"bro-fest" is the most racist thing I've seen on hn this month, but maybe I'm not reading as many articles as I could. I feel like you ought to have the freedom to say it though.
How on earth is 4. going to happen especially with an international crowd? Is any organization doing 4. adequately? Is YC supposed to educate the whole world on how "bro-fest" is PC but [something else]-fest is not?
I think expanding the ability to down-vote to more people would help show the true attitude on HN. Right now I can only push things up or flag them and often times don't have the time or fortitude to start a comment thread arguing with an ignorant racist. Currently at 419 karma I don't have the ability to simply press a downvote and get that trash grayed out or pushed to the bottom of the page.
A technical solution to a social problem rarely works but in this case I think it'd help. If what the OP implies is true, and it surely is to some degree, most of the people who have the ability to control visibility (downvote) would have achieved that ability through participation in the echo chamber. Achieving enough karma to downvote seems rather hard, if not impossible, if you're not subscribed to the prevailing groupthink.
But maybe this is me, as always, trying to find an engineering solution to the problem.
To me, the problem is that downvoting is contextually vague, while the effect on HN is visually explicit. It would be one thing entirely if downvoting just affected the page ranking, but having it also act as a visual cue that "this person's opinion is not worth your time, so don't worry - we've made it difficult for you to read it" only serves to exacerbate a groupthink mentality. I don't think more downvoting would solve the problem, it would only make more comments illegible.
I've seen more than a couple of threads where an entire side of what I find to be an interesting (or at least worthwile) discussion is blotted out. It's annoying if you actually want to consider an entire thread and not just get spoon-fed the parts which correlate to consensus opinion. This is supposed to be a forum for intellectually thought-provoking or at least civil discussion, but the implementation of downvoting amounts to sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting down someone you don't agree with.
So, this is all well and good, and am sure the outrage plays well with certain circles. But, let's look at things from a business perspective--because, ultimately, that's what YC is: a business.
Let's assume that HN is a terrible place where sexism and racism are easily found--consider that the ability to review people's posting histories is a really good datapoint of figuring out whether or not they're somebody you want to work with. If an applicant applies with a posting history rife with sexism and racism, then maybe they're not going to be asked back. It's a chance to let people show their true colors, and many people are bigoted shitbags.
So, even looking past that, the author raises the point that YC has a portfolio north of 30B USD. So, erm, maybe whatever they're doing is working? Maybe, just maybe, sexism and racism and everything else is not really that relevant to running a successful business. I don't want to go full libertariloon on this and go claim that the free market thus proves those are non-issues, but from a business standpoint they don't seem to be mattering. A criticism of "but but but imagine how much better things could be if they stomped it out!" is a non-starter, because it's playing in what-ifs.
If HN does have a problem, it's that the downvote system is bullshit and broken and enables people to hivemind more easily. PG screwed up, in my opinion, when he gave a blessing on giving downvotes based on disagreement instead of civility or relevance. The moderation system is opaque and broken, though much less broken thanks to people like dang.
Mostly, I think, the single systemic issue of HN is that people are not self-selecting for good technical content, and are so closed-minded that useful discussion of non-technical content becomes boring, tedious, and prone to flaming.
EDIT: Thank you whoever gave that downvote without explanation for helping to demonstrate my point!
'OK so maybe there's sexism & racism but they're making money so what's the problem?'
I think the author (and I agree with him here) sees the racism & sexism itself as being a problem. Nowhere does he argue that the problem is that racism/sexism are bad for profits.
Personally I don't need the market to tell me if racism & sexism are bad and I doubt that you do either.
Sexism and racism are views on life, much like religion and capitalism--I don't have to agree with them without respecting them as views held by other people. Silly, stupid views that I disagree with and find counter-productive, but it is their right to think in that wrongheaded fashion and talk about it.
I agree that making policy decisions based on racism and sexism, especially when the affected population has no alternative but to be subject to those decisions (say, no other place to look for work, no other police force to seek protection from, etc.), is wrong. That said, I find it just as wrong to brand other people as bad or evil because they've got some silly view.
To put it quite crudely: The primary job of YC is not the policing of ideas and thoughts of people posting on HN beyond keeping things relatively civil.
There are ways of discussing and holding viewpoints that--in the strictest sense of the term--are racist or sexist. Talking about how best to accomodate maternity leave and schedule work is inherently sexist: it is an issue that does not apply to both men and women. Talking about how to handle racial profiling in targeted advertising is inherently racist: it is an issue that is tuned to your views about what messaging works best for a particular race.
One can have these viewpoints and maintain civil discourse. One can even have viewpoints that are less pragmatic; e.g., violent crimes clearly committed more frequently by one race over others. In such a case, somebody can civilly point out numbers and studies that refute that viewpoint, and at the point one can either accede or agree to disagree.
Being civil doesn't have anything to do with agreeing with people, or even being right.
Do you happen to be a white and/or male? The only reason I ask (rhetorically, obviously -- please don't answer) is that, if you are, you might fail to realize that your position is one of privilege in our society. One of those many privileges shared by you and me is that what society considers common, civil discourse is very rarely offensive to our personhoods. Others don't share that privilege. For others, what you would call civil discourse is full of barbarism, small mindedness, and offense.
I'm not trying to challenge you, just curious: what is an example of discourse that would be interpreted by someone with said privilege to be civil, yet interpreted by someone else without it to be barbaric, small-minded, offensive, etc.
I get that you could have an objective discussion on religion that might be offensive, but does the fact that someone can find it offensive make it "offensive" in general, or does it make the person who isn't offended "privileged"? I'm just not sure exactly how to apply your statement to such scenarios -- could you explain a little more about what you mean?
Would (could?), for example, objective data (e.g. CSV file, scientific study, statistics) have these qualities or just people's opinions on the objective data?
You need me to provide examples of sexism or racism in "civil" discourse? Maybe we don't live in the same society. Read the post that these comments are about. Only a minority of them are trolls. Many are otherwise reasonable and intelligent people saying ignorant and shitty things in calm, civil, flag-avoiding ways.
If you don't notice it it's because you're privileged. If you're not, it's like you're swimming in it.
Sexism is something that is rampant in the whole tech industry. I feel bad about it, but I don't see how YC or HN is responsible for policing the posts.
Sure, you could have a report button and couple of mods to look at them and approve or reject. That model however is not scalable and downright silly.
The bigger issue is with the society and people's mindset and it is up to the people to not be sexist.
Having said that, I don't think any business has to do anything special for being inclusive to sex/race/gender etc. Businesses run on profits, talent generates profits. Sure, capable people should not be denied opportunity, but incapable people should not get preferential treatment and held against a lower standard.
"...incapable people should not get preferential treatment and held against a lower standard." That is a fallacy. Certain types of sex/race/genders get special treatment now, often called "privilege", because of a history of systematic repression of other people. People are just trying to make the field actually level, not give preferential treatment to "incapable people".
So in the process of making it level, the playing field is being changed to be favorable to certain individuals?
If something changes by giving away opportunities to less qualified people, because their predecessors had been systemically repressed, it is probably the ego/guilt of the perpetrators. Provide extra opportunities to the current generation to develop and improve , but don't take it away from qualified people in the name of diversity/inclusivity.
If a man and a woman apply for a job in all male startup, hire the most qualified person, not the person who makes your workforce more diverse.
THEY are being repressed, not only their predecessors. And to "hire the most qualified person" "denies the role of personal connections, wealth, background, gender, race, or education in an individual's success"[1]. It is overly simplistic to just say "hire the qualified person" when the person is qualified due to a huge amount of historical advantages. Do you really think there are so few women in tech because all the men are just more qualified?
The right thing then would be to enable such individuals with disadvantages to become qualified.
We can go on and on about how it is a vicious circle and all that, but IMHO, the remedy is not providing opportunities to less qualified people, but take measures to educate and make them competent. Relavant initiative [1] [2]
I'm surprised that the author could write such a cherry-picked article with a straight face. I clicked through to the six links in the twitter comments. Here's a summary of who made them:
1. bobcostas55: member for 146 days, 42 karma
2. gph: member for 997 days, 634 karma
3. lulzwat1111: member for 32 days, -8 karma, comment downvoted into oblivion
4. aianus: member for 588 days, 369 karma
5. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8372411 I honestly don't see the problem here?
6. nickthemagicman: member for 690 days, 241 karma, comment downvoted into oblivion
For context, I have over 4500 karma (I only comment a few times a month and don't submit much), and the HN user with the 100th highest karma has over 16,000. In other words, these comments are not representative of the entire community, or of even a single medium-profile user.
The vast majority of the time, ignorant comments are met with multiple replies setting the person straight, or with downvotes (as I do, for anything that is insulting or offensive).
Hacker News intends to attract a technical audience. The community includes a wide variety of people, some of which are 16-to-25-year-old men who have poor socialization skills. Some of them (and some others, certainly) have naive, twisted beliefs, or they are just unaware of their privileged position in society. Others are from different countries that have old-fashioned gender norms.
I don't think this is a problem unique to HN or even to tech. I claim that you could just as easily write an article like this about fraternity or country club communities, if their communications were indexed for the entire world to see. At least in the case of HN, you have a large number of dissenting viewpoints.
I actually think it's good that short-sighted individuals express their bigoted views. It gives others a chance to provide them with some perspective. Even more, though, prudent individuals who think the same thing have the opportunity to have their viewpoints changed as well. Also, seeing the extreme version of one of your views can cause you to pause and reconsider it.
Personally, I was quite libertarian and lacking in perspective on several issues (e.g., end user empathy, social welfare, the importance of tact) when I joined Hacker News 7-1/2 years ago. Of course I can't give all the credit to HN, but it has definitely had some positive effect in improving my personality and broadening my perspective.
Agreed that HN is not facing a unique problem of *ist comments/members. However, as the OP points out, given that the leadership of Y Combinator say that "Sexism in tech is real. ... We—the tech industry as a whole—need to fix this. ... And speaking for YC, it’s also in our best interest."[1] it makes sense that HN should be taking concrete steps to make the community a safe place for diversity. It doesn't really matter whether or not a representative portion of the community is behaving poorly. If a subset of the HN community is making HN inhospitable to the diverse members HN seeks to support, that is the problem that the leadership & the community should be trying to solve.
For the record (and I hope this is clear in the context of the rest of that paragraph), I think getting bigoted views out in the open can be better than the alternative. Open views can be criticized and corrected. Subversive hate or discrimination is much harder to address.
"I say change begins at home," is meaningless. If you want change, go downvote (and possibly reply to) *ist comments in order to set them straight. Form a group of others to help you. Don't get on a soapbox and demand for everyone else to make the world the way you want it without being part of the solution. Taking public figures to task for what you perceive to be their shortcomings (as opposed to their wrongdoing) is not a solution.
Before that, though, try to give people the benefit of the doubt before you respond with venom to them. Mischaracterizing people's positions and attacking out-of-context quotes (as I feel you did with me) are not going to change minds or win over anyone.
Let me know when you want to stop speaking in metaphors or empty platitudes or unrepresentative, cherry-picked snippets, and then we can have a discussion. So far, I see no actionable suggestions for how to solve the problem, or even a clear definition of the problem.
I'm not here to have a "discussion" with someone who's desperate to defend the powerful from facing their own malfeasance. Your remarks and lack of self-awareness show that you're part of the problem. I don't see any benefit to investing meaningful time in reaching you.
I've provided a case and actionable suggestions here, at a length of 745 words. I'm not going to give you 745 more.
I'm not here to convince you. Your education is your job.
But I am thrilled to continue documenting how, say, software engineering leaders at startups contribute to a culture of exclusion and alienation by making it the jobs of marginalized people to "educate" their more privileged counterparts.
I see no actionable suggestions for how to solve the problem
Here are a few actionable suggestions from OP's article:
* "[Create] a Code of Conduct for Hacker News." This helps all community members share clear expectations of appropriate & inappropriate behavior.
* "After providing clear guidance for what kinds of comments are acceptable to its values, YC must fund a means of consistent enforcement when content is posted outside those bounds."
* "[YC] must publicly accept its complicity in building and maintaining a business asset with these negative externalities."
* "YC must submit to accountability for improvement."
That's fair. The first two are pretty good suggestions. I wish he hadn't buried them at the end of an article that was very one-sided (e.g., "Hacker News is a cesspit"). I wish he had made a nice summary like the one you provided.
@_danilo: The sad thing is that I actually agree with your goals and the first two suggestions. I disagree with your tactics. I apologize if my viewpoint sounded like, "There is no problem." That was not my intent. I only intended to offer a counterpoint to what I felt was a misrepresentation of the overall character of Hacker News. I definitely agree with you that there are issues.
But in the process of responding to me, you attacked me. I literally feel like a victim at this point. You took the conversation to Twitter, where I don't even have an account, and aired your grievances about me at my employer.
Please consider your actions in the future. You are not helping your cause when you alienate others and make them feel helpless. You could have tried a little bit harder to convince me instead of attacking me (cf. this post).
"[Create] a Code of Conduct for Hacker News." This helps all community members share clear expectations of appropriate & inappropriate behavior.
Hacker News has a set of guidelines that provide clear expectation of appropriate and inappropriate behavior as it regards submissions, comments, and flagging.
Presumably, the author of this piece isn't just complaining that the "Guidelines" aren't titled "Code of Conduct", and actually prefers different specific expectations than those that are currently specified. But, to make an actual actionable suggestion, concrete changes need to be identified.
"After providing clear guidance for what kinds of comments are acceptable to its values, YC must fund a means of consistent enforcement when content is posted outside those bounds."
Heavy handed centralized moderation rather than relying primarily on community moderation is an actionable suggestion, but there is no concrete evidence presented that (1) community moderation isn't working, or (2) heavy-handed centralized moderation would work better.
"[YC] must publicly accept its complicity in building and maintaining a business asset with these negative externalities."
Except for handwaving at vague anecdotes and stating the authors personal opinion, there's no support for the existence of the asserted "negative externalities". But, yes, while it lacks justification for action, this is certainly an actionable suggestion.
"YC must submit to accountability for improvement."
This is a vague statement, not a specific, actionable suggestion.
Rape has meanings other than non-consensual sex.
GP: Please use the word rape to the full extent provided by the english language, and let those who don't like the word deal with it.
I personally avoid using "rape" in such contexts. I don't like it. I agree with the parent comment, who says that it "is so deeply emotive and meaningful, in such an inappropriate context."
Can you tell me where you feel that I was defending bad behavior, or bad culture? My claim was that you misrepresented it. You turned that into a very personal attack. Is that OK?
Working for someone who thinks this exercise has been "cherry picking," who thinks it's the job of marginalized people to educate bigots, would be a horror show. Especially given the lack of self-awareness you've displayed here. Saying so is not only okay—it's necessary.
"Working for someone..."? Who are you referring to? The startup I work for is not a YC company. Our founder/CEO is not active on HN. One of his main hobbies is participating on an international coed Ultimate Frisbee team.
I don't think it's the part of marginalized people to educate bigots. Sorry if I wrongly assumed that you aren't marginalized.
My view is that the moral non-marginalized should speak out loudly against bigots. I was trying to encourage you to attack the bigots instead of attacking everyone else.
Edit: BTW, Everlaw has a blog. Anyone is welcome to read it and form their own opinions about our culture.
Danilo, I loved the article & thought it was much needed. Agreed that it's not the job of the marginalized to educate oppressors. Agreed that it's frustrating and exhausting for anyone to take on the task of educating others, and that your writing is an attempt at making others aware of the problems that exist. I agree that BrandonM's classification of your article as "cherry picking" demonstrates a lack of awareness of the difficulties of minorities and women in tech & at HN. However, simply because a person doesn't express a certain level of self-awareness or education about the disadvantage others are experiencing doesn't automatically quality them as an enemy nor a bad human.
BrandonM, I'd encourage you to keep educating yourself. I'd suggest reading resources like http://juliepagano.com/blog/2013/11/02/101-off-limits/ and following some "social justice warriors" via your platform of choice.
I, personally, am still very much in the process of learning about how my own privileges (white, middle-class, male, cis, het) affect me and others, which is why I find article's like Danilo especially useful.
I appreciate your level-headed response, metavida. I think you're taking the right approach in trying to quell hostility (rather than create it) and in providing links to follow up with. I am in full agreement that everyone should have an equal opportunity to do what they love, and I am quick to stand up to oppressors and bullies. I recognize the problem and agree that we need to address it.
That's the main reason why Danilo's actions bothered me so much today. My initial post basically boiled down to, "The article misrepresented Hacker News: it's no worse than other communities with similar demographics. And when bigots make themselves visible, it gives us a chance to change minds." Even I can come around to the idea that those are shitty points.
But we didn't have that discussion. Instead, Danilo used his Twitter privilege (where I have none) to level an attack at me, threatening my livelihood. To me, that seems like a different version of the exact problem he is purporting to solve.
If the "warrior" in "social justice warrior" is literal, then I suppose that tactic makes sense. But I think there's a better way. I read this today:
The biggest crime of fear is getting my mind so wrapped up in itself, I forget that that I’m not the only one who is afraid. We’ve all got things that haunt us.
Did I really deserve what Danilo threw at me today?
Did I really deserve what Danilo threw at me today?
Twitter privilege
Goodness. If anything, you got off easy, bub. Even now, oblivious, invoking concepts like "privilege" you clearly don't understand.
You don't get to run your mouth about things you don't understand and then escape accountability. You don't get to excuse a terrible status quo as being acceptable because it serves to educate people at the expense of the marginalized.
You are exactly the problem. Not the bigots. Not the overt sexists. Not the children posing as grownups, too young to know their indecency. The problem is mealy-mouthed folks who mistake differences of power for differences opinion. And who forgive the unacceptable on that basis.
And feel so righteous doing so.
Sorry if that's not the sort of coddling you're used to. But I'm not here for you. I'm not here to make you comfortable and I'm certainly not here to persuade you. I'm here because what you said was wrong and dangerous.
I'm a lot more concerned with the feelings of people who are being driven out of this industry because of exactly the sort of chicanery you're excusing.
Working for you sounds damn crummy. If you don't want that sort of observation leveled in public in the future, I have one suggestion:
read some books
Do the right thing because it's the right thing. Not because someone was nice to you or not on Hacker News.
threatening my livelihood
And where is the threat to your livelihood, exactly?
If what you said was as acceptable as you claim, you face no danger.
If what you said was problematic, then why did you say it? Publicly? Flying under the banner of "Lead Software Engineer for Everlaw."
And why would you expect a public wrong to pass with impunity?
You're arguing both that you were perfectly reasonable—and that I was unreasonable to call you out for saying something crummy.
You know nothing about me except that I criticized your post for being misrepresentative. That's all. You have no idea what I do in my daily life to promote equality, what I do in my workplace to make it more welcoming for all, how important it is to me to "do the right thing." You have no clue, at all.
And yet you're comfortable saying that I'm "exactly the problem", that I'm "desperately" defending Hacker News, that I'm crummy to work with. You don't know me.
When I say that I feel victimized by you, you call me more names, say that I'm running my mouth, that I'm used to being coddled, that you can't possibly have more privilege than me. Sound familiar?
Please try to have a bit of perspective on your own behavior. There are much more effective, humane ways to win the hearts and minds of others and achieve your goals.
And where is the threat to your livelihood, exactly?
>If what you said was as acceptable as you claim, you face no danger.
Take anything he says, interpret it in the most uncharitable way possible, and then get him mobbed online. His company cuts off the limb to save the body by firing him. This is a tactical way of shutting somebody up, not a sign of their moral deficiency. Anybody with some numbers behind them can do it. I also got a sorta "I know where you live" vibe from how you repeated back his job to him, so I think you know this.
I'm female, and I work in this industry. I usually lurk, but this bothered me enough to warrant saying something. Which is this: whatever the merits of the original discussion or dissent, this level of attack is not helpful; I don't want it done on my behalf. What it has served to make me feel is precisely what I think you are trying to avoid: like I can't hold the opinions I do, because women are only allowed to think that HN is a unilaterally awful place. I feel like I have to defend how I could possibly have the chromosomes I do and yet have mixed feelings about this website - or anything else. Trying to help women doesn't make a person automatically right any more than me being a woman makes me automatically right about all questions pertaining to women. But I at least get to have an opinion on my own experience, and some of this conversation has made me feel like that's not the case. In other words, none of us (you included) has the right to feel righteous: we all have something to learn.
That's definitely a good point. My comment was a kneejerk reaction to assertions like "Hacker News is a cesspool." I agree that we should address anything that makes people feel unwelcome or uncomfortable because of who they are.
And yet your original comment didn't say that, it just immediately went #notallmen. If you admit there's a problem, start with that. If you must start a tone fight, do it as an aside.
Hacker News has developed a reputation for toxic sexism and other insensitivity toward folks outside the Silicon Valley in-group of white, upper-class men.
I don't see much evidence that this is particularly true; sure, I see people that complain that it is, and a roughly equal number who complain that HN is overly swamped with politically correct "social justice warriors" and biased against white, upper-class men.
Personally I think its rather balanced and mostly civil, with a few extremes on every conceivable side, with effective moderation (central and community-based) which both keeps a lid on the problems all-around and keeps the level of bias to a lower level than you'd expect given the rather extreme imbalance in the community to which HN is directed.
the tl;dr is
1. HN culture is (generally) sexist & racist, a "bro-fest" if you will.
2. ycomb profits from HN
3. ycomb says they're against sexism etc.: “We—the tech industry as a whole—need to fix this. Most importantly, it’s an ethical issue.” ...
4. ...but there seems to be no legitimate effort by YC to alter the culture & signal what's acceptable behavior (i.e. don't be racist) on hackernews.
"bro-fest" is the most racist thing I've seen on hn this month, but maybe I'm not reading as many articles as I could. I feel like you ought to have the freedom to say it though.
How on earth is 4. going to happen especially with an international crowd? Is any organization doing 4. adequately? Is YC supposed to educate the whole world on how "bro-fest" is PC but [something else]-fest is not?
Something lost in translation here? Bro-fest, meaning males hanging out together. Where is the racism? http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=brofest
I think expanding the ability to down-vote to more people would help show the true attitude on HN. Right now I can only push things up or flag them and often times don't have the time or fortitude to start a comment thread arguing with an ignorant racist. Currently at 419 karma I don't have the ability to simply press a downvote and get that trash grayed out or pushed to the bottom of the page.
A technical solution to a social problem rarely works but in this case I think it'd help. If what the OP implies is true, and it surely is to some degree, most of the people who have the ability to control visibility (downvote) would have achieved that ability through participation in the echo chamber. Achieving enough karma to downvote seems rather hard, if not impossible, if you're not subscribed to the prevailing groupthink.
But maybe this is me, as always, trying to find an engineering solution to the problem.
To me, the problem is that downvoting is contextually vague, while the effect on HN is visually explicit. It would be one thing entirely if downvoting just affected the page ranking, but having it also act as a visual cue that "this person's opinion is not worth your time, so don't worry - we've made it difficult for you to read it" only serves to exacerbate a groupthink mentality. I don't think more downvoting would solve the problem, it would only make more comments illegible.
I've seen more than a couple of threads where an entire side of what I find to be an interesting (or at least worthwile) discussion is blotted out. It's annoying if you actually want to consider an entire thread and not just get spoon-fed the parts which correlate to consensus opinion. This is supposed to be a forum for intellectually thought-provoking or at least civil discussion, but the implementation of downvoting amounts to sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting down someone you don't agree with.
I just lost a minute of my life
So, this is all well and good, and am sure the outrage plays well with certain circles. But, let's look at things from a business perspective--because, ultimately, that's what YC is: a business.
Let's assume that HN is a terrible place where sexism and racism are easily found--consider that the ability to review people's posting histories is a really good datapoint of figuring out whether or not they're somebody you want to work with. If an applicant applies with a posting history rife with sexism and racism, then maybe they're not going to be asked back. It's a chance to let people show their true colors, and many people are bigoted shitbags.
So, even looking past that, the author raises the point that YC has a portfolio north of 30B USD. So, erm, maybe whatever they're doing is working? Maybe, just maybe, sexism and racism and everything else is not really that relevant to running a successful business. I don't want to go full libertariloon on this and go claim that the free market thus proves those are non-issues, but from a business standpoint they don't seem to be mattering. A criticism of "but but but imagine how much better things could be if they stomped it out!" is a non-starter, because it's playing in what-ifs.
If HN does have a problem, it's that the downvote system is bullshit and broken and enables people to hivemind more easily. PG screwed up, in my opinion, when he gave a blessing on giving downvotes based on disagreement instead of civility or relevance. The moderation system is opaque and broken, though much less broken thanks to people like dang.
Mostly, I think, the single systemic issue of HN is that people are not self-selecting for good technical content, and are so closed-minded that useful discussion of non-technical content becomes boring, tedious, and prone to flaming.
EDIT: Thank you whoever gave that downvote without explanation for helping to demonstrate my point!
'OK so maybe there's sexism & racism but they're making money so what's the problem?'
I think the author (and I agree with him here) sees the racism & sexism itself as being a problem. Nowhere does he argue that the problem is that racism/sexism are bad for profits.
Personally I don't need the market to tell me if racism & sexism are bad and I doubt that you do either.
Sexism and racism are views on life, much like religion and capitalism--I don't have to agree with them without respecting them as views held by other people. Silly, stupid views that I disagree with and find counter-productive, but it is their right to think in that wrongheaded fashion and talk about it.
I agree that making policy decisions based on racism and sexism, especially when the affected population has no alternative but to be subject to those decisions (say, no other place to look for work, no other police force to seek protection from, etc.), is wrong. That said, I find it just as wrong to brand other people as bad or evil because they've got some silly view.
To put it quite crudely: The primary job of YC is not the policing of ideas and thoughts of people posting on HN beyond keeping things relatively civil.
How can you have things "relatively civil" if people engage in sexism and racism?
Exactly. Parent wants HN kept relatively civil from his/her perspective. When it comes to other people's perspectives, no holds barred.
There are ways of discussing and holding viewpoints that--in the strictest sense of the term--are racist or sexist. Talking about how best to accomodate maternity leave and schedule work is inherently sexist: it is an issue that does not apply to both men and women. Talking about how to handle racial profiling in targeted advertising is inherently racist: it is an issue that is tuned to your views about what messaging works best for a particular race.
One can have these viewpoints and maintain civil discourse. One can even have viewpoints that are less pragmatic; e.g., violent crimes clearly committed more frequently by one race over others. In such a case, somebody can civilly point out numbers and studies that refute that viewpoint, and at the point one can either accede or agree to disagree.
Being civil doesn't have anything to do with agreeing with people, or even being right.
Do you happen to be a white and/or male? The only reason I ask (rhetorically, obviously -- please don't answer) is that, if you are, you might fail to realize that your position is one of privilege in our society. One of those many privileges shared by you and me is that what society considers common, civil discourse is very rarely offensive to our personhoods. Others don't share that privilege. For others, what you would call civil discourse is full of barbarism, small mindedness, and offense.
This polite yet sexist and racist comment is exactly the sort of civil discourse I'd like to see more of.
Ah yes, ye old "reverse Xism". Going for the oldies but goodies.
I'm not trying to challenge you, just curious: what is an example of discourse that would be interpreted by someone with said privilege to be civil, yet interpreted by someone else without it to be barbaric, small-minded, offensive, etc.
I get that you could have an objective discussion on religion that might be offensive, but does the fact that someone can find it offensive make it "offensive" in general, or does it make the person who isn't offended "privileged"? I'm just not sure exactly how to apply your statement to such scenarios -- could you explain a little more about what you mean?
Would (could?), for example, objective data (e.g. CSV file, scientific study, statistics) have these qualities or just people's opinions on the objective data?
You need me to provide examples of sexism or racism in "civil" discourse? Maybe we don't live in the same society. Read the post that these comments are about. Only a minority of them are trolls. Many are otherwise reasonable and intelligent people saying ignorant and shitty things in calm, civil, flag-avoiding ways.
If you don't notice it it's because you're privileged. If you're not, it's like you're swimming in it.
Sexism is something that is rampant in the whole tech industry. I feel bad about it, but I don't see how YC or HN is responsible for policing the posts. Sure, you could have a report button and couple of mods to look at them and approve or reject. That model however is not scalable and downright silly. The bigger issue is with the society and people's mindset and it is up to the people to not be sexist. Having said that, I don't think any business has to do anything special for being inclusive to sex/race/gender etc. Businesses run on profits, talent generates profits. Sure, capable people should not be denied opportunity, but incapable people should not get preferential treatment and held against a lower standard.
"...incapable people should not get preferential treatment and held against a lower standard." That is a fallacy. Certain types of sex/race/genders get special treatment now, often called "privilege", because of a history of systematic repression of other people. People are just trying to make the field actually level, not give preferential treatment to "incapable people".
So in the process of making it level, the playing field is being changed to be favorable to certain individuals? If something changes by giving away opportunities to less qualified people, because their predecessors had been systemically repressed, it is probably the ego/guilt of the perpetrators. Provide extra opportunities to the current generation to develop and improve , but don't take it away from qualified people in the name of diversity/inclusivity. If a man and a woman apply for a job in all male startup, hire the most qualified person, not the person who makes your workforce more diverse.
THEY are being repressed, not only their predecessors. And to "hire the most qualified person" "denies the role of personal connections, wealth, background, gender, race, or education in an individual's success"[1]. It is overly simplistic to just say "hire the qualified person" when the person is qualified due to a huge amount of historical advantages. Do you really think there are so few women in tech because all the men are just more qualified?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/02/06/272646...
The right thing then would be to enable such individuals with disadvantages to become qualified. We can go on and on about how it is a vicious circle and all that, but IMHO, the remedy is not providing opportunities to less qualified people, but take measures to educate and make them competent. Relavant initiative [1] [2]
[1]. https://developers.google.com/women-techmakers/ [2]. http://www.google.com/diversity/for-the-future.html#research...
"the remedy is not providing opportunities to less qualified people"
You keep saying this like it is a fact or that anyone is arguing for this. It is a complete fallacy.
That's nice.
The guy in charge of Y Combinator disagrees with you. Which is the whole point of the post.
http://blog.ycombinator.com/diversity-and-startups
Wonderfully said. People are failing to realize that the point is that YCombinator is being internally inconsistent.
Edit: allegedly being internally inconsistent
I thought I was the only one!
Seeing a Facebook/Twitter photo of the person you are about to flame, before you press post, would probably have an effect, see: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9424-big-brother-eyes-...
I'm surprised that the author could write such a cherry-picked article with a straight face. I clicked through to the six links in the twitter comments. Here's a summary of who made them:
For context, I have over 4500 karma (I only comment a few times a month and don't submit much), and the HN user with the 100th highest karma has over 16,000. In other words, these comments are not representative of the entire community, or of even a single medium-profile user.
The vast majority of the time, ignorant comments are met with multiple replies setting the person straight, or with downvotes (as I do, for anything that is insulting or offensive).
Hacker News intends to attract a technical audience. The community includes a wide variety of people, some of which are 16-to-25-year-old men who have poor socialization skills. Some of them (and some others, certainly) have naive, twisted beliefs, or they are just unaware of their privileged position in society. Others are from different countries that have old-fashioned gender norms.
I don't think this is a problem unique to HN or even to tech. I claim that you could just as easily write an article like this about fraternity or country club communities, if their communications were indexed for the entire world to see. At least in the case of HN, you have a large number of dissenting viewpoints.
I actually think it's good that short-sighted individuals express their bigoted views. It gives others a chance to provide them with some perspective. Even more, though, prudent individuals who think the same thing have the opportunity to have their viewpoints changed as well. Also, seeing the extreme version of one of your views can cause you to pause and reconsider it.
Personally, I was quite libertarian and lacking in perspective on several issues (e.g., end user empathy, social welfare, the importance of tact) when I joined Hacker News 7-1/2 years ago. Of course I can't give all the credit to HN, but it has definitely had some positive effect in improving my personality and broadening my perspective.
Agreed that HN is not facing a unique problem of *ist comments/members. However, as the OP points out, given that the leadership of Y Combinator say that "Sexism in tech is real. ... We—the tech industry as a whole—need to fix this. ... And speaking for YC, it’s also in our best interest."[1] it makes sense that HN should be taking concrete steps to make the community a safe place for diversity. It doesn't really matter whether or not a representative portion of the community is behaving poorly. If a subset of the HN community is making HN inhospitable to the diverse members HN seeks to support, that is the problem that the leadership & the community should be trying to solve.
[1] http://blog.ycombinator.com/diversity-and-startups
You're acting like I only have six pieces to point to. I have dozens. And this is only the set after I started hash tagging.
https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=%23hnwatch&src=typd
There's a word for this kind of viewpoint.
While alienating entire groups of underrepresented backgrounds.
Sam Altman says tech needs to fix its exclusionary nature. So he actually agrees with me on this.
I say change begins at home.
What would that be?
For the record (and I hope this is clear in the context of the rest of that paragraph), I think getting bigoted views out in the open can be better than the alternative. Open views can be criticized and corrected. Subversive hate or discrimination is much harder to address.
"I say change begins at home," is meaningless. If you want change, go downvote (and possibly reply to) *ist comments in order to set them straight. Form a group of others to help you. Don't get on a soapbox and demand for everyone else to make the world the way you want it without being part of the solution. Taking public figures to task for what you perceive to be their shortcomings (as opposed to their wrongdoing) is not a solution.
Before that, though, try to give people the benefit of the doubt before you respond with venom to them. Mischaracterizing people's positions and attacking out-of-context quotes (as I feel you did with me) are not going to change minds or win over anyone.
Y Combinator is a 30 billion dollar business. Hacker News is a big part of their operation.
It's not the job of seagulls to organize oil spill cleanup.
Let me know when you want to stop speaking in metaphors or empty platitudes or unrepresentative, cherry-picked snippets, and then we can have a discussion. So far, I see no actionable suggestions for how to solve the problem, or even a clear definition of the problem.
I'm not here to have a "discussion" with someone who's desperate to defend the powerful from facing their own malfeasance. Your remarks and lack of self-awareness show that you're part of the problem. I don't see any benefit to investing meaningful time in reaching you.
I've provided a case and actionable suggestions here, at a length of 745 words. I'm not going to give you 745 more.
http://danilocampos.com/2014/09/y-combinator-and-the-negativ...
I'm not here to convince you. Your education is your job.
But I am thrilled to continue documenting how, say, software engineering leaders at startups contribute to a culture of exclusion and alienation by making it the jobs of marginalized people to "educate" their more privileged counterparts.
Here are a few actionable suggestions from OP's article:
That's fair. The first two are pretty good suggestions. I wish he hadn't buried them at the end of an article that was very one-sided (e.g., "Hacker News is a cesspit"). I wish he had made a nice summary like the one you provided.
@_danilo: The sad thing is that I actually agree with your goals and the first two suggestions. I disagree with your tactics. I apologize if my viewpoint sounded like, "There is no problem." That was not my intent. I only intended to offer a counterpoint to what I felt was a misrepresentation of the overall character of Hacker News. I definitely agree with you that there are issues.
But in the process of responding to me, you attacked me. I literally feel like a victim at this point. You took the conversation to Twitter, where I don't even have an account, and aired your grievances about me at my employer.
Please consider your actions in the future. You are not helping your cause when you alienate others and make them feel helpless. You could have tried a little bit harder to convince me instead of attacking me (cf. this post).
Hacker News has a set of guidelines that provide clear expectation of appropriate and inappropriate behavior as it regards submissions, comments, and flagging.
Presumably, the author of this piece isn't just complaining that the "Guidelines" aren't titled "Code of Conduct", and actually prefers different specific expectations than those that are currently specified. But, to make an actual actionable suggestion, concrete changes need to be identified.
Heavy handed centralized moderation rather than relying primarily on community moderation is an actionable suggestion, but there is no concrete evidence presented that (1) community moderation isn't working, or (2) heavy-handed centralized moderation would work better.
Except for handwaving at vague anecdotes and stating the authors personal opinion, there's no support for the existence of the asserted "negative externalities". But, yes, while it lacks justification for action, this is certainly an actionable suggestion.
This is a vague statement, not a specific, actionable suggestion.
Please enjoy this comment from a user 2k days old with 11k karma:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6165385
Hat tip:
https://twitter.com/AaronM/status/517372417233002496
I personally avoid using "rape" in such contexts. I don't like it. I agree with the parent comment, who says that it "is so deeply emotive and meaningful, in such an inappropriate context."
So I agree that the comment you linked to is insensitive. Does that justify attacking me (https://twitter.com/_danilo/status/517371895747194880)?
Can you tell me where you feel that I was defending bad behavior, or bad culture? My claim was that you misrepresented it. You turned that into a very personal attack. Is that OK?
Working for someone who thinks this exercise has been "cherry picking," who thinks it's the job of marginalized people to educate bigots, would be a horror show. Especially given the lack of self-awareness you've displayed here. Saying so is not only okay—it's necessary.
https://twitter.com/kelseyinnis/status/516986016356261888
"Working for someone..."? Who are you referring to? The startup I work for is not a YC company. Our founder/CEO is not active on HN. One of his main hobbies is participating on an international coed Ultimate Frisbee team.
I don't think it's the part of marginalized people to educate bigots. Sorry if I wrongly assumed that you aren't marginalized.
My view is that the moral non-marginalized should speak out loudly against bigots. I was trying to encourage you to attack the bigots instead of attacking everyone else.
Edit: BTW, Everlaw has a blog. Anyone is welcome to read it and form their own opinions about our culture.
Danilo, I loved the article & thought it was much needed. Agreed that it's not the job of the marginalized to educate oppressors. Agreed that it's frustrating and exhausting for anyone to take on the task of educating others, and that your writing is an attempt at making others aware of the problems that exist. I agree that BrandonM's classification of your article as "cherry picking" demonstrates a lack of awareness of the difficulties of minorities and women in tech & at HN. However, simply because a person doesn't express a certain level of self-awareness or education about the disadvantage others are experiencing doesn't automatically quality them as an enemy nor a bad human.
BrandonM, I'd encourage you to keep educating yourself. I'd suggest reading resources like http://juliepagano.com/blog/2013/11/02/101-off-limits/ and following some "social justice warriors" via your platform of choice.
I, personally, am still very much in the process of learning about how my own privileges (white, middle-class, male, cis, het) affect me and others, which is why I find article's like Danilo especially useful.
I appreciate your level-headed response, metavida. I think you're taking the right approach in trying to quell hostility (rather than create it) and in providing links to follow up with. I am in full agreement that everyone should have an equal opportunity to do what they love, and I am quick to stand up to oppressors and bullies. I recognize the problem and agree that we need to address it.
That's the main reason why Danilo's actions bothered me so much today. My initial post basically boiled down to, "The article misrepresented Hacker News: it's no worse than other communities with similar demographics. And when bigots make themselves visible, it gives us a chance to change minds." Even I can come around to the idea that those are shitty points.
But we didn't have that discussion. Instead, Danilo used his Twitter privilege (where I have none) to level an attack at me, threatening my livelihood. To me, that seems like a different version of the exact problem he is purporting to solve.
If the "warrior" in "social justice warrior" is literal, then I suppose that tactic makes sense. But I think there's a better way. I read this today:
The biggest crime of fear is getting my mind so wrapped up in itself, I forget that that I’m not the only one who is afraid. We’ve all got things that haunt us.
Did I really deserve what Danilo threw at me today?
Goodness. If anything, you got off easy, bub. Even now, oblivious, invoking concepts like "privilege" you clearly don't understand.
You don't get to run your mouth about things you don't understand and then escape accountability. You don't get to excuse a terrible status quo as being acceptable because it serves to educate people at the expense of the marginalized.
You are exactly the problem. Not the bigots. Not the overt sexists. Not the children posing as grownups, too young to know their indecency. The problem is mealy-mouthed folks who mistake differences of power for differences opinion. And who forgive the unacceptable on that basis.
And feel so righteous doing so.
Sorry if that's not the sort of coddling you're used to. But I'm not here for you. I'm not here to make you comfortable and I'm certainly not here to persuade you. I'm here because what you said was wrong and dangerous.
I'm a lot more concerned with the feelings of people who are being driven out of this industry because of exactly the sort of chicanery you're excusing.
Working for you sounds damn crummy. If you don't want that sort of observation leveled in public in the future, I have one suggestion:
read some books
Do the right thing because it's the right thing. Not because someone was nice to you or not on Hacker News.
And where is the threat to your livelihood, exactly?
If what you said was as acceptable as you claim, you face no danger.
If what you said was problematic, then why did you say it? Publicly? Flying under the banner of "Lead Software Engineer for Everlaw."
And why would you expect a public wrong to pass with impunity?
You're arguing both that you were perfectly reasonable—and that I was unreasonable to call you out for saying something crummy.
Pick one.
You know nothing about me except that I criticized your post for being misrepresentative. That's all. You have no idea what I do in my daily life to promote equality, what I do in my workplace to make it more welcoming for all, how important it is to me to "do the right thing." You have no clue, at all.
And yet you're comfortable saying that I'm "exactly the problem", that I'm "desperately" defending Hacker News, that I'm crummy to work with. You don't know me.
When I say that I feel victimized by you, you call me more names, say that I'm running my mouth, that I'm used to being coddled, that you can't possibly have more privilege than me. Sound familiar?
Please try to have a bit of perspective on your own behavior. There are much more effective, humane ways to win the hearts and minds of others and achieve your goals.
Take anything he says, interpret it in the most uncharitable way possible, and then get him mobbed online. His company cuts off the limb to save the body by firing him. This is a tactical way of shutting somebody up, not a sign of their moral deficiency. Anybody with some numbers behind them can do it. I also got a sorta "I know where you live" vibe from how you repeated back his job to him, so I think you know this.
I'm female, and I work in this industry. I usually lurk, but this bothered me enough to warrant saying something. Which is this: whatever the merits of the original discussion or dissent, this level of attack is not helpful; I don't want it done on my behalf. What it has served to make me feel is precisely what I think you are trying to avoid: like I can't hold the opinions I do, because women are only allowed to think that HN is a unilaterally awful place. I feel like I have to defend how I could possibly have the chromosomes I do and yet have mixed feelings about this website - or anything else. Trying to help women doesn't make a person automatically right any more than me being a woman makes me automatically right about all questions pertaining to women. But I at least get to have an opinion on my own experience, and some of this conversation has made me feel like that's not the case. In other words, none of us (you included) has the right to feel righteous: we all have something to learn.
The community doesn't have to be 100% racist or sexist for there to be a problem. These are all from the same threads as the original article:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8342366 [7227 karma, 1269 days old]
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8342896 [7401 karma, 2780 days old]
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8338055 [32302 karma, 2432 days old]
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8392928 [5003 karma, 1249 days old]
That's definitely a good point. My comment was a kneejerk reaction to assertions like "Hacker News is a cesspool." I agree that we should address anything that makes people feel unwelcome or uncomfortable because of who they are.
And yet your original comment didn't say that, it just immediately went #notallmen. If you admit there's a problem, start with that. If you must start a tone fight, do it as an aside.
You're totally right (that's why I said "kneejerk"). Thanks for the advice.
I don't see much evidence that this is particularly true; sure, I see people that complain that it is, and a roughly equal number who complain that HN is overly swamped with politically correct "social justice warriors" and biased against white, upper-class men.
Personally I think its rather balanced and mostly civil, with a few extremes on every conceivable side, with effective moderation (central and community-based) which both keeps a lid on the problems all-around and keeps the level of bias to a lower level than you'd expect given the rather extreme imbalance in the community to which HN is directed.