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.)
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."
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.
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.
Thanks for the story. Now that you mention it, I realize it illustrates the main reason I don't comment much (and why I'm annoyed by the majority of comments on popular websites, where commenting anything is more valuable than commenting smartly).
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.
> 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?
"As a rule of thumb: if both parties are angry at you, you're on the right track."
That's the same fallacy as saying "The truth is somewhere in between". If everybody is angry at you, maybe you just said something universally stupid. Or maybe you were right. You can't make this a rule.
I generally agree, but would suggest amending "permitting group identity-based 'discussion' to flourish." The issue IMO, is not the activity of the discussion, but the impoverished shortcut of identity as a classification. My apologies if this is what you intended. It came out to me as if the discussion were to be avoided, rather than the lens of identity.
All "identities" are crude prejudice. They're a pair of glasses we put on to try to perceive things a certain way. This is an artifact of "Motivated Reasoning." Anticipating someone's vote based on their melanin is harmful and self-defeating in the long run. As you say, we should discuss content, or "issues." Instead of negating everything e.g. YouKnowWho does, we need to debate each bill on its own merit.
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.
"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.
> It’s the same concept the has boosted Trump and Carson campaigns
I don't think its a coincidence that Donald Trump, a name half of America recognized before the election, won the election while Ben Carson, an unknown before the election, didn't make it past the primaries and received less than 3% of republican vote.
And if I'm right, this completely contradicts your article's thesis: Trump got the attention because he was already famous and known, not what he was saying. The general election also supports this.
I don't see why it's ironic. Call out culture has been a staple of the right for decades now, which is not to say it doesn't happen on the left as well. RINO dates back to the 90s, and that's just the most recent version.
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.
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.
Pen names have a long and glorious tradition in calling out authority figures in the US. From Silence Dogood to Mark Twain to Raoul Duke. The words on the page are to be the focus, not the person composing them, so to speak.
I have the fake personas too, and it works, but if I were all fired-up to say something "as myself" on the internet (I'm not, particularly) then I wouldn't wait until I'm as rich as Thiel. You just need to be living off the interest on your capital investments, so that your income isn't dependent on people liking you. That happens a lot sooner if you're good at saving money.
The problem is that the "oomph" of the message and ability to spread it is lost for largely the same reasons. Jessica worked for a long time to get the ears of so many people. A pen name is far more likely to get lost in the noise or have its credibility called into question.
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.
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.
> 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).
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 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.
"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.
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.
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.
I also agree with her and have had similar instances in my life where I chose to be silent.
My interpretation of this silence is an evaluation of opportunity cost. I choose to be silent even though I might have something to say because I value the time saved avoiding a pissing match by forgoing any benefit of speaking my mind.
I might be totally missing the mark on her intended meaning. Regardless of my interpretation, it is pretty disheartening that advancements in various areas can be stalled due to people reacting (read wanting to be offended) rather than listening, processing and engaging.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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'.
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.
[+] [-] DelaneyM|9 years ago|reply
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.)
[+] [-] nxc18|9 years ago|reply
What is the consequence of coming out to gay men? What counts as absolutely necessary?
How much of a role does flirting play in the business dealings of founders?
[+] [-] iamwil|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AceJohnny2|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gohrt|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] oculusthrift|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thucydides|9 years ago|reply
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
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__|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ska|9 years ago|reply
Public life, I'll give you.
[+] [-] AceJohnny2|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Udo|9 years ago|reply
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|9 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] maxxxxx|9 years ago|reply
That's the same fallacy as saying "The truth is somewhere in between". If everybody is angry at you, maybe you just said something universally stupid. Or maybe you were right. You can't make this a rule.
[+] [-] chillingeffect|9 years ago|reply
All "identities" are crude prejudice. They're a pair of glasses we put on to try to perceive things a certain way. This is an artifact of "Motivated Reasoning." Anticipating someone's vote based on their melanin is harmful and self-defeating in the long run. As you say, we should discuss content, or "issues." Instead of negating everything e.g. YouKnowWho does, we need to debate each bill on its own merit.
[+] [-] wodencafe|9 years ago|reply
Or worse even, they use a Facebook discussion plugin, so whatever you say is attached to your Facebook account.
[+] [-] treehau5|9 years ago|reply
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/
[+] [-] MrZongle2|9 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] tinalumfoil|9 years ago|reply
I don't think its a coincidence that Donald Trump, a name half of America recognized before the election, won the election while Ben Carson, an unknown before the election, didn't make it past the primaries and received less than 3% of republican vote.
And if I'm right, this completely contradicts your article's thesis: Trump got the attention because he was already famous and known, not what he was saying. The general election also supports this.
[+] [-] BryantD|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] plinkplonk|9 years ago|reply
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|9 years ago|reply
Startup L. Jackson is a great example: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-17/unmasking...
[+] [-] 6stringmerc|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rdiddly|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zenlikethat|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AceJohnny2|9 years ago|reply
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ender's_Game
Also: http://www.theatlantic.com/personal/archive/2010/06/demosthe...
And of course XKCD: https://xkcd.com/635/
[+] [-] alexandercrohde|9 years ago|reply
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|9 years ago|reply
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|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oskarth|9 years ago|reply
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).
[+] [-] hsuresh|9 years ago|reply
I wonder if there's a tech solution to this.
[+] [-] guildwriter|9 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] nadim|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gojomo|9 years ago|reply
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|9 years ago|reply
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|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shuntress|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] antirez|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] K-Wall|9 years ago|reply
My interpretation of this silence is an evaluation of opportunity cost. I choose to be silent even though I might have something to say because I value the time saved avoiding a pissing match by forgoing any benefit of speaking my mind.
I might be totally missing the mark on her intended meaning. Regardless of my interpretation, it is pretty disheartening that advancements in various areas can be stalled due to people reacting (read wanting to be offended) rather than listening, processing and engaging.
[+] [-] Dylan16807|9 years ago|reply
It's not? Are you using some overly-strict definition of 'silenced' here?
[+] [-] jmmcd|9 years ago|reply
> 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|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mej10|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] edw519|9 years ago|reply
Who better to share, "You are not alone."
[+] [-] pdabbadabba|9 years ago|reply
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|9 years ago|reply
This post suggests they could also have a better perception of the possible risks that even effective communication could entail than I do.
[+] [-] qq66|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] akeck|9 years ago|reply
[1] http://www.codusoperandi.com/posts/increasing-your-luck-surf...
[+] [-] ianai|9 years ago|reply
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|9 years ago|reply
Please share the truth, it's good medicine.
Maybe you benefitted from this discussion ;)