Hacker News Reader

Comment by neilv | Hacker News Reader

Careful with your stones in glass houses, on HN, of all places. We're the community in which virtually every Web site we deploy sells out privacy of its users to third parties. And that's before we get into the commonplace UX behavior against users' interests, numerous startups which are essentially investment scams, some of our most celebrated startup successes only existing because an app is a smokescreen that lets them violate regulations long enough, and general background underhandedness and entitlement so pervasive that we now consider it normal.

View on HN

Speak for yourself. I would never leak or sell user data. I just develop B2B software that provides no value

All B2B software has value.

It's just that often the value is "I bought this and even though it provides no value, it's pretty enough that it impressed my boss and I got a raise and promotion"

Tu quoque fallacy. Calling someone a hypocrite doesn't address their argument. Also, obviously, you have no idea if the original poster a) is a web developer or b) is guilty of the behavior you mentioned.

I genuinely think Tu Quoque is misplaced by being called a fallacy, and I firmly believe that calling out someone's hypocrisy to their argument already shows - at the very least - a fragility to their stance, and can help to illustrate what about their argument is going amiss by using the individual's own experience and behavior to prove it.

Someone not doing X indeed doesn't say whether you should be doing X, but it stands ground that X has a flaw for adoption - and talking to someone that doesn't do it is a great way to examine why, and possibility use it to your argument.

> I genuinely think Tu Quoque is misplaced by being called a fallacy, and I firmly believe that calling out someone's hypocrisy to their argument already shows - at the very least - a fragility to their stance, and can help to illustrate what about their argument is going amiss

"they" have no "stance" or "argument", they're just the ones who happened to point out the problem. They themselves are irrelevant. They could strangle puppies for fun, and they could still point out the problem as well as if they donated both kidneys to child orphan strangers. They're just the person there at the time, pointing out the problem. It could have been anybody pointing out the problem, the problem is still a problem.

that's why tu quoque is a fallacy: attacking the person who pointed out the problem, doesn't resolve the problem, and doesn't seek to, either. It seeks to silence the person who pointed out the problem. Shooting the messenger is a related problem-solving anti-pattern, for similar reasons.

While valid, the problem being pointed out still requires a representative to do so, and I was just making the point that if the representative has experiences or behaviors that are inconsistent with the essence of the problem they're trying to address, it ought to be brought up. For an individual wearing a lanyard with the problem statement being, "there are too many lanyards in the world", you are well above your means to inquire on his participation within the problem firsthand, and how they're contributing to it (or lack thereof).

You are right that Tu Quoque is often used to silence the problem statement representative, but it shouldn't become a go-to card for individuals to claim when they're hypocrisy is pointed out (which I've seen, not saying it did here).

> While valid, the problem being pointed out still requires a representative to do so, and I was just making the point that if the representative has experiences or behaviors that are inconsistent with the essence of the problem they're trying to address, it ought to be brought up

this entire statement is the exact opposite of true: anyone can raise awareness of the problem regardless of who they are, it doesn't make them a "representative" of anything (just imagine them reading an anonymous comment card they pulled out of a box) and any inconsistency you see between them and the problem is irrelevant, and is a distraction if brought up

that is why tu quoque, what you are describing, is a fallacy

> For an individual wearing a lanyard with the problem statement being, "there are too many lanyards in the world", you are well above your means to inquire on his participation within the problem firsthand, and how they're contributing to it (or lack thereof).

you would be engaging in the logical fallacy of whataboutism, because your questioning of him doesn't address the problem, and is in fact counterproductive in solving the problem, because you are attacking an ally in solving the problem

this illustrates why tu quoque is a fallacy when trying to solve the problem

put another way, because their identity is irrelevant, a 100% equally valid question would be for him to ask you what are you are doing to solve the problem

the analogy is bad anyways, because in this real life topic, the whataboutism user is wrongly conflating two different actions, as well as ascribing actions to people who didn't do them. All the people who responded here pointing out that they don't, in fact, sell private data, were conveniently ignored by the original tu quoque perpetrator

Speak for yourself. If I only cared about the paycheck, I'd be in SF helping Google build its IoT botnet of Nests and Chromecasts.

Any new technology can be looked at through the lens of evil. I used to write code for stick-on wireless biosensors that massively improved living conditions for neonates and the chronically ill. Some health insurance company could use the exact same tech to institute a system like what the car insurance companies have with those "safe driver" tracker dongles.

Not every one of us work in ad-tech. And screw those business models also, btw.

I've been actively avoiding ad-tech and have chosen to work for companies that are doing things to lessen their influence and reach! And yet, somehow, I'm still having a successful career in software engineering!

> We're the community in which virtually every Web site we deploy sells out privacy of its users to third parties.

Simply don't do that, then. It's not hard. (And… why even increase your liability and reduce your hiring pool by being relentlessly unethical? The trade-off isn't worth it, even if you're a stereotypical heartless executive.)

> The trade-off isn't worth it

I entirely agree with your sentiment but financially, Adtech has done quite well for itself.

For itself.

What does that have to do with Taylor litigating instead of innovating?

Parent: That company does unethical things.

Reply: A lot of people reading this comment do unethical things, so we probably shouldn't be on our high horse in this thread.

I don't necessarily endorse that line of thinking as I believe it falls under the purview of "classic whataboutism".

My reply was intended more like: You're addressing a bank robber convention, to morally condemn a convenience store robber.

(That parent should have the guts to broaden their scope of condemnation. Unless throwing the first stone in a glass house was a clever Socratic prompt intended to lead to this discussion.)

that is indeed classic whataboutism, and also the analogy sounds contrived and self-serving

My intent was not to dispute their argument, but I didn't have the stomach to see techbros piling onto that, as tends to happen. If the OP didn't point out that tech overall has become a cesspool industry doing comparable things, then someone had to.

> My intent was not to dispute their argument

indeed, with whataboutism, the intent never is to solve the problem, only to deflect, with the aim usually of ensuring the problem remains unresolved, and perhaps even undiscussed

> If the OP didn't point out that tech overall has become a cesspool industry doing comparable things, then someone had to.

I suppose this is true if you start with the assumption that someone is going to engage in the intellectually dishonest fallacy of whataboutism

as for your portrayal of HN, it is as self-serving as your prior analogy.

Reading a comment in no way implies support for the views expressed.

We don't all work in hell.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com