Hacker News Reader

Comment by x-complexity | Hacker News Reader

CoCs, in their most fundamental form, are vectors for language & behavioural control. People who desire to control the language & behaviours of others will be drawn to occupy such positions of control, whilst those that don't want said control due to personal beliefs will not seek out such positions. Overall, their existence creates structures for authoritarian influences, as well as mechanisms for ostracization & self-censorship.

No person should ever be in charge of it.

View on HN

Policies against {uncivil interactions | personal attacks | harassment | abuse | spam | denial of service} all of these in their most fundamental form, are vectors for language & behavioural control. People who desire to control the language & behaviours of others will be drawn to occupy such positions of control, whilst those that don't want said control due to personal beliefs will not seek out such positions. Overall, their existence creates structures for authoritarian influences, as well as mechanisms for ostracization & self-censorship.

No person should ever be in charge of it.

More explicitly: you're 100% right that I want to control the behavior of others. On HN, I agree with most of the HN rules that expel speech from this space that does not contribute to the mods ideas of a good, healthy, productive discussion. It is civilized.

A set of simple “rules of the road” are necessary. They should be common sense, because some people don’t have common sense and need it explained. And there’s always “that guy” who doesn’t care.

Some people really are toxic.

But establishing a minimum standard of behavior is very different from rectifying historical evils and enumerating lists aggrieved groups.

If your groups code of conduct contains specific instructions regarding the situation in the Middle East, you’re overthinking things.

The minimum standard of good behavior need not be explicitly stated, and violations can be dealt with as they arise. The problem with written sets of rules is that they can be subverted and misused.

> The problem with written sets of rules is that they can be subverted and misused.

That's also a problem with unwritten sets of rules that are based on vibes. If the baseline expectations are written down, at least people can notice if the rules aren't being followed.

It should be stated. Not everyone shares in the same values as everyone else. There are also those who are unable to understand the social norms of others.

Plus unwritten rules can be subverted and misused at least as much as written ones.

Humans are always gonna do human things.

It’s so much easier if you state the rules before someone breaks them.

Like laws? Or rules? Sure. They are methods of control.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com