[1]: https://www.thedailybeast.com/famed-mit-computer-scientist-r... [2]: https://www.vice.com/en/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scient...
[1]: https://www.thedailybeast.com/famed-mit-computer-scientist-r... [2]: https://www.vice.com/en/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scient...
We would be better off if we could remove those dishonest people from our communities here and elsewhere.
Dishonest reporting, and amplifying of dishonest posts on social media is not something you will ever get an apology for, because those efforts were never meant to survive scrutiny. They were meant to create "pressure" to cause reputational damage.
You cannot convince or engage bad-faith actors. All you can do is identify and eliminate them from your social media circles and sites as best you can.
This is one of the reasons I believe social media sites should enact age-based voting. Such that older accounts that have withstood the reputational scrutiny, have greater influence.
I am not sure this works, on HN for example is easy enough for a small mob to disappear articles by flagging them, on top of that we get no reason why things were flagged or any way to undo it. Account age or karma is not enough, we need much more, make it harder to share/downvote or flag , like by making someone type at least 60 words and ban the accounts for abuse.
HN is a bit unique. I suspect it is less influenced by bad behavior because it is small enough to fly under the radar.
My proposal is to have people do a bit of work not just click a button, write an intelligent argument, it would at least filter the lazy ones out. It is similar when you know someone will review your code you double check your commit first and clean things up, someone might decide that the reason might not be as defendable so maybe a discussion should happen on this topic .
There were different articles about RMS, so why an article that has Red Hat in it's name should stay and other that has an author less prestigious should be hidden, I mean let the community decide, we always repeat ourselves in comments when we talk about latest Apple,Facebook or Google shit so if the users upvote and discuss something then don't fucking hide it, it means it is on topic, the nes that don't want to engage can skip the article or downvote it and upvote soem other article instead that is more interesting.
I nenver flagged any submission, even if I think is offtopic or low quality, I can ignore it, maybe the people that engaged it have other opinion so why I should decide for others what should they see on the home page.
My proposal might not be better , so I admit I can be wrong and I let the HN stuff to do their job how they think is best, just wanted to tell my opinion that even here stuff might be hidden for you because a small number of people decided it.
Voting and commenting influence what submissions other people see too.
At least I think is not fair to use flag on an item I think it should get less attention, then I should flag all posts about the frameworks or languages that I think are getting too much attention (I do not flag and very rare downvote )
dang seemed to endorse flagging repetition and flame war. I don't know what to tell you if you interpret that as just too much attention.
So let me ask, in general we have a page where we are encouraged to upvote good articles and discouraged to flag things we do not agree or a mediocre how can the system prevent that the flag is not abused by the minority that flags things they just disagree.
I don't want to HN employee, it is a big site and there is probably a lot of issues that need to be checked and addressed, my point initially was that HN is better then FB but there could be better system there.
My favorite so far is a Star Trek related subreddit, the rules are clear and enforced. For example no meme, jokes or lazy comment or submissions are allowed, you are encouraged to either report or educate people that are not respecting the rules. It did not generated a bubble relative to the topic, and the memes,jokes and filth has it's own subbreddits and you have the big subbreddit where most everything is allowed.
There, "rageflagging" (flagging because you do not like what is being said, not because it violates some content policy) is fairly common. I don't know why it wouldn't be here on Hackernews, despite the latter's pretense to "quality discussion".
The difference is, at least on DeviantArt the staff intervene when there's a flag, and politely tell the flagger to block the person if they don't like what they have to say. Flagging on HN seems automated and algorithm-driven, which makes it abuse-prone.
2. If you disagree with a flag, then hit the “vouch” button and resurrect it.
It is the opposite of what social media that optimize for "engagement" do.
The HN community also has a habit of downranking controversial topics. For example, subjects like women in tech and racism tend to get buried quickly. It is not that these are not worth talking about, but I think keeping these out help a great deal at preventing bad behavior to emerge. For me, it is a win, and it is not like places where you can talk politics are lacking on the net.
Blame wars should be fixed differently IMO, you could temporary ban accounts that do not respect the rules, users can report comments and indicate the rule that is broken, this require better moderation and clear rules.
Though, I am not sure if HN could implement this, is too big and probably mi preferences work better on smaller niche forums with a few good moderators and a community that cares about the quality and pushes the participants to communicate in the allowed rules.
You mean, only in some non-asshole way, so that we don't look exactly like them?
How about not be like them at all? People are stupid, but they can learn from their mistakes, and society can help them by accepting an apology rather than shunning them forever.
Exactly.
The correct way of handling these instances of bad behavior is to block, shadowban and ignore.
Then those accounts just become hot commodities, or you front load a bunch of accurate reporting about banal stuff and bank that credibility for when you want to go fangs out.
Think about it, that's how we've gotten into the "post-trust" situation we're in now. Age does not against bullshittery confer protection. No technical measure will. No edifice is permanent except that in the churn, some people with standards will rise in spite of it all. They'll get torn at at every opportunity, but it's also why critical thinking is everyone's job. You can't delegate it. Nobody can be a habitual follower by default. You have to check.
So many firms exist with the sole purpose of perception/crisis management simply because it is so powerful a tool. No one can protect you from having to think and come to your own conclusions. I thought differently for years. That the media could be trusted for having skin in the game, and dedication to the ideals and tenets of their profession.
Then I learned about how crushlingly pragmatic the world is. Either you acknowledge it, and plot your way around it, or you get run over by it.
I leave with a few quotes and a rather notorious person who rammed home an illustration of this point.
>In this and like communities, public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed. Consequently he who moulds public sentiment, goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and decisions possible or impossible to be executed.
-Abraham Lincoln, Ottawa, Illinois, August 21, 1858, Debate with Stephen Douglas
>Whatever is right can be achieved through the irresistible power of awakened and informed public opinion. Our object, therefore, is not to inquire whether a thing can be done, but whether it ought to be done, and if it ought to be done, to so exert the forces of publicity that public opinion will compel it to be done.
-William Randolph Hearst, unpublished editorial memorandum, date unknown
>"You furnish the pictures, and I will furnish the war." - also William Randolph Hearst
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/173692
Make no mistake. The Fifth Estate is a pseudo-Governmental entity for a reason, and as a citizen, demands due diligence before letting one's sense of the world get run away with.
How do you distinguish between dishonesty and honesty? Who gets to determine that?
It sounds like you are attempting to block the people who blocked other people. It isn't a good cycle to get into.
Listening to arguments we disagree with is going to be incredibly valuable in the coming years. Not everyone is arguing bad-faith. There are some people who genuinely believe different things. Addressing those differences directly, through open discussion, will be much more productive than a procedure to "identify and eliminate".
There are two types of communities, in my opinion. ...and most, like HN, fall somewhere in the middle.
There's the community that's open to all, doesn't censor anything, and is flooded with low-quality or manipulated content.
Then there are the communities that are private. They have groups of mature people who DO appreciate different opinions, and are able to engage in constructive discourse. Obviously dishonest content, as judged by older accounts or mods, are removed. Ideally older or high-reputation accounts have greater voting weight.
The danger in the latter is that the community loses the diversity of thought if those top accounts misuse their power to direct a narrative, but as these private communities are numerous - participants can simply leave. You could even make the argument that they could be paid communities, if the quality and analysis of the community is high. For example, I pay to belong to the Arms Control Wonk Discord channel because that community provides detailed analysis on international events on WMDs/conflicts that you cannot find elsewhere. It is low on advocacy, and high on analysis.
HN is in the middle. They ban poor quality accounts, but it's still a free and open forum. For now it works, but as it becomes more popular, I've noticed a decline in content quality and an increase in advocacy.
One idea.. A system attaches to every article an ID, users read the article and the reader saves the ID for the user and the system later informs him of retractions and critiques, if desired?
There’s no such thing as a retraction anymore, it’s just clarifications. I would have more faith in the media if they admitted when they were wrong, or at least presented, thoughtfully considered, opposing viewpoints. My faith in the media perhaps really took its first hit with Nick Sandman. I just felt weird that all these people were coming down on a kid. The level of vitriol was disturbing, and many it seems were wrong. I expect CNN to say so, but I don’t think they will, and thus the conflict remains unresolved.
I think journalism always mostly did "corrections."
I do recall clarifications and amplifications in physical newspapers, always intriguing.
For better or worse, online news articles are living documents now. Especially in breaking stories, I've seen them get updated over the day/week with all kinds of things (e.g. corrections, new developments, rewrites, etc.). Ideally they'd expose a revision history like Wikipedia, but that's probably more of a nice-to-have since their editorial processes aren't crowdsourced.
I suppose they've embraced some of the "move fast and break things" ethos of tech sector (because you can also fix things fast).
> nice-to-have
I think that explicit changelogs for a journalistic document are actually necessary in order to verify the trustworthiness of the publisher - how else are you going to notice when they start silently "updating" articles that were pushing an extreme (and factually incorrect) narrative at publishing time?
"A newspaper edition will eventually be a repository with good comments on commits"???
If by "obscure" you mean "on the actual article with the error," sure. But that seems like where the correction note should go.
That is your opinion. Others may disagree.
> It may have come across as being insensitive
Sensitivity is a huge part of communication despite RMS acting otherwise. Arguably he'd find more success knowing which battles to fight against whom, when and how.
I'm grateful for his work on GPL and Free Software but this does not make him a suitable spokeperson.
As long as we haven't found a way to entertain the masses without these embellishments I have no hope for an honest media.
Just remember this when they are stirring political division. This president caused this crisis, or this politician said this horrible thing. It's probably not as bad as they say it is.
I was out of the loop on this and tracking down the reporting to which RMS is replying was proving more difficult than expected.
Saw site mentioned in an HN comment a few weeks ago. So far appears to be an "objective" aggregator.
The activists won their war. No reason for them to declare it unjust.
If it does not create outrage or get any clicks, they have no incentive to do it. It's not like journalists have a conscience.
[1] https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#16_September...
In at least the time that I was at MIT/CSAIL, and to my knowledge thereafter, RMS was not employed by MIT nor was he a student at MIT. He had an email/UNIX account at CSAIL, and he had an office, sponsored by some very senior faculty members, and he was of course around the campus frequently - but the campus is fairly open about these things, as you'd expect from an academic institution, and it's pretty straightforward for faculty to sponsor anyone they like as an "affiliate" (though of course office space is much harder).
He continues to have his CSAIL account, though I believe he no longer has his office. I believe that's all that he means by the term "my position." He did not have a staff role or anything that he resigned.
> sponsored by some very senior faculty members, .... It's pretty straightforward for faculty to sponsor anyone they like as an "affiliate" (though of course office space is much harder).
I think that if someone is sponsored by senior MIT faculty to the point of having an office on campus that's a pretty good claim to being MIT-affiliated.