
The Sound of Silence - oskarth
http://foundersatwork.posthaven.com/the-sound-of-silence
======
DelaneyM
An alternative is to say things and let your friends pass them on anonymously.

Things very wise and/or experienced VCs/founders have told me which I'm sure
they wouldn't publish, which I have valued _very_ much:

* If you don't look like a stereotypical founder, you won't follow the stereotypical path; that's not a problem, it's just a difference. Pursue your dream from first principles.

* The difference between flirting and friendly is perception, not purpose - don't worry about seeming aloof and don't take it the wrong way when pursued (to a point).

* Never come out until/unless absolutely necessary. Especially not to gay men.

* Absolutely don't talk about your young children with investors, especially if the investor has children of their own.

* The other side of not being perceived as a highly technical co-founder (which I am) because of my gender/appearance is that I'm more easily seen as a people person or product owner (which I'm very much not). It's ok to take advantage of that.

* I don't look enough like a founder to get angel/seed; I should make my money as a co-founder then self-fund through series-A, which tends to work out better regardless.

* Never, ever speak at a conference/on a panel about diversity. Your online identity defines your future opportunities, and the diversity racket is awfully small.

(Many more too specific or nuanced to include here.)

~~~
oculusthrift
if the diversity racket is so small why does it seem so many have built their
careers on it?

~~~
dlss
> if the diversity racket is so small why does it seem so many have built
> their careers on it?

Perhaps because the diversity racket is in some way related to the group of
people causing Jessica to avoid sharing thoughts online? If you can silence
all the people not in your group, your group's size will appear a lot larger
than it really is.

------
thucydides
I had a philosophy professor once who was very upset after she'd graded our
papers on Plato's Republic.

She gripped the lectern and looked at the floor for a few seconds sadly.

She looked up.

"What happened here, guys? You're all so smart. This was a real let-down. No,
the Republic is not a sacred text. No, we're not here to worship it. But
there's also such a thing as employing the critical spirit in the wrong way.
We're here to understand this book, to engage with its ideas seriously, not to
tear it apart without thought to feel superior."

"Again, this is not an object of worship. But this book has been preserved for
2500 years by human beings, most of whom had to copy each page by hand. A long
chain of brilliant people from across generations worked to put this paperback
in your hand. They did this in part because they thought it was _worth_ the
effort of preserving it for you. If, after a minute or two of thought, we find
a glaring flaw that makes Plato looks like a blithering idiot, it would be
wise to examine our critique in a spirit of humility. Without humility and
charity, it's impossible to learn anything."

"After we've understood, then we can critique."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity)

This idea is equally valuable outside the context of interpreting
philosophical texts.

Everything she said is unfashionable, not only in academia but in public life.
Political entertainers earn their keep by deliberately distorting their
opponents' arguments with easy mockery. A lot of social media reward mindless
criticism.

But the most productive, insightful online communities have some element of
exclusion and some punishments (karma, banning, etc.) for repeated violations
of the principle of charity.

~~~
__derek__
One of my philosophy professors called that "doing it MIT-style." In essence,
argue against the best possible form of an idea rather than the imperfect form
in front of you.

~~~
kevinskii
I've also heard this referred to as "steel-manning," as opposed to "straw-
manning."

------
Udo
People are starting to realize (en masse now), this is the downside of
permitting group identity-based "discussions" to flourish. Whatever you say,
people are going to try interpreting it against the group you are perceived to
belong to, eagerly pouncing on things that are in "conflict" with their own
group identity. I put conflict in quotes here because this ultimately empty
conflict is what actually drives both sides. Facts and open discussion are
utterly irrelevant in this process, instead your words just get parsed for
trigger phrases.

There is an argument to be made that internet discussions have always been at
risk, and I think it's indeed a known pathology. However, subjectively, it
seems to me this has escalated in a massive way within the last two years - to
the point that important issues have effectively been taken off the discussion
table because the participant pool is entirely made up of people fighting
content-free meme wars.

In my opinion, the only way to combat this is to violate the rules of these
meme wars and start talking about content again. But I wouldn't recommend it
for high profile personalities whose job entails getting along with as many
people as possible, because the fears of backlash are absolutely justified
even if you _might_ garner more respect this way in the long term. Worse yet,
once a discussion has been taken over by mindless reactions like this, it
becomes very difficult to form your own opinion rationally because it involves
separating what the memes want of you from whatever the facts and your
internal thoughts say.

As a rule of thumb: if both parties are angry at you, you're on the right
track.

Personally I think the current state of things is either unsustainable,
meaning the group identity thing is going to burn itself out over time, or
it's a new low-energy state as far as human thought process goes which means
it's going to be permanent. Either way, at least some influential people need
to fight this, even if it means you'll be perceived as having rough edges.

~~~
rntz
> As a rule of thumb: if both parties are angry at you, you're on the right
> track.

No; this is an excuse to pat yourself on the back for being contrary. Don't
validate your beliefs by how much they make others angry, any more than you
validate them by how much they make others happy.

> the group identity thing

Group identity and culture wars are not new (and are certainly not going
away). It's plausible to me that the internet is making this worse - a premise
of your post - but I'm not yet convinced. It's possible they're merely
coincident. What concrete reasons are there to believe the internet is a
primary _cause_ of today's increasingly vitriolic culture wars, rather than
merely a new venue in which they are being pursued?

~~~
msabalau
Given that the 20th century is the century of genocide, it seems less than
certain that the long term trend is "increasingly vitriolic".

~~~
ysavir
The 20th century isn't the century of genocide; it's the century of media
covered genocide.

------
treehau5
We live in the "call out culture" and, ironically, it's how Donald Trump
gained so much momentum. People have reacted to this by staying silent instead
of explicitly stating their views publicly and creating conversations,
opportunities for learning, and ideation.

In this Brown Political review article [0], the author states

> Furthermore, calling-out non-influential figures and handing them the
> spotlight in the process gives other individuals incentive to make
> controversial statements of their own. In other words, if someone is
> desperate enough for attention, even if it’s negative, they might see that
> saying or doing something blatantly hateful can garner the publicity they
> crave. It’s the same concept the has boosted Trump and Carson campaigns (to
> different levels of effectiveness) this election cycle; that is, using
> controversy and outrage to get their names out there and increase their
> visibility in the media and public eye.

There is a good study of a case of a (now) popular misogynistic and homophobic
YouTube user that actually tripled his viewership as a result of protests on
social media about him holding a meeting in their town.

I personally do not "fear" callout culture, but I also realize that the things
I put out there on the internet have consequences that I would rather avoid.
And like the article states, I am in no position of power.

[0]:
[http://www.brownpoliticalreview.org/2016/05/26760/](http://www.brownpoliticalreview.org/2016/05/26760/)

~~~
MrZongle2
_" We live in the "call out culture" and, ironically, it's how Donald Trump
gained so much momentum. People have reacted to this by staying silent instead
of explicitly stating their views publicly and creating conversations,
opportunities for learning, and ideation."_

Of course, let's also not forget that there is a culture that has made a point
of shouting down contrarian or critical viewpoints when a discussion could be
initiated.

Worried that perhaps some vaccinations are unnecessary? You're a stupid _anti-
vaxxer_.

Critical of environmental science methodology? You're a climate change
_denier_ (and probably in the pocket of Big Oil).

Not a fan of how Black Lives Matter conducts some of their protests, or
perhaps you think that using ID to combat potential voter fraud is a valid
idea? You're a _racist_.

Not a supporter of a specific presidential candidate? Well, it's probably
because you're a _misogynist_...and there's a good chance you're rather
deplorable as well.

That's a good part of why people _have_ stayed silent: they're demonized
before a conversation can begin. It's not necessarily because they didn't
_want_ to have a conversation.

~~~
gohrt
There's a difference between " shouting down contrarian or critical viewpoints
when a discussion could be initiated" and "shouting down people who are
rehashing tired old arguments that looks exactly the same as the arguments put
forth by people who are already known to be operating in bad faith"

~~~
MrZongle2
I would counter that a) perhaps some parties don't know that they're using
"tired old arguments" (if it is _new to them_ ) and b) the "bad faith" may be
_assumed_ , rather than known.

If you're being shouted down, regardless of why one party thinks you _should_
be shouted down, your worldview and opinion of the opposite party will be
strongly affected.

------
plinkplonk
As a temporary fix, (and I emphasize, this is _not_ a solution) the answer
might be to have a 'pen name' or 'pen personality' . mini-msft is the
classical example in our industry.

If _Jessica_ were to venture a 'twistable' opinion, sure there will be a huge
uproar, because of her association with YC. If this is published under a fake
persona,Jess McFake, someone who can be identified only by a body of writing,
then it is hard to bring these prejudices, and even if it is "twisted" who
cares?

I do this to some extent by having multiple online personas, none of which
have my real name associated with this, one for each 'community' I participate
in,(not true for HN, fwiw) and I find this very useful and liberating, and I'm
nobody. I'd be surprised if 'celebrities' don't do something like this
already.

Of course if you are as rich as (and so untouchable) as, say, Peter Thiel, you
can just go ahead and express what you want wherever you want and don't give a
damn if you are misinterpreted and/or out of synch with particular
orthodoxies, but for the rest of us, this might work as a temporary fix.

~~~
lafay
This seems like a reasonable idea, but I don't think it can last indefinitely.
You will almost certainly reveal something that will allow someone to unmask
you eventually, regardless of how careful you are.

Startup L. Jackson is a great example:
[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-17/unmasking...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-17/unmasking-
startup-l-jackson-silicon-valley-s-favorite-twitter-persona)

------
alexandercrohde
The problem she talks about is nuanced.

One the one hand, any opinionated information will upset some portion of the
public, the internet just makes it more visible to you. From that perspective,
maybe the solution is to exert better self-control and stay off twitter, not
google yourself, and care less about imaginary internet karma points.

Her ask for compassion is coming from a sincere place. I think however the
real long term answer is to examine how rules of the forum incentivize certain
types discussion (twitter=outrage, youtube=insults, facebook=food pictures &
generic upbeat life-observations, reddit=jokes, news.yc=thougtful comments,
buzzfeed/tech-crunch/whatever=unreadable linkbait).

Another way to look at this, is that these famous people get something from
public validation. In a sense, it's a trade of inside information for public
validation. If she really just wanted to get the word out there, she could do
what the rest of us do, post on a throwaway account, losing the karma points,
losing the automatic boost by posting as a famous person, and see if her ideas
are packaged well enough to rise to the top.

The thing that's slightly offputting to me is that I get a sense that a lot of
these public figures _actually_ are not as right as they seem to think. For
example, I'd bet 5 grand that if I could talk to PG for a day about the things
he's blogged about, I could change his mind on at least one of them. Yet at
the same time I think he was quite troubled when he posted his 1%-money piece
and people were outraged.

There's really a lot to this discussion.

------
rdiddly
This touches on the topic of projection. You are never who you actually are,
to another person. You are just a blank, upon which they'll project all their
own questions, fears, priorities and pet issues. If you're insecure about
money you'll say "Damn that richypants Jessica and her sanctimonious
blablabla." If you're preoccupied with race you'll say "Typical that a
privileged white lady says so and so." If gender is your thing you'll either
say "It's so empowering to see a woman blablabla" or "The nerve of this evil
harpy blablabla," depending. Do any of these various horseshit interpretations
represent the real Jessica?

So no, a lot of people decide it's not worth it, to be everybody's projection
target. And contrary to one of her points, I don't think it's any great
tragedy. It's only the stupid internet, remember! What unites people in real
friendship is long-term shared tangible interest, of a type that is all but
gone from public life in America except maybe in the smallest, supposedly most
"backward" farming towns.

~~~
gtcoc19
This touches on the topic of reductivism.

------
oskarth
> How do we solve this problem? I don't know, but I hope there is a solution.

Two solutions I can think of:

(a) private, close-knit communities, i.e. not HN.

(b) new norms developing to judge people's action in a specific domain based
on actions in that specific domain, i.e. Jessica Livingston _qua_ startup
investor, not qua x-ist or proponent of y-ology or whatever. Of course, this
goes against the very idea of identity politics, where the whole point seems
to be to couple every person with their (supposed) political views, i.e.
humans _qua_ politicians.

One thing you realize with that second frame is that most people, Y.T.
included in this thread, are not acting in capacity of anything. One might
call us "qua randoms", spouting opinion without skin in the game (assuming it
isn't qua friend, etc).

~~~
gtirloni
Just searched for the meaning of "qua" and it seems you are using it as "as"
(so "humans as politicians"). Just wanted to add it here in case others also
don't have a clue what "qua" means.

~~~
oskarth
Should've added that, thanks. It means more than just "as", it also means "in
the capacity of", for which there's in my opinion no good english substitute.
It comes from Aristotle ([https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-
mathematics/#7....](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-
mathematics/#7.4)), but there are also somewhat similar strains of thought in
confucianism, usually in a more prescriptive manner (how to be an X to a Y).

------
hsuresh
Wow, this is a great post. It feels like it is getting harder to have a
rational argument/discussion online and social media. The default mode is
silence for most rational people - and we need to fix this.

I wonder if there's a tech solution to this.

~~~
guildwriter
I don't think it's a tech problem so much as it is a design/culture problem.

If you look at the most popular forms of social media and what is considered
popular, you see that low effort content is what draws the most views and
reactions. Low effort content being images, 140 character quips, so on and so
forth. The most popular social media sites are either geared specifically
around these forms of communication (instagram, twitter, imgur, etc), or are
dominated by such forms of content (reddit). The reasons why these forms of
content are so popular are well understood so I won't waste time on it.

The issue that arises when these forms of low effort content dominate is that
they start changing the way people think and act. The mind will adapt to the
space that it lives in. In other words, if you talk in 140 characters
frequently, you are going to start thinking in 140 characters. That being
said, this is not to say social media has somehow created a problem that
didn't exist before. People are rationalizing animals not rational animals.
I'm saying that social media is making the problem worse and creating a
dominant meta where low effort content succeeds and reinforces its own success
by creating patterns of thought through the designs they are built around. The
fact that Twitter has become a dominant form of political discourse should
speak volumes about the mess things are right now.

My feeling on this is that the current landscape is akin to us discovering
alcohol for the first time: we haven't adapted the right cultural norms to
deal with this sort of technology yet. The current situation can be thought of
as us trying to figure out the rules of the road. I think the best path
forward is to not speak out against groups, but against behaviors that are
muddying the water in all groups right now.

~~~
spangry
I think part of the problem is that many online discussion places (e.g.
twitter, facebook, reddit, HN) implicitly reward people who 'react quickly'
and who 'lead' (make 'root comments') over those that 'participate' (make a
'third-level comment', just for a random example).

On reacting quickly: in my experience, if you're among the first few to either
make a 'root comment' to some post (on a medium like reddit or HN) you're much
more likely to receive a large number of votes, positive or negative. And if
you have even a slight preference for social validation, you'll play to the
crowd by posting an agreeable meme or some variation. And the same goes for
those who can quickly post the popular counter-meme as a second-level comment
if all the first-level slots are taken. And bam, same old meme-based
conversation plays out for the millionth time.

On participating: If you nest any further down than second-level comments, you
tend to receive no reaction. No votes and often no replies, so it feels like
you're talking to no-one (and you've just wasted a bunch of effort). And it's
not that you care about chasing imaginary internet points; you care about
receiving feedback that your comment has at least been read by a large
audience. I suspect people who don't care about the latter are more likely to
write in their diary. Consequently, the discussion can often lack depth.

So: rewards for 'quick reactors' \+ no incentive to add depth == shallow,
pandering to the crowd comments.

I think it's something to do with the time-sensitive nature of these forms of
discussion. Perhaps one solution would be to somehow mess with the interval
between hitting the 'reply' button and when that reply actually appears.

------
gojomo
"It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the
credit."

It's also amazing what you can _say_ if you don't care who's attributed.
Anonymity or pseudonymity can be of great value here.

For someone of Livingston's stature, writing under a pseudonym may not seem as
attractive an option. When sharing anything _really_ valuable, via a
pseudonym, there's no opportunity to leverage existing audiences, or build
reputational equity for your 'true name'. And for the already-prominent, if a
pseudonym is later pierced the blowback can be larger. So why not spend your
time and words elsewhere, either on safe topics, or only sharing 'dangerous'
thoughts privately?

Thus Livingston mentions, in her footnotes, increased sharing in controlled
environments with trusted associates – as on Facebook. But most people may
find pseudonymity the best strategy for collecting the benefits of freer, more
honest speech.

I even suspect that a "right to create uncorrelated secondary identities" may
be a crucial 21st-century freedom, worthy of encoding in law and custom.

------
haburka
There are online communities where this happens. Generally, there is some
barrier to entry that is merit based and the communities promote cultures of
acceptance rather than "correctedness." This usually means that size is
somewhat small and that moderation is swift, effective but fair. Some examples
of communities like this are everything2 and tagpro.

Essentially, HN is particularly bad at this because a lot of comments on here
sound like that programmer who thinks that they're right and so naive that
they believe anything they disagree with to be lies. There is no proof that
the people commenting have any merit and their reputation is not on the line
with their comment.

I'm not really sure that a large, easily accessible community with minimal
moderation could ever have quality discussion. Those conditions produce
commenters with little reason to be responsible with their words.

~~~
tedmiston
MetaFilter is one example, where users pay a small upfront join fee, $5 I
think.

------
antirez
I totally agree with the article and I think that the great short-circuit here
is that the same people that will mis-interpret this and say "it is terrible
to see her silenced" (which is not what she says) are for the most part the
people that over-react when certain topics are taken, that is ultimately why
Jessica does not feel like to share certain things.

~~~
Dylan16807
> which is not what she says

It's not? Are you using some overly-strict definition of 'silenced' here?

~~~
antirez
She is clearly saying she is not speaking because it's not worth it, not
because she could not or is afraid of speaking.

~~~
Dylan16807
"Silence" is _in the title_ , and she is put into that state because of how
other people react. There's nothing wrong with using the verb form of the
word. Doing so does not imply fear.

I don't understand why you made that post after, in another thread, saying
jmduke _shouldn 't_ have interpreted "silenced" that way.

~~~
jdminhbg
> "Silence" is in the title

Silence as a noun and silence as a verb are very different things. I'm sitting
silent right now, but it's not because I've been bound and gagged.

------
jmmcd
I'm reading this and thinking yes.. YES.. I recognise the phenomenon she's
describing, I see a lot of downside in online discussion.. and then:

> One reason I have hope for a solution is that I do find I can speak more
> openly on Facebook than elsewhere, so maybe that’s a clue about what
> direction social media 2.0 might take.

:(

~~~
antirez
Well that makes sense because if (big IF) you are wise enough to select your
Facebook friends from people you actually know and you actually like, this
will mimic much closely having a offline discussion, just using a media that
can reach more people. For instance most of my Facebook friends are people
which I interact with in the real world.

~~~
bobic171
Maybe a friend limit ? That would make people think more about who they have.
I wonder what sort of effect that would have.

~~~
RickS
This has been explored in many places, like path. It has yet to stick.

------
mej10
To know that Jessica Livingston has experienced this and feels this way is
extra disheartening.

~~~
edw519
To me, it's extra empowering.

Who better to share, "You are not alone."

------
pdabbadabba
I'm of two minds here. I certainly sympathize with the fear that people out
there on the Internet will misinterpret what you've said and bash you for it
in ways that are inappropriate. There are really two separate dynamics,
though: one is that people may twist your words. The other, that gets less
attention, is that perhaps we should build a discourse that is more tolerant
of mistakes.

For example: racism is bad. A good person should try not to be racist (to say
the least). But maybe, as a part of recognizing our own human limitations and
pervasive reach of racist thinking, we should accept that even otherwise
admirable people sometimes fall prey to it, and temper our reactions
accordingly. Perhaps we've uncritically allowed our hard work towards greater
_awareness_ of these sorts of moral mistakes to result in a constant
ratcheting-up of the opprobrium that they invite.

Here, the problem with complaining, in the abstract, about the fear of having
your words twisted, is that it assumes that you, the twistee, are right, and
the "twisters" have it all wrong. But if this happens to you frequently enough
that you feel compelled to write this sort of blog post, I can't help but
suspect that things may be the other way around.

Reframing this sort of concern about the growing social costs of routine moral
failings helps with this because it recognizes the possibility that the author
is not _really_ a smarter person, with greater moral insight, than those that
criticize her.

------
wcbeard10
I often find myself frustrated when an important decision is made with little
explanation in politics or business by someone who I assume is intelligent. It
may strike me as a bad decision, but I try to be charitable and assume they
have a good reason. I've thought that they often don't offer good explanations
because they feel too busy to take the time to communicate, they're just not
good at communicating or they don't recognize its importance.

This post suggests they could also have a better perception of the possible
risks that even effective communication could entail than I do.

------
qq66
The potentially extreme consequences of voicing one's opinions today (with
every utterance permanent and Earth-visible) is also what creates the extreme
nastiness seen in anonymous speech forums like Reddit or voting booths. If
people could speak their minds freely, they wouldn't become that different
under the cloak of anonymity. Since they can't, people's inherently nasty
tendencies build up pressure and explode in anonymous venues rather than
safely venting.

------
akeck
I agree with Jessica's perspective. For me, though, there's an open question
with how best to balance it with the "luck surface area" concept, especially
when starting out. [1]

[1] [http://www.codusoperandi.com/posts/increasing-your-luck-
surf...](http://www.codusoperandi.com/posts/increasing-your-luck-surface-area)

------
ianai
I feel like the world needs to have a deep discounting of either controversy
or controversy arising on/within the internet. Merely changing database
records does not change reality. The "thing" itself is not the online
representation of the thing - unless the "thing" is a purely online object
(say, a webpage). If my family member sends me a photo of what looks like my
car totaled at an intersection my car may well still be sitting and safe in
its parking spot outside my apartment.

The internet is well beyond "peak controversy." On the internet you will find
the thesis and antithesis of every statement. People need to laugh it off. So
what if an email gets leaked that says something inflammatory? Every person
has at least one view that would severely offend at least one other person.
Penalizing people for things arising online quickly leads to things like
'thought police'.

------
state_less
Maybe add some discounting statements? The whole article is sort of a
discounting statement about what is about to be said, if she does say it.
Something like, "I know you might think X, but X is not the case because Y".
Head the objection off at the pass.

Please share the truth, it's good medicine.

Maybe you benefitted from this discussion ;)

------
rl3
YC Research project idea: Figuring out how to throw a wrench in the cogs of
internet mob mentality and hypersensitivity.

There's a few ways to go about this, and some are beautiful.

One idea would be to create an entire network of fake professional personas,
build social media presences for them, and eventually have them say something
carefully crafted to both be perfectly defensible yet enough to draw the ire
of the internet outrage machine. Then, have them be fake-fired much to the
angry mob's satisfaction.

After this goes on for a while, conduct some data analysis, permanently naming
and shaming everyone stupid enough to righteously attack and ruin the life of
a fictitious persona.

The chilling effect is then reversed: engaging in vicious mob mentality
against complete strangers might just earn them a higher ranking on the
dumbass list.

~~~
yakult
The 2.0 version will then be employed by governments to silence dissent by
bleeding the energy of movements before they happen.

It's a tool that cuts all ways. There's nothing in a 'positive' social
movement - however defined - that makes it less vulnerable to this sort of
baiting than a 'negative' one, because it's an exploit on a close-to-universal
personality flaw.

~~~
rl3
> _The 2.0 version will then be employed by governments to silence dissent by
> bleeding the energy of movements before they happen._

Governments are already adept at sabotaging movements if they so desire.

I agree with you though, it's probably not the best idea.

------
chillingeffect
This is a symptom of Marshall McLuhan's networked world as "global village":
"...the instruments through which we shall be able to do his will be amazingly
simple compared with our present telephone. A man will be able to carry one in
his vest pocket." -McLuhan

In a village, there are no secrets. Same online, basically. Anything digital
can quickly spread everywhere, far beyond its intended context.

Pre-networking, information dissipated via voice and to an extent via print
and the "telephone game" demonstrated how loss formed a natural barrier.
Encryption is a temporary obstacle. It contains the secrets until a breach
forms which instantly exposes them to the world. And not only is information
flowing outward, but reactions are flowing back, see SWATing, doxxing,
"leaks", and fake news.

I was initialized impressed, personally at the internet's ability to share
information about human intimate relationships at a large scale. This helped
mainstream-ize sexual practices, and I personally believe, catalyzed 4th-wave
feminism. Lately I'm, personally, impressed at the internet's ability to
forcibly interface people of different ages and classes. It sounds good on
paper, like "diversity," right? And I think it will turn out well. But in the
meantime, we've failed to respect the order created when human interactions
and relationships were based in meatspace and incidently more uniform in their
ages. Now we have 60-year-olds and 20-year-olds exchanging advice on how to
live when they have totally different needs. There are some gains to be had,
but also, much confusion to organize. Like Jessica Livingstone, I could say
way more about this IRL, but can't share online. In a nutshell, the sudden
explosion in age-differences and relationship information is also breaking
down certain illusions of power, which were, strictly speaking, false, yet
they held society together in a more stable way. Let's hope we have the gift
of clarity and the strength to execute it so we don't re-experience feudalism.

------
simonebrunozzi
One solution: post anonymously, and have a close friends with some powerful
social media klout to share it to an audience.

I know it doesn't solve the main problem, but at least you can share your
thought without too much negative consequence.

------
nonsilence
[https://medium.com/@thesoundofnonsilence](https://medium.com/@thesoundofnonsilence)

------
zxcvvcxz
> The problem with this is, the most successful people in an industry tend to
> have some of the most valuable insights about it. So you lose a lot when
> they are silenced. And also, if they keep those insights to themselves, it
> makes the powerful more powerful.

This is obviously a genuine loss for hard-working people trying to gain
insights from their role models in order to make a positive impact in their
lives.

But at the same time, one can't help but feel a bit of a twisted sense of
_justice_ , towards those causing the problems in the first place. From what
I've observed, these people typically place themselves in some sort of
"victim" class, and actively look for new ways to get offended and twist words
that wouldn't have caused anyone any bother, say, 25 years ago. These people
are going to miss out big, not just because they are stifling insights from
those who could guide them, but because of their limiting mindsets.

This is not to say that there aren't fights worth picking, because sometimes
there are. Cases of blatant discrimination do exist in fields that should not
have it. And it can be really important to expose these negative patterns. But
this is often best done with a tool that we're starting to lose, namely
investigative journalism.

But oh boy has the pendulum swung far from that. I've seen interviews with
Jessica before, she seems like one of the kindest, most insightful people in
the startup community. I've bought and read her book, _Founders at Work_
(highly recommended). If someone like her is worried about sharing insights,
at the potential downside of appearing malicious or offensive or what have
you... then we are not in a good place.

> I’m horrified at the prospect of the most insightful people in their fields
> thinking, "That's something I should comment on. Nah, what's the point? Too
> much downside."

> That's what happens now, and we don't even know how much, because how do you
> measure the sound of silence?

You can start measuring it on college. There's small things like legendary
comedians not willing to perform on campus anymore. And bigger things like
professors self-censoring and watering down their curriculums, lest they upset
some small-but-vocal group of students. Heck, do we really need Shakespeare
anymore? Maybe we can do away with that (e.g. see U of Pennsylvania).

Maybe we'll have a less motivated, more self-centered workforce that are both
harder to hire from, and harder to retain. Maybe we'll have less inspiration
for the next generation of entrepreneurs, as Jessica points out. At least the
internet has documented plenty of good stuff so far.

This is a cultural critique, and you're welcome to disagree. I can't prove
that slowed GDP growth over the last decade is related to narcissism,
excessive self-esteem, victimhood mentalities, higher divorce, you name it
[insert modern social ailment here]. But I do know that societies and cultures
that are growing economically typically have less of these social afflictions
(maybe they're just too busy).

But if I run with some of the correlations I see, I do see a certain irony:
the aggressive progressivism espoused by Silicon Valley may be coming back to
bite it. People are getting scared of sharing what they think, because they
never push back and maintain standards on what is or isn't a legitimate
criticism. I think it's completely analogous to being a shitty parent who
doesn't set boundaries on their children - except this is more of a
generational thing.

One last thought: seeing the above unfold over the last few years, coupled
with the slowing economy (don't let the left's phony numbers fool you) is
exactly how I predicted that Trump would have a great shot at becoming the
President back in 2015. Seeing his Twitter actually solidified that prediction
for me because culturally he "fights back" at the children. The children that
so many of us know are ruining things for the rest of us. He may be a big
child himself, but that's besides the point.

And now we have this Brave New World to look forward to :)

------
jmduke
I'm trying to take this article in good faith, and I find it difficult, for
two reasons:

1\. The author equivocates online critique and criticism with being
'silenced'.

2\. The author thinks it's too risky to share "insights about Silicon Valley"
online, but does not think it's too risky to advocate for immunity from
critique for the already powerful.

I understand that the message of this post is to have the listener consider
how online discourse tends to coalesce into witch hunts, which is totally
valid.

The thing is, when I share ideas or controversial takes with my few "trusted
friends", I don't expect them to engage me on the surface level without
critique or criticism. I expect them to call me out on my shit (and presumably
Paul and Jessica have the same expectation). The people I trust the most are
the people who can critique me most fairly and most accurately, _in good
faith_.

By reducing all critique of online 'powerful individuals' as attempts to
target and silence them, the author I think misses the bigger issue: it's not
the act of critiquing that's the problem with online discourse, it's the shape
and manner in which it's conducted.

~~~
antirez
I think your interpretation of the blog post is not what the author had in
mind. The problem is that for politically correct matters and other "pre
formed" ideas people tend to attack certain ideas solely on the basis that
they are against, even if supported by facts, from what the society or the
"good thinking" society thinks it is appropriate, auspicable, and so forth. So
basically there are arguments for which it is not possible to get a real
discussion on the table (or on the internet) but only insults because for
certain topics the % of people overreacting is going to be over the
signal/noise acceptable ratio. So I can't see any request for immunity here
nor she is claiming to be silenced. She is just saying: it is not possible to
share useful things because there is a percentage of people not ready to have
discussions only using arguments and facts. I totally agree with her.

~~~
xapata
I think the phrase "politically correct" has lost all meaning. It used to be
used as a synonym for "polite" and now, in the US, it seems to be used as a
synonym for "ignorant and obstinate".

~~~
dragonwriter
It's never meant "polite", and the modern use stems from its use in the
mid-20th Century as a pejorative for obstinate and ignorant adherence to dogma
by American Socialists referring to American Communists who were seen as
slavishly following Stalinist orthodoxy.

~~~
xapata
Strange, I remember people using the phrase in sentences where one would
otherwise say "polite", like "that's not the polite term" or "that's not the
politically correct term". For example, "Oriental is not the politically
correct term, say Asian."

~~~
dragonwriter
That use does exist, but it's a (popular in the mid-90s, still occasionally
encountered) ironic use that derives from the older (and particularly common
by the American Right against the Left in the late 1980s and early 1990s, its
peak before the current resurgence among the same political faction) use as a
pejorative. So, the modern popularity of the older and original pejorative use
isn't "losing meaning" from that use...

~~~
xapata
In those cases, perhaps its use was objectively ironic, but it was not ironic
from the speaker's perspective.

~~~
dragonwriter
While a minority of users may not have ironic intent, usually its use in the
context referenced is deliberately ironic; the pejorative use has always been
far more common, and it's very unusual for someone using the phrase in any
sense not to be aware of that and, if not using it in the pejorative sense, be
making a deliberate, usually ironic, reference to that well-known sense when
using it in any other way.

------
losteverything
Without knowing anything about the author, i would guess she is young.

My reaction after reading:Duh.

Perhaps it's living for decades but stating my opinion I do less and less,
especially in person. I think its a product of listening better, getting wiser
and not needing to be validated or heard. Only a small handful (one hand) of
people I care hear things I have to say. I am totally different than when I
was 20's & 30's

It's not that "true things arent being said" it's that I am smarter to simply
not say them.

~~~
oskarth
You don't seem to realize the immense amount of knowledge Jessica Livingston
has about startups that _no one_ else knows about. That information is
obviously hugely valuable for other people, and she'd probably like to share
it if she felt it was worth it.

~~~
losteverything
In my day I would ask for an "informational interview" side by side.

Worse thing is she would say "no"

But I would not leave her office and tell anyone about what she said. That
would be breaking her trust. If she wanted to tell others she would.

Thanks for the "who is the author" explains its "front pageness"

~~~
rhaps0dy
The point is that she can't post it to the Internet, where anyone could read
it without using up her time.

------
bambax
This post contains 3 quotes, two in the article itself and one in a footnote.
The first quote is of the author herself, and the other two are from her
colleague, cofounder and husband.

This is not the sound of silence; this is echo.

------
Mathnerd314
But does it really need to be said? Most utterances are not unique; ideas and
insights can be found with a simple Google search. For example, there was a
recent screening of "Hidden Figures":
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/katieelizabeth1/2017/01/10/silic...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/katieelizabeth1/2017/01/10/silicon-
valley-female-vcs-and-hidden-figures-insights-from-last-friday-night/). Maybe
it's what this post refers to, maybe not. But reading similar articles for a
year would produce a set of insights about Silicon Valley, just as being at Y
Combinator would, and it's not clear that the one set of insights would be any
less valuable than the other. YC insights might even be counterproductive,
because they're designed for a different situation:
[http://twocents.lifehacker.com/chasing-habits-of-rich-
people...](http://twocents.lifehacker.com/chasing-habits-of-rich-people-won-t-
teach-you-about-suc-1774780444)
[http://nathanbarry.com/ignore/](http://nathanbarry.com/ignore/)

~~~
dlss
Your comment is hypocritical. This is to say I'm sure you point is made
elsewhere, somewhere. And yet I'm glad you posted it so it can be discussed.
Which is to say it's still wrong even when applied to itself (a wrong point).

The point of discussion isn't to create some sort of internet that might one
day be studied and determined to contain useful information, the point of
discussion is that those who participate can learn and improve. Sometimes this
necessitates saying things that have already been said. That's not a problem.

As for the notion that sometimes discussing things with people in
significantly different circumstances to yourself might not be the highest
value discussion you could have, I agree. However it's still fun, interesting,
etc. Better use of time than Netflix, that's for sure.

~~~
Mathnerd314
Well, I was responding to these lines: > the most successful people in an
industry tend to have some of the most valuable insights about it. So you lose
a lot when they are silenced.

It feels like a weak point. Maybe the best insights are written by
professional writers, for example. In such a case there's no loss from
industrial self-censorship.

On the other hand, it is true that successful startup founders usually
leveraged some deep insight to grow fast and profit. But those insights have
been "tapped out", so to speak, therefore are not really useful anymore. They
were valuable for the founders but the value is non-transferable.

In my case, I'm writing mostly to become a better writer/communicator, so it
doesn't particularly matter if I convey useful/valuable information or if it
gets discussed; the aim is to do it clearly in a short amount of time. It's a
different calculation for a person with children and a demanding job.

