
I think that's a vast overdramatization based upon reading the most fringe elements into everything else. The reality is the vast majority of people exist well within the edges and aren't anywhere near as fatalistic as you describe
That's all projection and appeal to emotion to justify censoring and bullying people into submission. How many people have had their characters assassinated, ostracized and fired, sometimes commiting suicide as a result, just because they said the wrong thing now or in the past according to the current moral fashion police. How many are self censoring and falsifying preferences to appease the authoritarians. They say it's about kindness and respect, inbetween destroying the next individual's life. Authoritarian bullies cloaking themselves in a veneer of kindness and moral fashion is not new.
> That's all projection and appeal to emotion to justify censoring and bullying people into submission.
It isn't an "appeal to emotion," it is emotion. Emotion is not this ephemeral second-class citizen in your mind. It's you. It's the part of you that cares about things. A response being largely emotional does not make it inherently less valid, and not everyone is required to discard half of the human experience in order to be taken seriously.
> How many people have had their characters assassinated, ostracized and fired, sometimes commiting suicide as a result, just because they said the wrong thing now or in the past according to the current moral fashion police.
I would say far too many, but also I would caveat that by pointing to the other pile of corpses from people who did the same thing for just being themselves in the wrong place. Or worse still, had the violence inflicted upon them by another's hand.
So clearly, at the very least, we can agree that it's not just "words on the internet?" They clearly have dire consequences for all parties involved.
> How many are self censoring and falsifying preferences to appease the authoritarians.
"Everyone agrees with me but they're too afraid to say it" is a convenient excuse to hold reprehensible beliefs that you don't want to take responsibility for. If everyone is afraid to say something, maybe that's because it's disgusting? And given what people are happily not only saying, but being paid to say, (usually while whining about how censored they are but I digress) I'm frankly incredibly skeptical of this position.
> They say it's about kindness and respect, inbetween destroying the next individual's life. Authoritarian bullies cloaking themselves in a veneer of kindness is not new.
Again though, while there I am certain are some examples of people being bullied to that point, I have a hard time seeing it. I personally have carried friends through that mess and to that, I can testify first party. However on the opposite side, all I really see is people complaining about how censored they are, on public platforms, to a wide audience, and usually in some way monetizing it: book sales, shows, public speaking engagements, all the while moaning about how they can't speak their minds... while speaking their minds. Repeatedly. For profit.
------------------
I'm rewriting this because the comment above changed substantially since it was originally posted. Below is the original thing I wrote which I'm leaving up because I'm proud of it:
This notion that "well what's objectionable is subjective and therefore having any standard is having an agenda" is frankly, bullhockety. Yes, it does vary from person to person. Different people will have different tolerances to different things, and part of community building is all of those people coming together and, through trial and error, through difficult conversations, through awkward moments, etc. slowly constructing a line in the sand where upon one side is beyond tolerance, and the other side is not, and that line in itself being subject to change based upon new cultural events, new people joining the community, other people being removed from the community for infraction, etc. etc.
We have been doing this since roughly the taming of fire. The only thing that's changed is the mode of enforcement. Now instead of chucking people out of our tribes and telling them to piss off, we block them on social media and revoke their access rights. Same exact thing. If you want to participate in a community, that participation has always, always been conditional upon agreeing to a mutually agreed upon set of rules, that yes, change over time and that can mean you by virtue of being an imperfect human can stumble over them without meaning harm. The differentiator from that point is how you handle that situation and if your reflex is to post on your own social media about how everyone involved in the community you have transgressed against is censoring you and you have a right to say XYZ, then that community in all likelihood is going to reject you in a more permanent fashion. If your individual liberty to say XYZ is more important to you than membership in that community, then that's the choice you make. I don't judge you inherently for that. I have joined and left many communities over the years as my and those communities' values shifted around. This is just how social organizations work and have always worked.
And you in turn are free to demand access to whatever space but that entitlement needs to be articulated, and I am inherently suspicious of this almost reflexive "well I guess I just had the WRONG OPINIONS" response, which almost universally is presented without the opinions attached. (Including in this comment.) What were the opinions? Why were they "wrong?"
And I will grant: in the digital age, the enforcement of being rejected is much easier with a much lower emotional energy gate than it was previously. Now you don't need to confront people, to have conversations, if you don't want to and that makes a certain kind of person perhaps itchier on the trigger finger than is ideal. And that's unfortunate. But on the flip side of that, sometimes the transgression involved is too extreme. Sometimes the transgression makes the people who would confront an individual feel unsafe to do so. Sometimes there is no path to resolution and there's nothing to do but block and move on.
> It isn't an "appeal to emotion," it is emotion. Emotion is not this ephemeral second-class citizen in your mind. It's you. It's the part of you that cares about things
Regardless, it's not an argument. Your emotion has no direct weight on the correctness of an outcome you're arguing for, and trying to appeal to other's emotions in an attempt to sway them is attempting to bypass their critical analysis.
Argue the facts and let emotions happen. They "are you" but should not drive you.
> "Everyone agrees with me but they're too afraid to say it" is a convenient excuse to hold reprehensible beliefs that you don't want to take responsibility for. If everyone is afraid to say something, maybe that's because it's disgusting?
No, likely outcomes and consequences for discussing something are rarely aligned. You're discussing hounding people out of work/home/politics because of your emotional take on what they're saying, without any actual analysis of it or how actionable it is.
In my mind, that's incredibly dangerous (and thus, if I chose to use emotional language - disgusting) but I'm not advocating taking away your right to say it.
> Again though, while there I am certain are some examples of people being bullied to that point, I have a hard time seeing it.
James Damore is a great example. He didn't broadcast his views - he responded privately to questions in a hiring review panel at Google, discussing how the company could improve its hiring of women by understanding the roles it was offering in the light of modern psychological analysis using the "Big Five" traits model.
Specifically, he did not say that women were worse engineers in any way, either holistically or in individual skills, OR less suited to engineering than males. He argued that Google's roles were less suitable for "traditionally female" interests. Again, this was privately, in the context of a panel trying to evaluate why Google wasn't great at hiring women engineers.
His communications were leaked, with the context stripped, in an edited form without any references to gawker-style media who were prompted with the lead 'white guy says - "Don't hire women"' to prompt them into the "right" emotional headspace to write an attack piece.
To tie this back to emotion, obviously someone read his words and let their emotion at those words (I myself don't like psychobabble) override their analysis of what was said. Their emotions are "valid lived experience" but the attacks they called for, and lies used to do so, are not helpful or justified.
Yes there’s a strange double standard with the “its just words on the internet” perspective. On the one hand, it’s an Orwellian nightmare that Twitter would ban accounts for “having the wrong opinions”, but on the other hand who cares it’s just talking on the internet.
Which one is it? Does your speech have a real world impact? If yes, then you have to acknowledge that it can cause real damage and that private companies have no obligation to accommodate that. If its just meaningless words, then why does it matter that companies ban anyone for any speech?
> That is a failure of mental health and the direction of psychology in general where by they are teaching people that everyone, everywhere must affirm you, must support you, and everything you do is perfect.
Your ideas on needing an internal framework for emotional stability is on the spot, but this idea that "they" are teaching people whatever is in itself a partisan cop-out. The onus of failure for not providing adequate mental health tools is on parents who had no idea how to handle the sudden rise of technology & a general failure of leadership figures to step in. There isn't some big leftist boogeyman teaching people that others "must" do anything.
> do you believe someone refusing to use neo-pronouns is "bullying"
There are a lot of qualifying questions that need answered before this one could be considered. Like what constitutes bullying - your definition is different than everyone else's. Do we frame this under your perception of bullying, or mine? If something is a large part of your internally perceived identity & someone else actively denies that part of your identity, is that okay? Do you have an experiential framework with which to tackle that identity scenario in the first place, to understand in any fashion how they feel about that? Are you willing to employ empathy?
I'm trying to find a moral justification for not simply calling someone what they ask to be called, or walking away from the situation - if you're dredging up old dated phrases, whatever happened to "if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all?" If someone wants to be called Xir or whatever, my question is "how the fuck do I say that" not "why should I."
> in return anyone that refuses to use neo-pronouns should be bullied themselves
No, but they should be made aware that they're being assholes. Outside of this hypothetical vacuum scenario, we know statistically that it's more likely for the person refusing to use pronouns to engage in actual violence than someone requesting to be referred using those pronouns, so things become much muddier after the point of "you're being an asshole" - but in this scenario, that's where it should end.
It shouldn't be surprising or incomprehensible to anyone that folks on one side of this field are suddenly stepping up to the same field that the other side is. It doesn't justify it, but it should be well-understood that attacks from the left are not predicated on nothing.
> or banned from society
No. Rather I'd like to see our mental health systems improve enough that we don't have millions of people that erroneously believe that other humans don't have just as much right to exist as they do. That's why people get "banned from society" or whatever inane scenario you're trying to claim happens.
> If they don't agree with your political dogma then bullying is perfectly fine right, they deserve it...
The hilarious part of this statement, at least in this specific context, is that it goes both ways. Our monkeys are flinging shit at their monkeys, and for some reason their monkeys are throwing shit back! How dare they.
I agree that 'cancelling' people - in the view that you've provided - is wrong. That said...
> Now lets say an Employee at Walmart happens to go the Republican National Convention and wears a MAGA hat, you see a photo of this online, then proceed to find their friends, employers, family, and attempt to get them evicted from their apartment, fired from walmart, and when they get a new job at Target attempt to get them fired from that as well, attempt get their mother fired, and attempt get their roommate fired as well just for good measure. (true story form left wing cancellation BTW)
You wanna know a true story from right-wing cancellation? Being bound by chains and dragged behind a truck. Gunning down an entire building full of gay people. Being burned alive in their own home. These events, steeped in alt-right online cultures of stoking fear and hatred towards leftists. Is this not the ultimate form of cancellation, the end-of-the-line of this whole scenario? As you put it, this is a common tactic for those on the authoritarian right. This is the extermination the other person is referring to. Murdering people based on shit they heard online, without actually bothering to interact with those people or build any kind of basis of empathy, to understand the challenges they face in a world where they feel the need to lash out like you've seen.
This is not justification of leftist actions, but you should also keep in mind the cauldron that they've been stewing in for decades upon decades - and the atrocities that the group you're defending have also committed. They are not innocent of wrongdoing, but you seem to casually miss that part.
> I used to work with this very devote christian, she would pray for me everyday [...] Today some people would report her to HR, get her fired, etc...
If they asked her to stop, and she didn't stop, she's in the wrong. Yes, absolutely report her to HR. What was the point of this story?
I will also save you the time by stating I don't intend on discussing this topic with you. I believe, based on the ideas you've expressed here, that you lack the empathy necessary to engage with a very emotional & "human" topic. Have a good one.
>>You wanna know a true story from right-wing cancellation? Being bound by chains and dragged behind a truck. Gunning down an entire building full of gay people.
You believe there is no violence on the left? Shall I pull video of people being beaten and pulled from their cars during BLM "peaceful" protests? Or of the police captian that was burned alive in a store? Or of the Nashville mass school shotting for which the FBI is still withholding the manifesto that has it been a right wing person would have been on ever news outlet the next day?
>This is not justification of leftist actions,
if not outright justification it is attempt to "but but but look over there they are worse"
>>group you're defending
Not defending anyone, I am pointing it out is not left / Right. it is Authoritarian vs Libertarians.
Authoritarians are violent, that is how they weld authority. Right, left does not matter, In this community (technologists) people tend to want to believe only Right Authoritarians exist, and only Right are violent. That there is a nazi on every corner, and that nazi is a republican...
>>I will also save you the time by stating I don't intend on discussing this topic with you.
then I welcome your non-reply... If you did not intend on discussing this then you should have refrained from reply at all.
ironically I am a very empathetic person. I empathize with people suffering real hardship, like the people that are going to lose everything in the hurricane, not because someone on twitter did not use Xe or Xir correctly....
Thank you, and I definitely agree to all points. From my own observations, I feel that the right is often wrong on many things, but the far left has gone off the rails, and most of the left is either, willing, blind, useful idiots or outright evil. There's definitely a few racist, violent right wing assholes in the world, but they don't even compare to the numbers the far left weild.
It also irks me to no end, when people refer to leftists as "liberal" when they are no such thing at this point. I can deal with liberals, and as a libertarian share most of the values. More like Progressive past the point of usefulness to society.
> From my own observations, I feel that the right is often wrong on many things, but the far left has gone off the rails
The difference, I feel, is that I know many people whose identity is "leftist" or "progressive" and I don't personally know anyone who identifies as a "rightist". The right is a centuries-old boogeyman of the left, and it encompasses everyone who disagrees with the critical-analysis class-based views of the left.
The worst term the left has is "far-right" which just means very-heretical. The worst thing you can do is let your opinions diverge from the groupthink.
We've banned this account for using HN primarily for flamewar and ideological battle and ignoring our request to stop.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
I 100% disagree with this, the engineering level of silicon valley left the old "libertarian" hacker ethos behind a long time ago, at the engineering layer there is idea about using technology to build a "better society" where "better society" is ensuring people with "wrong opinions" isolated so they can not "harm" others with their "violence" and violence is now words on the internet.
In fact recent activism coming from the engineer levels at Big Tech (google, Amazon, FB, etc) has me believe that that administrative layer is not really in control, and the policy changes are a reflection coming from the activism in the engineering layer
We also see this through out Open Source with the raise of the CoC to implement systemic changes with in open source to ensure only those with "correct opinions" are allowed to contribute moving from just caring about code, to then caring about code and conduct with in a project and project related events, to now even more expansive monitoring of developers entire lives, and activities completely removed and unrelated to any development activities.