Hacker News Reader

Comment by screye | Hacker News Reader

In the age of social media I would suggest a different approach to addressing public mistakes.

1. Go silent.

> Complete public blackout. No denying, no accepting. The people want retribution, not justice. The media blackout is essential.

2. Reflect on it privately and quietly.

3. If not in violation of #1, apologize to the individual people/entity affected in private.

4. Once the mob dissipates, address the issue publically in long form.

> It is very important that it be a boring, long and solemn take on the mistake. Blog, interview, podcast, whatever.

5. Don't blame. period.

6. Set a roadmap to rehabilitation/mitigation.

7. Actually follow #6

View on HN

* Step 3 is probably a bad idea, if any attention is being paid to "the individual people/entity affected".

* Step 4b is a bad idea; it has too great a possibility of re-raising the issue.

* Steps 5, 6, and 7 are completely optional and probably not recommended. If Step 4a worked, keep in mind that the strategy you have got you where you are.

* Given the above, Step 2 is a waste of time.

This message brought to you by the International Society of Misanthropes.

Step 6 and 7 are absolutely crucial. People not accepting blame (even privately to themselves) and never changing is even worse than people aggressively and publicly demanding apologies for wrongdoing.

Crucial to who? GP is outlining a roadmap in the best interest of the accused.

Crucial to society. It's in the best interest of the accused that other people implement steps 6 and 7. And so realistically they ought to be implementing them too.

My point is that we shouldn't just be looking out for our interests. We should be working co-operatively to look out for everybody's interests. Ultimately this benefits ourselves too, but that's not why we should do it.

I think the current system is broken. We should be trying to align our incentives. Urging people to act against their own self-interests is self-defeating.

I don't really see how

6. Set a roadmap to rehabilitation/mitigation.

and

7. Actually follow #6

are against anyone's self-interest. It's about holding yourself accountable for you actions.

I think I'd agree, especially with regards to the article's Step 3.

Admitting fault can open one to liability (sometimes legally). Although perhaps it depends on how one defines a mistake versus, say, an outright fault that people could find morally wrong.

An example that's not perfect (and I'm not arguing/defending one way or another) is Louis CK with the #metoo movement.

It seemed to me that his response was sincere and correct on the personal level. He acknowledged those he'd wronged, made clear the victims were in the right, apologized, and expressed a desire to improve his behavior. For all that, he was demonized.

To some extent, it felt like people were saying: "My god, you admitted it. You're worse than Harvey Weinstein - at least he had the decency to deny his actions."

Wikimedia is probably insulated in enough of its own groupthink to get away with their list. In the cannibal crab bucket of the real world, this list is way more practical.

> people want retribution, not justice

This. People desperately want to feel like they championed a cause, and the cheapest way to get that kick is by demanding your head on a platter on Twitter.

> People desperately want to feel like they championed a cause, and the cheapest way to get that kick is by demanding your head on a platter on Twitter.

Some people I had the displeasure of interacting with suddenly feel more ordinary. Thank you.

I think you're thinking about a very particular kind of mistake. However, for mistakes that are not hitting headlines, the original list from the article actually works. Specially for technical mistakes. I haven't been in a position that I had to go silent about my mistakes, which makes me happy. After admitting my mistakes I feel much lighter.

Yeah, the emphasis was on a public mistake and thus a public (external) reaction.

I agree that there are far more constructive ways of dealing with internal (family or company) errors.

There are different degrees of public reaction. One thing is to admit a mistake in a public mailing list for an open source project or even in a blog post that were front page of this very forum. It's still a public/external reaction. However, it's a lot different than when you are a public figure and a mistake you made is the cover page of major newspapers. I think that, in those sort of situations, a more tactical approach may be desired, rather than a personal one.

This is a really great list.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com