Some people are going to say that he was in the right, and some will argue this is a consequence of being wrong, but this doesn't matter. What this illustrates is the dangerous precipice that the world of blogging is hanging on to, where the violent hatred that spews forth when anyone writes a remotely controversial opinion threatens to silence any opinion that sways too far from mainstream consciousness.
The fact that the first comment that was posted here was just more critique about the original blog post and how supposedly "wrong" it was illustrates how much of a problem this has become. Whether or not his opinion is wrong doesn't matter. What matters is that he expresses it as an alternative perspective to mainstream conciousness.
Problems are solved and society is moved forward by a multitude of various opinions, all right and wrong in their own ways, interacting with each other. Each perspective provides a unique method of solving a problem which may not yet exist. The more perspectives we have, the more ideas we have to work from when we try to solve a problem.
By violently critiquing such controversial stances, we are indirectly silencing those voices, and ultimately destroying our own ability to find progressively better solutions to problems, because we get stuck inside a single point of view and refuse to move outside of it. It is not simply a matter of ignoring trolls either, because many of the most hurtful comments, at least in my experience, are otherwise highly intelligent people who completely missed the point of what you were trying to say, and have spent 10 minutes writing a scathing critique against a nonexistent problem.
If we continue to censor ourselves, it will destroy us.
"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
I see this from a different perspective. We are finally getting to the point where a critical mass of people are not going to tolerate sexist misinformed crap as they encounter it, and will instead speak out en masse.
The blog post on sexism wasn't a "controversial opinion." The author wasn't bravely standing up to the mainstream. It was just his crappy opinion that tech needs to continue to try very hard to move past.
Most importantly, his opinion was NOT silenced. Why do people in this arena of conversation seem to consistently misinterpret the meaning of free speech? He espoused his opinion, and then a whole bunch of other people espoused theirs. Nobody was silenced. Quite the opposite, actually.
> "We are finally getting to the point where a critical mass of people are not going to tolerate sexist misinformed crap as they encounter it, and will instead speak out en masse."
Except this critical mass of people behave more like an angry mob with pitchforks and torches, rather than a room full of shouting retorts.
The internet has given us a remarkable freedom in expression - it has also lowered the floor for discourse. Instead of writing an angry email explaining how you're wrong, there are more people who will post your address, take satellite pictures of your home, threaten to kill/rape you... I could go on.
I don't think this post was about the people who disagreed with him (for the record, I do disagree with his first blog post), but rather the extreme, vitriolic, disturbingly violent blowback that we see so much these days.
And this applies to all subjects and all sides. On the internet it seems if you say something sufficiently controversial, you will be deluged by a flood of extreme sociopathic behavior. We're talking well beyond just ad hominem attacks and insults - many a blogger have been entirely silenced from blogging due to personal threats, mob outrage, incitement, and simply inhuman levels of anonymous cruelty that, prior to the internet, were the sole territory of deranged psychopaths.
> "He espoused his opinion, and then a whole bunch of other people espoused theirs. Nobody was silenced. Quite the opposite, actually."
I don't think the mild, "I think you're stupid and wrong" responses are why he's quitting Twitter.
> The blog post on sexism wasn't a "controversial opinion." The author wasn't bravely standing up to the mainstream.
So very much this. The author wasn't deviating from the mainstream, he was promoting mainstream, sexist points of view regarding women and work. That many people took offense to this and called him out on it is to be expected.
Can you point out exactly where he promoted "sexist points of view regarding women and work?"
Because as far as I can tell, regardless of whether he is right or wrong (I think he is wrong), his blog post had very little to do with expressing a sexist point of view of women, and was more of a critique of how we currently judge discrimination and how the current dialogue around sexism is framed.
He was silenced with thousands of page views on his blog. He was silenced with hundreds or thousands of tweets. He was silenced by making HN front page. Yeah "controversial" opinions are really in danger.
I'd be curious how many people here find this beyond the pale. As a data point, I didn't. I don't agree with all of it, but I don't see what part of it counts as sexist, in the sense of advocating discrimination based on gender.
I think it's a thoughtful post. It's clear that he doesnt like discrimination against anyone, and is proposing how we should act in order to treat everyone in an inclusive and fair manner, for the benefit of all parties.
"Sexist" is advocating discrimination based on gender in the same sense that "theory" is used to trivialize evolution. Both mean a whole lot more than a brief look at them outside of the context in which they are rooted leads one to believe.
Well, /he/ is not silenced, but definitely the next thoughtful persons will likely decide to keep silent.
In a very brief skimming of this topic, I noted even tweets dragging his employer (and by extension his livelihood) into this, which imo is likely the real reason for his departure from tweeter.
The fact is that there are dissenting views on this topic by well meaning and civilized humans.
That is no fact. I hold that the status quo, which is the opinion expressed in that blog post, is finally facing the criticism it deserves.
Well-meaning and civilized has nothing to do with it. Your intent and whether you view yourself as sexist has little to do with whether the views you espouse are actually sexist.
With regard to further opinions of this type being silenced... this will not take place, going by the lengthy historical precedence.
Letting such perspectives pass without criticism does not help us solve problems; quite the opposite. A few outlandish suggestions are amazingly useful insights, but most of them are outlandish for a reason; it's not a case of every idea being right and wrong in different ways, there really are objectively good and bad ideas, and being able to cull bad ideas quickly is vital to progress.
To my mind this is a case of "if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen". If you're deliberately offering an unusual perspective, you should be prepared for it to be rapidly shot down. If it's on an emotionally charged issue, you should be prepared to be shot down viciously. The author can't have been unaware that his original post was going to offend a great many people.
Do people's emotional reactions get in the way of solving sexism? Maybe. But if you've found a way to take the emotion out of it, you're probably 9/10 of the way to a full solution already; if not, complaining that people treat the issue emotionally without offering a solution is rather empty.
Summary: Vicious responses are lazy and should be considered ignorant until proven otherwise.
I agree with you that vicious responses to different positions on emotionally charged issues are common. The word 'vicious' bothers me though; it's not ok to use non-arguments and threats or insults to respond to an argument. If someone told me that Abraham Lincoln was the current President of the United States I don't think I'd respond viciously... I'd tell him he was an idiot and show him some evidence on my phone. If he kept it up I think I'd just leave because I'm not responsible for someone else's idiocy. If someone argues with a more complicated position that I hold dear, then I can see how I might respond viciously if I had no actual counter-argument or if I didn't want to spend time to argue with this person. I think you're recognizing how the world works, for complex issues with a bunch of ignorant people you're likely to see very vicious responses because most people cannot articulate the reasoning behind their position or choose not to spend the time to and instead use violence (virtual or otherwise). Perhaps some have real counter-arguments and choose not to present them and instead just respond with arrogance; if so that's sad because no one is informed by better understanding.
My initial thought after reading your post was that your view is practical and accurate, that people like Antirez who care more about their primary work (Redis in this case) and not some other issue they have a perspective on (sexism in software) will be drowned out and crushed under the common view and those who choose to elevate a particular view or cause to their primary purpose. I think (with disdain) about "pundits" whose job is to promote some position regardless of its merit; people who spend their lives arguing passionately for whatever pays the most... that is ugly and works against adapting a culture to handle new ideas and situations.
>I think (with disdain) about "pundits" whose job is to promote some position regardless of its merit; people who spend their lives arguing passionately for whatever pays the most... that is ugly and works against adapting a culture to handle new ideas and situations.
I don't know; a certain degree of specialization helps society function better. Espousing contrary positions is valuable to society and at the same time emotionally draining (which is mitigated if you do it often); having it done by dedicated people seems like a win.
(I felt kind of similarly about the story of the disabled guy who goes around suing places for ADA compliance as a full-time job: if we really care about making businesses accessible for the disabled, it's more efficient to have him doing the lawsuits and other disabled people getting on with their lives)
> "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
Wouldn't you then likewise defend the right of people to criticize the post, including to criticize it harshly, even if you disagree with he criticisms or the way they're phrased?
edit: That said, I can see a case for communities maintaining discourse norms, in order to promote discussion/etc. But to me that's precisely the opposite of a free-speech absolutist view, because discourse norms are limits on what/how/when to say things.
Most responses were zingers or did not show a basic understanding for what he said. They are noise, and noise is not worth defending.
I take his argument as supporting individual merit, and condemning praise for the seemingly meritless based on being a minority (what is often called affermative action). A proper disagreement with this position might be based around a purposeful cultivation of the minority to overcome the historical imbalance or avoid a flawed evaluation of merit. Debate then between cultivation and pure meritocracy is a valuable exchange, both sides of which are worth defending.
There appear to be many responses to sound bites taken out of context. Many of them are additionally vitriolic reiterations of much less insight and nuance than what antirez said. They do not contribute to progressing the core discussion, and are only valuable to the extent that we attempt to answer a subtle social issue by taking a vote of twitter users. Which is to say, they are not valuable at all.
Most responses were zingers or did not show a basic understanding for what he said. They are noise, and noise is not worth defending.
Surely you see the problem with that line of argument.
His piece was hardly insightful. In fact, he did not show a basic understanding of the issues he was pontificating on and the piece was mere noise, not worth defending by anyone.
Once you start trying to parse out who's right, you're missing the point of free speech aren't you?
You're pandering, but you do raise the point that I should have said "worth considering". All speech is worth defending as free, but our time in life is limited and we must each be selective about what we spend it on. Whether or not you appreciated his post, it is probably a waste of your time to make shallow, unsubstantiated comments regarding it.
For what it's worth, I'm not pandering ... that's more or less how I feel about his piece. But the point is, neither you nor I can have it both ways: free speech isn't just about protecting speech we like or think is substantive.
I really do believe arguments about the 'freedom' of speech should be kept to the context of government versus the populace.
The government censors people through force, sometimes in autocracies this quite literally means a gun to a dissenter's head.
It is a separate thing all together, On the other hand, if individuals freely choose to criticize, flame, or just simple disassociate themselves with someone else because they disapprove of their opinions. We should all be free to do at least this without fear that merely by agreeing with the majority we will be accused of 'censoring' the minority.
The point is, some types of free speech should be encouraged and some types discouraged. I think you should be allowed to flame people, but I'm not obligated to provide you a venue to do so, and I'd really rather you didn't.
No, thats defamation/libel, and it is a civil offense, even a criminal offense in some cases. Free speech is not an unconditional right, it places responsibilities on those who exercise it.
Defamation laws are one of those laws that skirt on a thin-line of interfering with free speech rights (similar to hate crime laws).
It's also not simply offending language that equals defamation.
From wikipedia:
"Opinion is a defence recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable."
also
"In Common Law it is usually a requirement that this claim be false."
>It's also not simply offending language that equals defamation.
Based on the post, many of the tweets were insult - direct attacks against the author, and not simply criticism/opinions.
All but 4 states in the US also recognize cases of defamation per se, where the truth of the claims is irrelevant, and the damages are predetermined. Claims which impute the following fall under that category (I've omitted 2 of the 4):
1. Allegations or imputations "injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession"
2. Allegations or imputations "of loathsome disease" (historically leprosy and sexually transmitted disease, now also including mental illness)
Many of the tweets directed at him fall into that category, and hence are defamation per se.
Defamation per se is very limited under the First Amendment, and mostly historical at this point, dating from an era when courts would entertain prosecutions for calling someone's honor into question. To the extent it survives, it's been limited mostly to where "regular" defamation would also apply, to false statements of fact. For example, "injurious to another in their trade" can't be used to prosecute any comment that could harm someone's business, but only false factual statements that could do so, such as accusing someone of selling counterfeit parts. Nowadays the only real distinction is in showing damages: in a per se category, once defamation is proven, the plaintiff doesn't have to further prove that they were harmed, because harm is assumed in those categories.
I think mostly we're discussing something else here, angry and vitriolic "piling-on" responses, which is a different issue from defaming someone.
As the first poster you're referring to, my post was a direct response to THIS post. It was to say "I agree the vitriol toward you was uncalled for, please don't let it take away from the serious critiques of your post".
What is wrong with that? I was defending both his right to speech suggesting people shouldn't shit on him for his views and also the need for conversations to be two-way and for him to consider the contrarian viewpoints that were too often expressed hatefully.
I'm encouraged that I've received net-upvotes for that comment, but I worry that EITHER I didn't express myself clearly enough or that people on HN are really committed to not re-thinking their views on sexism given how many downvotes it received. I'll fully accept that it's likely that it was my poor wording.
This isn't about censorship, but sensitivity. I don't see how you drew from this that the world of blogging is in peril--if you write things that generate tons of hate comments, and you don't want to read those comments, disable comments. The discussion will continue elsewhere regardless. The haters aren't even censoring themselves (I guess you could make a case that their existing biases prevent them from seriously considering opposing views, but that's not exactly "self-censorship"). If you want to solve some of the problems exemplified by this article and its responses, talking about censorship isn't the way; instead, encourage people to grow thicker skins.
I'm not closing my blog, where I think I'll post more controversial stuff, as I've a controversial indole. Also I'm not sensible at all, the problem is, I'm realising that Twitter is becoming mostly low content replies. Among the trolling replies I got, a lot were from respectable developers, sometimes even of products somewhat related to Redis. If it's so low quality why should I stay in an environment where that's the level? I'm quitting based on quality, not as I'm offended or alike.
My comment about sensitivity was mostly directed at the people flipping out about what you wrote, but it's nice to have confirmation that you too aren't so sensitive that you stop writing altogether. It makes sense for you to ditch Twitter.
I'm sorry, but, what? Critique is not censorship. The spread and evolution of ideas necessitates a dialog--critique, further reform of your idea, more critique, etc. etc. etc. This is how pretty much all intellectual expression works. Ideas do not exist in a vacuum, they exist among all other ideas and opinions and among data and personal anecdote and so on.
Without critique, ideas fail.
Edit: If you think someone is wrong, you should tell them (if you can articulate it in a well-reasoned, well-supported manner). Controversial ideas especially shouldn't get a free pass from critique just because they're on the dubside of mainstream thought. How does that even make any sense? Mainstream ideas are, by definition, more popular. While this popularity could lead to less (direct) critique, it still leads to more people thinking about the idea, refining it, etc. There's more brainpower behind a mainstream idea than behind a controversial one. All ideas are deserving of critique, but the ones that have been built with less human hours should probably be looked at a little more closely.
The difference between opinion on the editorial page of the paper and opinion in the world of zero filters. Perhaps one in a million people is a flaming loon but that's over 7,000 people given the world population. Sadly a lot of them have Internet access.
So the folks who are moderate and make up the bulk of the population don't respond, and the ones who are most easily incensed do. In a newspaper the editor would get all the letters that came in as rebuttals to an opinion and print the ones that were insightful or made a reasoned argument, and they would simply throw away all of the letters from folks who were ranting. This allowed for reasoned (if heated) debate to be carried out in the opinion section of the daily paper.
Twitter doesn't 'fix' this, I don't think they see it as a problem, but a bit of moderation goes a long way toward providing a better environment.
It is an unsolved problem to date, perhaps App.net or identi.ca or some other micro-blogging service will take it on and make things better. I expect it would attract quality posts and quickly gain a solid base.
"What this illustrates is the dangerous precipice that the world of blogging is hanging on to"
If I may... this wasn't the world of "blogging". This was the world of Twitter et al.
Blogging itself actually has a very interesting property, which is that even if somebody tears you a new one in their own blog post, you don't actually have to know unless you go looking for it. It's a lot easier to blog a controversial opinion than it is to twit it, Facebook it, or post it here or in a forum, because they all have the characteristic that any body with a pulse and a computer anywhere in the world can essentially stick their reply in your face. After the first couple of thousand nasty replies, this can start to wear on a person.
When it first got going around 2000, I found this very interesting, and I still think that there's something about that model that we need to find a way to recover in the Next Great Social Medium. It isn't perfect, because you don't get that immediacy that you get in a forum, and it's easy to end up feeling like a lone voice in the wilderness due to lack of feedback, and presumably that's why this medium faded as a means of generating community, killed by the immediacy and quick feedback hits of the more popular community mechanisms. To me it's pretty abundantly clear that all the "any idiot in your face" community technologies ultimately start falling apart (requiring either an inhumanly thick skin or flat-out sociopathy), and somehow I'd love to see if there's a way to build something a little more immediate and a little less likely to isolate people entirely, while at the same time retaining the fact that you aren't assaulted by what feels like an entire Internet of knaves and fools every time you open your browser.
Unfortunately bloggers who thrive on page views, but don't have any actual knowledge to share use Twitter to locate the Mass Indignation Of The Day, and spin off 10-100 times 140 characters to feed the trolls.
> If we continue to censor ourselves, it will destroy us.
Hence, the title of OP's post.
It was all really inevitable though.. The collective code we write spawned this. We make it increasingly simple for humans to share.. and equally as easy for humans to collaborate. These forces will combine for good and/or evil.
Take this past week on reddit as an example... If you don't know it, one of their most prolific users, Violentacrez was forced to close his account for simply sharing controversial photos. As a result, he became a target of ShitRedditSays, Project Panda, and RedditBomb. He was doxxed and threatened IRL.. He is now offline.
If we were to listen to Voltaire unequivocally, then the same should go for OP, and Violentacrez.
"Simply sharing controversial photos"... nice disingenuous way to say "creating a platform and framework for sharing sexualized pictures of preteens and photos of women taken without their consent, for years, while doing everything in his power (and mostly succeeding) in normalizing the process".
Honestly, it's like when people say "free speech" they really mean "be able to do anything I want no matter how horrible with zero consequences or criticism." I'm glad VA is gone. I hope he gets thrown in a jail cell.
I don't think we have to behave positively towards all behavior that falls short of illegality. In Violentacrez's case, he was long-term harassing people, posting creepy photos without their consent, etc. It may not have risen to the level of a crime, but I don't see any reason people shouldn't strongly criticize his behavior, including criticizing him by his real name, if they can discover that name through legal means. Why should him posting sexualized photos of people (including kids) without their consent be tolerated, but suddenly one violates some threshold of civility to say: "I've discovered that the guy posting these photos is Michael Brutsch, and I would like him to stop."
I guess my point was that if you really take a hardline free-speech view seriously, as in the (attributed) Voltaire quote, then "doxxing" people etc. also has to be defended, as long as there wasn't a crime committed to obtain the information—because the Gawker article is just more speech, after all. It's speech that can have a negative effect on a person, but then so were the original postings he was being criticized for. I do think both violate some kind of a right to privacy, but I'm not really comfortable with unilateral disarmament, so to speak. I would be interested in some kind of broader privacy norm, if something coherent could be defined.
The fact that the first comment that was posted here was just more critique about the original blog post and how supposedly "wrong" it was illustrates how much of a problem this has become. Whether or not his opinion is wrong doesn't matter. What matters is that he expresses it as an alternative perspective to mainstream conciousness.
Problems are solved and society is moved forward by a multitude of various opinions, all right and wrong in their own ways, interacting with each other. Each perspective provides a unique method of solving a problem which may not yet exist. The more perspectives we have, the more ideas we have to work from when we try to solve a problem.
By violently critiquing such controversial stances, we are indirectly silencing those voices, and ultimately destroying our own ability to find progressively better solutions to problems, because we get stuck inside a single point of view and refuse to move outside of it. It is not simply a matter of ignoring trolls either, because many of the most hurtful comments, at least in my experience, are otherwise highly intelligent people who completely missed the point of what you were trying to say, and have spent 10 minutes writing a scathing critique against a nonexistent problem.
If we continue to censor ourselves, it will destroy us.
"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire