I suspect that users are flagging stories about it. I suspect that the reason users flag it is the quality and temperature of the comments stories about it tend to elicit.
Of course I could be wrong.
I think this is the correct answer. HN goes to extensive efforts to avoid flame wars in comments, and in the one post on the topic I saw reach the front page (before being removed), the comments were an absolute hellhole.
You're probably right about the flagging. Though I imagine there's a bit of loyalty to Google at work here as well. A lot of folks have tied their careers and personal lives to Google, which tends to lead to a bit of justification-based blindness to their faults (this phenomenon is much more visible in the "discussions" around the so-called console wars).
This was my thought as well. When I first heard about this weekend, this was the first site I went to see what people were saying.
The only I could find any of the threads was by doing a google search for "google manifesto" & "hacker news".
The debate in a few of the threads were quite diplomatic. However, the social media universe reacted as expected. Liberals condemned the author for the typical "racist, bigot, homophobe" diatribe while the conservatives argument was, "Guy speaks out about not being able to speak out, and then gets carpet bombed by SJW's back into silence."
It really sucks this is where the country is. When EVERY topic is off limits and you cannot hold a rational discourse over something, it should be clear evidence the decline of Western Civilization is at hand.
I don't know, and in media stories about it, it has required a significant amount of chasing to actually read it. I don't agree with it, and it overly politicizes a social kind of argument - but I think it's important to drag these things into the light and debate them with clear facts and sources, not to let them linger in the darkness.
For all it's faults, it did have one good suggestion - that programming may be more attractive to a lot of folks if we make it more collaborative in nature. That's an area where some otherwise really talented engineers suffer, and if we expand the discipline I think it would be a meaningful improvement for all.
I'd also add to that the notion of the Overton Window. There are many views we as a society decide are not debateable, and debating them would normalize those viewpoints.
I would imagine the conversation around it would end up quite unconstructive. Many find this a deeply emotional issue, and I think it needs to be both supported and challenged in the logical realm. Julius Caesar's paraphrased defense of Catiline comes to mind here:
> Chosen fathers of the Senate, all men who decide on difficult issues ought to free themselves from the influence of hatred, friendship, anger and pity. For when these intervene the mind cannot readily judge the truth, and no one has ever served his emotions and his best interests simultaneously. When you set your mind to a task, it prevails; if passion holds sway, it consumes you, and the mind can do nothing.
A rebuttal that says: I disagree, whomever supports this is {a pig} supports the author's ideas around suppression of discussion while doing nothing to dissuade less passionate readers. I call this "The Trump Problem": people should be able to present their opinions and discuss them toward perhaps a better conclusion. Right now, dissenters of the popular opinion seem to either choose to be silent or get "backed into a corner and strive to justify themselves" (As Dale Carnegie has mentioned). A deeper analysis of the Manifesto on junk-v-decent arguments would be useful for everyone, even if you think the entire document is crap.
On HN, a story is scored both on the number of upvotes and on the number of comments. When a story has a lot of comments (in proportion to the number of votes), that story is punished based on the idea that it's probably only a few people talking to each other very agitatedly without producing many novel insights.
I have not followed the Google Manifesto discussion, but it's easy to imagine that this prediction holds true in that case.
When a story has a lot of comments (in proportion to the number of votes), that story is punished based on the idea that it's probably only a few people talking to each other very agitatedly without producing many novel insights.
Perhaps you're right, but a topic could spark an agitated yet wholly positive discussion. Pushing it down the list just because a few people are commenting a lot wouldn't make much sense in some discussions.
Without specific links it's hard to tell, but there are some automatic rules that often kick in in cases like this. The penalty I notice most often is the comments-vs-points ratio. If people just keep adding comments without voting for the article itself, the link gets penalty and may lose quite a few positions.
Whether you want to call that censorship is up to you, but there are a few projects which attempted reverse engineering of the HN sort order and the features were primarily automatic. What I'm trying to say is: what influences the positions is usually the nature of the discussion rather than the content. Can't prove it for every case though.
It would be interesting to see an anonymous agree/disagree poll. I bet it would be a Brexit/Trump type of outcome. Censorship only extends until polling booth. For now.
There's an active anonymous poll for it on the app Blind (https://us.teamblind.com/) with a thread titled "How do you feel about the Google diversity manifesto?"
(SPOILER: Poll answers and results copied below.)
Votes: 450
Answers in order from most disagreement to most agreement:
1. 114 votes - "I disagree with it. It should be lit on fire."
2. 142 votes - "I generally disagree with it, but it has some valid points that should be discussed."
3. 100 votes - "I generally agree with it, but it's a little rough around the edges."
4. 69 votes - "I agree with it. Author is a hero."
To answer the question, what good does discussing this do?
The issue with "Tech + Workplace + Women" is a discussion topic flameworthy of abortion, gun rights, and the like. To the opposition, you are evil. Nothing good came come of this.
There will be people who bulletpoint everything wrong. There'll be others that call for fallacious statements. There will be others that claim that they're not getting proper discussion because of being screamed out. There'll be others that just will be blatantly sexist (and removed/hellbanned).
What good does discussing this do? Ive seen various combinations of these same discussions, and devolve to a textural screaming match.
Tl;Dr. Boring, no answers, everyone's "wrong" some way and some how. How about nice mathematics or programming puzzles?
edit: seriously, modded down? I'd much prefer why you think I'm wrong. I've seen 300+ comment threads about "sexism in the tech workplace" more than a few times. They devolve to screaming matches and dry commentary nobody responds to.
The problem is that we're not talking about some aesthetic issue like tabs vs. spaces but rather large groups of peoples’ ability to participate in this industry. Shrugging it off with “what good does it do?” is only possible if you aren't affected by that and it's not a neutral position since it's effectively saying that the reactionary position is okay with you.
It also ignores a lot of good which has come out of these discussions. I've seen a number of colleagues become far more thoughtful about interaction patterns, social structure, etc. in response to this discussion and they've uniformly reported that this has improved the quality of work, too.
That should not be surprising: after all, do problems in your applications go away if you don't monitor or discuss them? You may similarly have to deal with the guy who's really defensive to protect his perceived status but … he's not going to cause fewer problems if you don't.
> seriously, modded down? I'd much prefer why you think I'm wrong. I've seen 300+ comment threads about "sexism in the tech workplace" more than a few times. They devolve to screaming matches and dry commentary nobody responds to.
"To answer the question, what good does discussing this do?"
I think your frustration with the non-objective treatment of the subject is justified. There are a lot of strong feelings around the issues. Confronting our own biases is difficult for most of us.
[+] [-] r721|8 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/active
Discussions of "Google Manifesto" (two of them are still listed among "active"):
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14934581 (146 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14937778 (132 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14937895 (556 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14939636 (344 comments)
[+] [-] falcolas|8 years ago|reply
http://hckrnews.com
Shows articles which have ever hit the front page, even if they have since fallen (or been flagged) off.
[+] [-] leereeves|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brudgers|8 years ago|reply
Good luck.
[+] [-] gervase|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] falcolas|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] at-fates-hands|8 years ago|reply
The only I could find any of the threads was by doing a google search for "google manifesto" & "hacker news".
The debate in a few of the threads were quite diplomatic. However, the social media universe reacted as expected. Liberals condemned the author for the typical "racist, bigot, homophobe" diatribe while the conservatives argument was, "Guy speaks out about not being able to speak out, and then gets carpet bombed by SJW's back into silence."
It really sucks this is where the country is. When EVERY topic is off limits and you cannot hold a rational discourse over something, it should be clear evidence the decline of Western Civilization is at hand.
[+] [-] tedmiston|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] vorpalhex|8 years ago|reply
For all it's faults, it did have one good suggestion - that programming may be more attractive to a lot of folks if we make it more collaborative in nature. That's an area where some otherwise really talented engineers suffer, and if we expand the discipline I think it would be a meaningful improvement for all.
[+] [-] Denzel|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway12124|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ebola1717|8 years ago|reply
I'd also add to that the notion of the Overton Window. There are many views we as a society decide are not debateable, and debating them would normalize those viewpoints.
[+] [-] SirensOfTitan|8 years ago|reply
> Chosen fathers of the Senate, all men who decide on difficult issues ought to free themselves from the influence of hatred, friendship, anger and pity. For when these intervene the mind cannot readily judge the truth, and no one has ever served his emotions and his best interests simultaneously. When you set your mind to a task, it prevails; if passion holds sway, it consumes you, and the mind can do nothing.
A rebuttal that says: I disagree, whomever supports this is {a pig} supports the author's ideas around suppression of discussion while doing nothing to dissuade less passionate readers. I call this "The Trump Problem": people should be able to present their opinions and discuss them toward perhaps a better conclusion. Right now, dissenters of the popular opinion seem to either choose to be silent or get "backed into a corner and strive to justify themselves" (As Dale Carnegie has mentioned). A deeper analysis of the Manifesto on junk-v-decent arguments would be useful for everyone, even if you think the entire document is crap.
[+] [-] majewsky|8 years ago|reply
On HN, a story is scored both on the number of upvotes and on the number of comments. When a story has a lot of comments (in proportion to the number of votes), that story is punished based on the idea that it's probably only a few people talking to each other very agitatedly without producing many novel insights.
I have not followed the Google Manifesto discussion, but it's easy to imagine that this prediction holds true in that case.
[+] [-] onion2k|8 years ago|reply
Perhaps you're right, but a topic could spark an agitated yet wholly positive discussion. Pushing it down the list just because a few people are commenting a lot wouldn't make much sense in some discussions.
[+] [-] viraptor|8 years ago|reply
Whether you want to call that censorship is up to you, but there are a few projects which attempted reverse engineering of the HN sort order and the features were primarily automatic. What I'm trying to say is: what influences the positions is usually the nature of the discussion rather than the content. Can't prove it for every case though.
[+] [-] spacemanmatt|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hw|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sinxoveretothex|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] junkculture|8 years ago|reply
Doesn't give Zunger much credibility. And he asked for the guy to be fired or punched. That's a mob mentality, hardly rational.
Zunger is exactly what's wrong with the tech world right now.
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Dude2018|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tedmiston|8 years ago|reply
(SPOILER: Poll answers and results copied below.)
Votes: 450
Answers in order from most disagreement to most agreement:
1. 114 votes - "I disagree with it. It should be lit on fire."
2. 142 votes - "I generally disagree with it, but it has some valid points that should be discussed."
3. 100 votes - "I generally agree with it, but it's a little rough around the edges."
4. 69 votes - "I agree with it. Author is a hero."
5. 25 votes - "I don't care about these issues."
[+] [-] occultist_throw|8 years ago|reply
The issue with "Tech + Workplace + Women" is a discussion topic flameworthy of abortion, gun rights, and the like. To the opposition, you are evil. Nothing good came come of this.
There will be people who bulletpoint everything wrong. There'll be others that call for fallacious statements. There will be others that claim that they're not getting proper discussion because of being screamed out. There'll be others that just will be blatantly sexist (and removed/hellbanned).
What good does discussing this do? Ive seen various combinations of these same discussions, and devolve to a textural screaming match.
Tl;Dr. Boring, no answers, everyone's "wrong" some way and some how. How about nice mathematics or programming puzzles?
edit: seriously, modded down? I'd much prefer why you think I'm wrong. I've seen 300+ comment threads about "sexism in the tech workplace" more than a few times. They devolve to screaming matches and dry commentary nobody responds to.
[+] [-] acdha|8 years ago|reply
It also ignores a lot of good which has come out of these discussions. I've seen a number of colleagues become far more thoughtful about interaction patterns, social structure, etc. in response to this discussion and they've uniformly reported that this has improved the quality of work, too.
That should not be surprising: after all, do problems in your applications go away if you don't monitor or discuss them? You may similarly have to deal with the guy who's really defensive to protect his perceived status but … he's not going to cause fewer problems if you don't.
[+] [-] marknutter|8 years ago|reply
"To answer the question, what good does discussing this do?"
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] vnchr|8 years ago|reply