Tell HN: SV Doublethink

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19688754

by dosy • 7 years ago

1 9 7 years ago

news.ycombinator.com

Yesterday I posted an Ask HN, `Why does SV hate Trump?`, and a post, `Tech censorship: Instagram censors pro-Trump cartoonist Ben Garrison.` They were both flagged and removed.

Here's the first comment I got on my Ask HN:

You would do a better job writing a less charged version of this question; I would happily articulate a reasonable response. For example, remove "delicate sensibilities" and "triggers the bejesus", then maybe we can have a reasonable discussion. Otherwise you're being insulting.

Taking as a starting point a response to that comment, I take the chance to expand upon some ideas about this.

So you want to make the discussion start form a more balanced viewpoint by removing insulting terms?

Sounds fair.

But at what point does avoiding charged terms, become avoiding the issues? At what point does that become political censorship and then shift over into imposing one ideological perspective on everybody?

If you're an individual, it probably doesn't matter. If you're a corporation, it probably does. If founders are imposing their politics on their business operations isn't that piercing the corporate veil, as it blurs the line between their characters? But more importantly, when a few SV companies control a lot of global social media, how is them imposing a political perspective ok?

If I were in their place, I would do the same thing. Don't get me wrong. I have a politics, and I would censor and suppress those who I disliked or disagreed with. But the difference is, I would own it. I wouldn't do it in secret and pretend I was this "tolerance loving" "progressive". I'd explain my reasons for it, and how shaping the narrative was a good thing.

[continued]

dosy4• 7 years ago

[continued]

What I don't like is seeing these so-called liberals (actually fake leftists) in SV, pretending they're so morally grande, and then acting like fascists, with forbidden speech, forbidden thoughts and even their own little band of foot-soldier thugs (antifa). You don't get to cash in twice. They don't get the "moral righteousness" protection of pretending you're good and associated with classical liberalism when you act like this. You don't get to hide it.

And to make it more concrete, it's not just big companies doing it at an abstract level, it's a hubris that leaked in everywhere. I'm not against the censorship and narrative shaping, I'm against the deceptiveness, the "this is about tolerance and inclusiveness" when it's clearly not. At that point, they've become hilarious caricatures of themselves projected in an firmware-updated Orwell's 1984 futurescape.

Case in point, the other day I posted some very tech and hacker related news, how instagram censored pro-Trump cartoonist Ben Garrison. And the organic interest from HN was strong, it was upvoted and got to the front page. And then, the tolerant liberal overlords, acting to protect their delicate sensibilities or narratives, flagged it and it was gone. That's not a fair and balanced discussion. Pretending it is, is doublethink. SV doublethink.

That the biggest tech forum, in the biggest tech city in the "freest country" in the world, can not even talk about their country's President and acknowledge and own how their own tech giants are censoring narratives that support him, reveals the problem.

Maybe in the privileged and rarefied world of SV tech elites and their legions of privileged slaves this is an abstract problem. But these companies and the fascist-fake-leftist attitudes of their people are powerful.

I think people need to see the situation clearly, and ask, what does this mean for the world? What are the second order effects of this doublethink about SV's goodness progressiveness and tolerance?

drdeca• 7 years ago

That the biggest tech forum, in the biggest tech city in the "freest country" in the world, can not even talk about their country's President and [...]

Not everything has to be about politics.

Also, this point doesn’t seem especially coherent to me. A country is generally considered tyrannical if one cannot criticize its leaders, not the other way around.

Also, you don’t have to use the word “doublethink” when you just mean hypocrisy. It doesn’t help your point any.

Also, tl;dr.

(For context, I generally considered myself to be somewhat right wing.

Though I’ve never actually voted yet. Haven’t had many opportunities, and didn’t feel great about any of the candidates.)

tomhoward3• 7 years ago

HN's clearly stated and often-reiterated purpose is for content/discussion that "gratifies one's intellectual curiosity" [1][2].

There are some politics topics that could be gratifying of intellectual curiosity in theory, but are not in practice because people with the strongest reactions/staunchest positions on either side of the topic will dominate the discussion.

In other cases, such topics are introduced when people have an axe to grind, so they bring a heavily partisan or charged-up tone to the topic, and thus an intellectually gratifying discussion of the topic never has a chance to get started.

There are plenty of other places on the internet for people who want to have impassioned debates about the political outrage du jour.

HN is still a place where interesting discussions can be had about some controversial topics, particularly when they're about new emerging phenomena.

But it's never going to solve the biggest problems of the world, or settle the most vexed arguments in the daily news cycle or the U.S. presidential cycle.

HN is just designed for different things, and it works well by keeping it that way.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?query=gratifies%20intellectual%20cur...

dosy4• 7 years ago

good point. I lose sight of that.

dosy4• 7 years ago

I guess the problem is I see hacker news as the tech community and this tech community now has a lot of social power that maybe they're not used to, not aware of and don't really understand. so I don't think it's good enough anymore to be such a culture shaping community through technology but to, in one of the biggest forums, say what we just can't discuss this stuff we can't handle the discussions.

I think you need to know how to handle the discussions. I think you have a responsibility to because your actions like it or not are shaping the culture and that has significant effects beyond yourselves so you're going to have to adapt your communities and you communication abilities to enlarged with that.

otherwise it's like trying to apply the BBS ethos of the 80s to the present, after software already ate the world. I don't think the tech community gets to take the benefits of that power without also shouldering the responsibility so you're going to have to start having these border discussions that are often by definition highly charged. they're going to have to start learning how to do that and to engage with differing viewpoints. instead of pushing away the blame for avoiding that on to something other than themselves. maybe hacker new can't evolve but something else needs to.

it's not enough for companies to have these discussions internally in private they need to do it in the full light of day. also finally it's a bit disingenuous for you to say that while we can't solve the world's biggest problems well silicon valley's often reiterated motto is well that's exactly what we're trying to do.

tomhoward3• 7 years ago

we can't solve the world's biggest problems

I'm sure there are people who frequent HN who are capable of contributing to efforts to solve the world's biggest problems.

But they are unlikely to be the same people who want to obsess over the the biggest drama of the last 24 hours in the mainstream news cycle, or to bicker over the latest circus act relating to the U.S. presidency.

It might pay to think about the most significant inventors/leaders/humanitarians in history, and try and imagine how they would spend their days in the current era.

If they were spending any of it on HN, would it have been posting flame-bait over U.S. political drama, or would it rather have been spent trying to have more thoughtful discussions, seeking to understand the world at a deeper level?

This is really what it comes down to for me.

I personally do want to help solve some of the world's biggest problems, to whatever extent that a modestly capable person as myself can do so.

I've been on HN for a long time, and have paid attention to public/global affairs for a long time, and I've come to learn quite a bit about the kinds of discussion topics that move me closer to being able to have an impact on the important problems in the world.

Phithagoras• 7 years ago

Avoiding charged terms doesn't have to mean avoiding the discussion. If you're trying to teach a 3 year old about their body you'll probably be using the anatomically correct words rather than the filthiest slang that exists in your area.

Addition: Imposing a political agenda online is fine (ish) as long as people don't have any illusions otherwise. HN exists "to gratify one's intellectual curiosity" and unfortunately most discussions about this sort of thing aren't very popular or have a tendency to flamewar.

Tell HN: SV Doublethink

Related Stories