Getting upset over a term like "the hivemind" is exactly the kind of thing that turns off true rational debaters, and sets you on the path to a self-reinforcing validation box.
Uncomfortable truths will always be unpleasant. Spot on criticism will always make people feel stupid. You cannot be nice and be right all the time.
Furthermore, experience has shown that there are in fact a bunch of topics that are anathema here, which may not be debated, not even with correct citations and rational arguments. Hint: it's pretty much the entire "women in tech" debate. It's apparently forbidden to do anything but "listen and believe".
Good bye HN, I always thought this place would be astroturfed into oblivion, but instead, it's the feels crowd who killed it.
...What are you doing? Talking about 'the hivemind' isn't under some sort of blanket ban, and you're shutting down a right to a viewpoint simply because you think it's 'too negative'?
This is exactly the kind of thinking that becomes prevalent in the atmosphere towards negativity engendered by HN.
I see. So any time a community displays well-known herding behaviors in a destructive manner, we can not discuss this behavior because that would be insulting and inflammatory.
(No shit it'd be insulting and inflammatory. Sometimes that's what the community deserves, and to believe otherwise is to believe in human perfection!)
Discussing it is one thing, dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as "the hivemind" is at the very least not constructive, at most actively harmful. Where's the proof of this "destructive behavior"? How are we supposed constructively discuss a problem that hasn't even been proven to exist?
Put another way, it's an extraordinary accusation (HN has a pro-Google bias) that demands extraordinary evidence.
> Put another way, it's an extraordinary accusation (HN has a pro-Google bias) that demands extraordinary evidence.
More to the point, IMO, whether or not discussion of whether or not a hivemind exists in HN and, if so, what its features are is a useful discussion to have in its own right, and whether or not the characterization would be appropriate in some context with appropriate support, that kind of meta discussion is tangential and a distraction to substantive discussion on any thread that is about something other than HN itself, or the social dynamics of online discussion groups, or some similar topic, and so rightly deserves to be directed out of such threads. Failing to do that results in every thread being overwhelmed with self-referential disputes over the nature of the community itself.
I think it's more the case that members of the HN community who are likely to vote at all on a certain comment tend toward certain common views.
For example, a comment about Google is more likely to be voted on by Google employees and Google fans. A typical user wouldn't vote at all. If that comment is negative about Google, those who care about Google are more likely to vote it down.
I suspect this applies to all sorts of subjects, it's just more visible with something as easily identified as a "Google comment" or an "Apple comment".
>How are we supposed constructively discuss a problem that hasn't even been proven to exist?
We can't even begin if people demolish all introspective criticism.
>We disagree that insults are ever necessary.
There's insults like "fuckface" and "idiot," and there's "You're nothing more than a rich white guy whose money makes him feel like his opinions shouldn't be criticized."
Personally I find the second more insulting. Basic namecalling isn't really my concern here as something worth defending. Describing the factual nature of someone's motivations and political manipulation is another matter.
Generally, getting into a protracted debate about someone's motivations has two effects:
* The thread goes off topic
* Lots of unsubstantiated and unfalsifiable accusations are made. (How would I prove I'm not a Google shill, for instance?)
At the end of the day, you do not know what someone's motivations are for posting. Speculating on them is just meta noise, lowering the standard of discourse, and generally just plain harmful.
In the context of my discussing someone's motivations, that was intended to be an example where those motivations were on topic and in particular not those of another poster.
For instance, discussion of the motivations of Sam Altman in creating this suggestion-guideline: is he lashing out after the negative reaction to his bubble essay?
That's insulting! It's also fair game!
You can argue that as a statement it's inaccurate, given what you know or believe, but I hope you understand that that kind of statement is exactly the sort of negativity this thing seems designed to prohibit.
Again, we disagree. By even asking that question (suffixing an accusation with a question mark does not make it less of an accusation - something I'll beat the mainstream media over the head with to my dying breath), you're accusing the other person of taking an action in bad faith: retaliatory creation of a rule in direct response to reasonable criticism.
On top of that, it's unfalsifiable! How would he go about proving that the guideline update wasn't a result of anger over reception of his article?
Now, say that's actually correct. Okay, so? We can't have a substantive discussion how much of a villain you think someone might be. Indeed, the motivations behind the rule are unknown beyond what he tells us, and we can only speculate.
Groundless speculation does not make for very good discourse - hence why it's a bad idea to even go there.
What we can talk about all day long are the implications of that rule and whether it's a good thing or a bad thing. There are plenty of arguments to be made there. Sam's motivations aside, since we don't know them, shouldn't even really enter into it.
We are actually very close to agreement here. I agree, it is an accusatory question.
Do you see how you've reduced the relevance of Sam's motivations to whether or not discussion of them is well grounded?
I'm simply saying that it is anyone's right to argue that a criticism is grounded, just as it's anyone's right to contest that criticism.
So it's fair for you to say "I don't think Sam's motivations are relevant" and then go on to engage discussion of what we all think Sam's motivations are and how that does or doesn't inform his actions. (Supposing, of course, that I had made a more thorough argument instead of alluding to a hypothetical starting point for one.)
But it's not fair to take this guideline and say "This is unacceptable because it is criticism," which is what jseliger did.
It is not the inflammatory nature of a comment that makes it acceptable or unacceptable. You're trying to set up a filter on what's acceptable that is affected by what you personally believe.
And when anyone in a position of power tries to set rules on discourse, we have every right to examine what that does to the shape of discourse.
