KSierra's comments

Yes, this is the same person. While it had nothing to do with his AT&T/ CFAA conviction, do not think for a moment that weev cares about your personal privacy. This is, after all, the person whose weapon of choice against individuals is... doxing. For the lulz. We're programmers here, right? So we of all people should be able to decouple the case from the person. This is the last person we should be calling a hacktivist, or... Hero. He didn't do this for us. He didn't do this for public good. Still doesn't mean he should be in prison, though. I hope he wins on appeal, for all our sakes (CFAA). He destroyed a good chunk of my life and took some innocent family members along for the ride. Please, fight the CFAA, but don't think for a heartbeat that when it comes to protecting our privacy, rights, etc. that THIS is the guy who "has our back."

"Users" is a powerful word. It reflects the things that matter to those who use the tools we create: usefulness, usability, and most of all -- the simple fact that what we create is used by people to do something.

To eliminate the word "user", I have to say "the people formerly known as users but who will now be known as the people who use our app." I cannot call them "people", because our users are a specific subset of people... they are people in context that matters, deeply. The context of using something we made.

I have always agreed with those who say that if you have a problem with employees dissing users, the problem does not live in the word "users". If they don't think of users as people, fix that first. I am more concerned that the word customer puts the focus on people-who-pay vs. people-who-use.

I think the problem is precisely the opposite: not enough people think of their customers as users. For example, we tell our authors to think of their readers as users, not just readers. They're not buying our books to be exposed to our prose... They're trying to use what's in there to do something they care about.

Yes, I suppose I was. Her post reminded me of the posts I used to make, and so yes, I guess I was implying that she, too, was wrong. I agree with you; it was not useful. I have nothing more to add.

I told my personal story in a comment to Laura, which I then sent to Faruk. That's not a "fake additional anecdote", it is what actually happened.

It means no more -- or less -- than that. Just one person's story. That I changed MY views in no way means anyone else will. Had I thought this through, I would not have written it because you're absolutely right -- it was not useful.

What I actually said was that I was wrong, and that "just because you don't perceive it doesn't mean it isn't there." That's not quite the same as saying "you were wrong."

And I also didn't say "because of things you cannot know." Yes, there WERE things that I -- and perhaps others -- cannot know, but I also had plenty of evidence I was ignoring because it didn't fit my personal experience. There were studies, stats, research, and yes -- an overwhelming number of personal anecdotes from too many credible women for me to have ignored the possibility for that long.

I still do not know how pervasive or deep the problems of sexism are -- this is not a domain I have studied. But I was wrong to have used my sole personal experience as evidence that there wasn't really a problem.