As crazy as it sounds I’d actually like to make the case for a lack of civility.
Civility is an artificial construct designed to preserve personal relationships. You want to say ‘X’ but instead you say ‘Y’ because your relationship with the person in the conversation is as important to you as the ideas being exchanged.
But HN isn’t necessarily like that. HN is supposed to be about the ideas themselves. So as long as someone’s expressing actual ideas (as opposed to ad hominem insults) I’m not sure I see the need for civility.
Moreover there’s a reason not to have it. When I post on HN I’m trying to convince people to adopt my opinion. Knowing how passionate people are about the opinions that oppose mine is a helpful in formulating a strategy to defend my own thoughts. It’s an indicator of not only how ingrained the opposing ideas are but also tends to give insight on whether the opposing ideas are based on rationality or emotion.
So the vitriol actually serves a purpose that civility does not.
I realize a lack of civility can chase some people away and that’s probably the only good argument for it. But if we all just got over it and accepted the internet as an uncivilized place I think we’d be taking a step forward in the exchange of ideas.
The problem with vitriol is that it becomes performance art. A review trashing a movie is a lot more entertaining than a civil one; but people can forget that the real issue is how to see a good movie.
Why should I be more likely to adopt your opinion because you are driven to anger to express it? I don't know you. Your anger holds no reference point for me and therefore is of little value. Your best way to convince me is to make sense.
Exchange of ideas is hardly incompatible with civil discourse.
In the case of HN I don't see a problem with vitriol being rewarded more than politeness. Generally it seems there is already a strong bias towards civility in terms of voting. Just as insults don't add to the discussion neither does apologising for merely disagreeing with a point of view.
"When I post on HN I’m trying to convince people to adopt my opinion." That might be your problem right there. When I post on HN, I try to move the discussion closer to truth, which is often not the opinion I started with.
A lot of things we discuss here don't have "truth", though, or at least not a truth that can be established with available information. Whether it's pros/cons of different tech lifestyle options, or pros/cons of different programming languages, a lot of it is informed opinion that ultimately comes down to arguing a lot of subjective points.
Tech lifestyle options and programming languages are topics where plenty of objective truths can be established. Why else would anyone want to waste air and keystrokes?
Do a thought experiment: come up with a topic that is purely non-objective. Now observe that your topic is 100% bullshit.
Subjectivity is what people hide behind when for whatever reason, they are tired of being intellectually honest. Subjectivity/ideology is to our age as religion/morality was to the Middle Ages.
Edit: When I say "objective", I don't mean "certain". That might be one reason people like subjectivity so much. It allows them to feel certain where looking at things objectively would make them feel uncertain. Evolutionary psychology tells us that certainty is often adaptive in and of itself, so this is just yet another case of our evolutionary legacy subverting our search for truth.
Tech lifestyle options and programming languages are topics where plenty of objective truths can be established. Why else would anyone want to waste air and keystrokes?
They are also topics where there are plenty of subjective truths. Worse yet, many are subjective truths where the answer, although entirely subjective, is incredibly important to people.
The canonical example in programming is the question of the best indentation style. Research has found little difference between virtually any brace placement, and any indent in the range of 2-4 characters. Yet consistency is incredibly important, and programmers will experience some level of disorientation when forced to work with an unfamiliar indentation style. This effect is strong enough that people don't like to switch, even from an objectively worse style, for instance an 8 character indent (known to hurt reading comprehension), The infamous result are endless arguments that can't be settled.
(Diversion, I carefully said "little difference". In fact differences have been found. One is that programmers whose eyesight is getting worse - which happens with age - a 4 space indent is better than a 2 space indent. (A study that found this is referenced in _Perl Best Practices_.) The other is that there is some data suggesting that certain code inspection techniques work better if you've aligned your braces. See http://groups.google.com/group/golang-nuts/msg/ce9a377eef52a... for the information I have.)
Moving on from that, there are plenty of decisions which likely have some objective content, but much, much more of the subjective content where people face large switching costs. Examples of this include your choice of editor/IDE, programming language, OS, and key libraries. There may be objective differences, but the key fact in the vast majority of arguments you see about this is that the people arguing would personally be worse off were they forced to switch.
If you're used to some system of indentation, for some definition of "used to", then it is either objectively true that you'd most likely be better off switching, or it is objectively true that you most likely wouldn't be. If this truth can't be established, then it doesn't matter how important the answer is--it can't be established. Labeling it "subjective" doesn't get rid of the problem (unless, as I said before, the problem lies in acquiring a comfortable feeling of certainty).
The truth is that you, personally, are usually better off staying the same. But everyone is much worse off if you're allowed to go your way and someone else their different way. Therefore it is everyone's interest for someone to take that hit, and the argument is really about who is going to be forced to adapt.
Person A will give many reasons why person B should switch to A's style, and A shouldn't switch to B's style. There seldom, if ever, any objectivity in those arguments.
And sometimes, people beat each other with sticks to resolve a disagreement. There isn't any objectivity in those arguments either. In my mind, this, and what you said, make a case for objectivity in all discourse, not against. I really can't get any clearer than that.
Unfortunately if A is willing to resort to subjective arguments that pretend to objectivity, and B takes the high road, by default B will wind up having to switch to A's style because that seems to be the easiest way to bring peace.
Therefore there is real motivation for people to make non-objective arguments.
It might also be worth noting that the attempts to establish objective pros/cons of programming languages themselves usually start with a subjective decision about what ought to be maximized. For example: how do you weight things like prototyping speed, bug minimization, support for team programming, programmer satisfaction, etc.? Most studies pick one. That's useful objective information going into the decision, of course, but I still think the programming-languages decision is mostly a subjective one, depending on how people assign weights to lots of noncomparable factors. That doesn't mean it's totally arbitrary, because you can come up with cogent arguments for and against various things which help in understanding the pros and cons, but I don't think those are "objective" arguments that can establish "truth".
I would argue the opposite: the only interesting discussions are the ones where an objective truth is impossible to establish.
Just about every choice in life presents a trade-off and determining what works best for you means analyzing this trade-off and trying to see it from as many angles as possible.
Tech lifestyle options and programming languages are topics where plenty of objective truths can be established.
I think you forgot "choice of programming editor". I'm pretty sure we can establish some objective truths there. Just give it some time.
Your model of discourse is too primitive. You assume that people who are interested in ambiguity are just fleeing from certainty. It may be that they are more interested in learning about how other people think and act than convincing them.
You're thinking of discourse as a war where the most objective and evidence-based person wins. I agree it should work like that for critical decisions. But this is not the point of most conversation. For the most part, it's about mutual discovery. What your life is like and what your preferences and experiences are. If you fail to respect and engage with another person's experiences, you look like a bore, charging ahead with your own agenda and oblivious to others.
Are you one of those people who are more interested in learning about how other people think? If so, it's odd that you're telling me how I think.
If you scroll up a bit, you'll see that it's precisely to avoid "war" that I want to emphasize objectivity. If everyone comes into a conversation with the purpose of discovering truth, the focus is on truth, and not who wins.
Finally, yeah, there is some objectively best way to edit code, and we'll get there eventually--or close enough to it that it would cease to be an issue. Why does this idea bother you?
On the last point, the claim only bothers me because it's a false claim--- there is no objectively "best" way to edit code. There isn't, in general, an objectively "best" anything, since best is a subjective notion. There might be, say, a way to edit code that objectively maximizes some criterion, but the choice of that criterion as the one you want to maximize is a subjective decision.
Do a thought experiment: come up with a topic that is purely non-objective. Now observe that your topic is 100% bullshit.
I would like a shot at it. I have been discussing this with a lot of people. The question is:
"What exactly is reality?"
Now this may seem bullshit at first. "Come on reality is what we can see and prove", "reality is what is 'true'", "I know it is real when I see it". These are some of the very diverse answers that I get to such a question.
My personal take is, that we define something as real when a mass majority starts to believe in it. Everyone has his/her different take on if something is real or not. But for ages every body "knows" that something is real when an authority gauges what the masses believe and declares it "real". For example 1500 years back every body "knew" earth is the centre of the universe, why? Because the church said so. They also knew that earth was flat. why? Because the earth said so. We also "knew" that the electron is a particle, why? because some scientists said so or some of the experiments (which were then proven wrong) said so.
So tell me, why is it that something is real once and not after some time. So isn't reality a subjective thing? Now this may sound BullShit to you but makes sense to me.
My personal take is, that we define something as real when a mass majority starts to believe in it.
So is it impossible for the majority to be wrong?
So isn't reality a subjective thing?
Only because you have defined it as what most people believe. Many would disagree with that definition and say, for example, that our planet was round even before we noticed it.
I have yet to see anyone claim that belief is reality and give justification beyond simply repeating/rephrasing the claim, and you certainly aren't the first.
> expressing actual ideas (as opposed to ad hominem insults)
I think this would be a reasonable working definition of civility.
Semantics aside, I agree with you except about the vitriol. It's an arms race: if vitriol gets you taken more seriously, people are going to be vitriolic whether they feel it or not. And then when it really matters to them.... (And eventually the ideas get drowned out by the take me seriously! metadata.)
I agree with you, but I'd like to point out that the opposite of "civility" is not necessarily "vitriol". Lots of forms of incivility are orthogonal to vitriol, trolling for example.
That is not true at all as any reading of any place on the Internet will attest. Uncivil comments are not arguments, they are attacks on the social status of the victim. Arguments are usually civil (and signed) so they can be heard (and build social status for the speaker).
You know those discussions you sometimes have in the evening with friends? Confidentiality is implied when having them. Google makes it hard to make that happen on the web as soon as your real name is attached. You need anonymity if you want to make that happen.
How does that apply to a place like HN? What's the common case for anonymity here? Sure, I'll accept the occasional exception, but what's the benefit for anonymity?
I don’t want everyone I know to be able to search for my name and find everything I ever wrote. Just as none of my friends knows every discussion I ever had with everyone.
It’s not purely selfish. Some probably wouldn’t contribute here if they could not be anonymous. Quite a few people on HN who are valuable contributors are anonymous.
> It’s not purely selfish. Some probably wouldn’t contribute here if they could not be anonymous. Quite a few people on HN who are valuable contributors are anonymous.
Maybe this is a case of the baby/bath water problem. Would comments improve if accountability is improved? Would overall comments/discussion improve?
I can only tell you that I’m pretty sure that my writing would change.
I really don’t know whether quality in general would improve. It might but you might also lose many valuable contributors in the process.
I certainly have no problems with communities in which you have to use your real name. It’s a valid path to take, I just would much prefer to keep on commenting here anonymously. But a change of that policy wouldn’t be the end of the world. I would just abandon my old account, register a new one and probably comment a lot less and differently.
It benefits HN because it makes people willing to comment here. People like ugh who do want to their discussion comments tied to their real name on google for all eternity will not participate at HN if they can't use a pseudonym. An HN without ugh and the many pseudonymous commenters like him would be a much poorer HN.
Discussion forums are subject to network effects where the value of the forum increases with the square of the number of commenters.
> Discussion forums are subject to network effects where the value of the forum increases with the square of the number of commenters.
More commenters doesn't increase value.
I think my issue is more that "ugh" isn't anyone. He has no background, and therefore, what he says is purely within the context of the discussion. Anything he says is questionable, because their is no accountability.
Anyways, good discussion. I'm still struggling with the baby/bathwater issue this has arisen, but the wife and child are waiting to be taken out to breakfast, so I must go.
> He has no background, and therefore, what he says is purely within the context of the discussion.
Which is precisely the intended effect: it makes you judge the writer by the writing.
> Anything he says is questionable, because their is no accountability.
So you need to know who someone is to asses the reliability of what is said? That means you know little about the subject matter, and don't intend to learn more. It's okay most of the time. We can't know everything. But if you are looking at a thread here, that's probably because you're interested in the subject. In that case, not being able to judge a comment by itself would be unacceptable.
Yes. Unless it is pure opinion, or you are willing to spend a lot of time tracking down references for what he wrote, then who the person is has a STRONG bearing on their reliability.
> Which is precisely the intended effect: it makes you judge the writer by the writing.
It wouldn't be fair to judge non-native english speakers this way. However, if you are referring to what is being said, then it's not as easy as just reading what they wrote.
Indeed, the majority of people out there can't discern reality from fantasy. I did a study on this 15 years ago, where it showed conclusively that presented with factual looking information, even professionals in the various fields were unable to discern fact from fiction on specific topics. ;)
Simply put, without anything to verify this comment, you have to judge it purely on what is said. Accountability, credibility, attribute are all critical.
It wouldn't be fair to judge non-native english speakers this way.
It's sometimes possible to discern a poor writer from a non-native writer, but to be fair, I'll try to find out if a writer is non-native before commenting on their grammar or judging the post based on a mistake.
Oh, I have no problem giving you information about who I am. Yeah, I could just lie, but I guess that’s something you have to live with on the web.
I’m a 22 year old social science student from Germany. I have hardly any CS background and no startup background at all. Any more details you want to know?
I disagree. The more commenters that are available, the more likely it is that one commenter will be an expert that can supply a unique perspective. This is especially important at a place like HN where there are lots of smart people who think that being smart means that they're knowledgeable about everything.
I think my issue is more that "ugh" isn't anyone. He has no background, and therefore, what he says is purely within the context of the discussion. Anything he says is questionable, because their is no accountability.
The fact that I know your name makes you no less credible in my eyes than ugh. I don't recognize your name. I don't know you. I'm sure as hell not going to waste my time by tracking you down on google and reading your resume. Everything you say is questionable. Really now, what is it about knowing your name that makes your statements any less questionable?
>I disagree. The more commenters that are available, the more likely it is that one commenter will be an expert that can supply a unique perspective.
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. My fault. More commenters don't necessarily increase value. If that were the case, Digg would be much more valuable then HN.
I do think you are correct, in that more commenters means a greater chance of getting an expert answer, but it also increases the chance of getting poor answer. How do you determine which one to take?
> Really now, what is it about knowing your name that makes your statements any less questionable?
If the choice was between taking the advice of pg and RandomDood123 regarding startups, I'd probably take pg's. I wouldn't disregard RandomDood, but at the same time, pg's comment would gain more weight.
I do think you are correct, in that more commenters means a greater chance of getting an expert answer, but it also increases the chance of getting poor answer. How do you determine which one to take?
Well, if you're reading a thread about the BP oil rig fiasco and some guy is just repeating idiocy he heard on CNN while another guy says "I used to work for a drilling engineering company designing blowout preventers and I can tell you that the following bits are wrong because..." then I'd take the second guy. But YMMV.
If the choice was between taking the advice of pg and RandomDood123 regarding startups, I'd probably take pg's. I wouldn't disregard RandomDood, but at the same time, pg's comment would gain more weight.
How many people are there that have this degree of notoriety and actually comment on HN? I mean for you, how many are there: a dozen? A half-dozen? These people are already incentivized to write under their real name. So requiring that everyone use their real names would not really change anything regarding the dozen or so widely recognized people whose names "matter".
Moreover, discussion at HN tends to range over many topics for which pg (or any famous commenter) really isn't particularly privileged.
Finally, let's say that RandomDood123 changed his user id to match his real name, Bob Smith. Would that make you more likely to take his word over pg's? I expect not. So why on Earth should we require RandomDood123 to use his real name?
Based only on the comment? I'd want something to demonstrate he was who he said he was. Something to back up his claim. Everyone became a drilling engineer overnight with the BP disaster, it seems.
RandomDood123 doesn't have to change his name, either. But something that relates back to who he is. I do check a person's comments for HN, and I generally try to find out who a person is before responding, or taking their advice. If RandomDood123 ran an iPhone App startup, then his advice in that arena would be worth considering.
> Would that make you more likely to take his word over pg's?
It really depends on the subject. If I didn't know RandomDood, then yes. If, however, RandomDood had a blog, and some other information that lead me to believe he was in a specific industry, I'd be more likely to listen to what he has to say.
Anything he says is questionable, because their[sic] is no accountability.
Personally, I don't usually read usernames until after I've read the post, if at all. I'd greatly prefer to evaluate posts based on their relevance, accuracy, and tone. Some posters, like grellas, have a unique style that is instantly recognizable half way through the post, so knowing the username isn't necessary anyway. Other times I've been surprised by the gender, nationality, or occupation of a commenter, and if I'd known that information beforehand, I don't think I would've got as much value from reading their posts.
I have a pretty uncommon name. Google reveals a total of about six people online with the same first & last names. For the most part, I don't care if people know who I am, but I occasionally make statements that I may not want my employer knowing about and I really don't want to have to watch everything I say.
----
As an aside: I'm not big on meta posts, but would you guys stop downvoting jasonlotito, please!!! Whether or not you agree with him, he is asking intelligent questions and is furthering the discussion. Your downvotes are actually inhibiting the process.
I'm in the same boat. Near as I can tell I am the only person with my first and last names. If you put just my first name into facebook's search box I am one of only two people that show up. Googling first-and-last returns only me.
Some people don't want potential future employers googling them by name before making an offer and finding something that turns them off. For example, perhaps you are an atheist (and revealed that in your comments somewhere) and the future employer is fervently religious. This is potentially a bad situation for the commenter.
If comments weren't anonymous then these folks probably wouldn't make their comments at all. So I think you get a more honest discussion if it's anonymous, at least for some topics.
At the risk of sounding idealistic and spoiled with freedom and lack of commitments (which is, well, accurate right now), I'm not sure I'd want to work for an employer who wouldn't hire me because of something I've posted on the internet.
It's the 21st century. Yeah, a lot of my life is on the internet and relatively easy to find. It's almost like having a free, instant private investigator for all of your potential employees. But do you really want to work for a place that not only sets a PI on you, they put weight in what he reports when they know it might not be totally accurate?
For people who do need a job a bit more than I do, that is a concern — and I wouldn't advocate against pseudonymity because life is not always nice and simple.
> For people who do need a job a bit more than I do, that is a concern — and I wouldn't advocate against pseudonymity because life is not always nice and simple.
That's why I am very careful about my identity online. I have no problems with finding jobs right now, but who knows where I'll be in 10 years?
On another forum I used to post under my real name. From a discussion where a disagreement arose, albeit be civil on line, the discussion turned nasty, and I was increasingly harassed until I was genuinely concerned for my personal safety.
You might say that if everyone was identifiable then it wouldn't happen, but how would be verify the identities? Someone could take exception, then track you down off-line.
Call it irrational, but that's my personal experience. On in exceptional circumstances would I post under my real name again. Being on HN is good, but not good enough.
Finally, the source code is available, I'd be interested to see someone enhance it to require real, verifiable names and see how popular it becomes.
But that is a political point (which I agree with by the way) that has no bearing on whether it would be beneficial for HN or any other particular forum to ban anonymity.
"A site which requires real/verified names is automatically flagging itself as a potentially/probably unsafe space for women, or for anyone else at risk of harassment, violence, job discrimination, and the like."
Facebook seems to be doing fine with pseudo requiring real names. I haven't seen any data indicating that Facebook has increased the number of victims of violence.
I know it's not popular to think this way but statistically you're far more likely to be victimized by someone you know rather than random person from the internets. Most people who have the resources to fly across the country to victimize someone have better things to do with their life. However, I still worry about Jay and Silent Bob showing up at my door at any moment.
The problem is that guy gets beat up by forum poster is far more newsworthy than guy gets beat up at bar. And thus we optimize our risk profile around the uncommon.
> Facebook seems to be doing fine with pseudo requiring real names. I haven't seen any data indicating that Facebook has increased the number of victims of violence.
Of course, Facebook gives everyone access controls - and witness the fuss when the boundary shifts between private and public. I would assume the piece you quote above is referring to public and/or open online spaces.
And yes, you are more likely to be victimized by someone you're acquainted with - but that doesn't mean they'll already know the information now tied to your real name.
(See also current problems with adopted kids being contacted on Facebook by birth parents who, in many cases, are legally supposed to have no contact with them.)
And how exactly would you "verify" someone's name anyway? Ask them to scan in their passport? I doubt many, least of all here, would transmit sensitive documents to a website just so they could register an account.
> Typically via creditcard. Pay a symbolic amount (e.g. $5) to create an account, allow at most 1 account per credit card.
That might work on a normal website, but people around here are likely smarter than that. It's not hard to make "extra" credit card numbers/accounts. Here's one amusing account of how it can be done:
Incidentally, I would also like to note that they were dumb for blurring the credit card number in that picture. The blur is probably guessable (people have managed similar reversals in the past). Hopefully they canceled that card a long time ago, but they shouldn't have obscured information like that when they could have eliminated it.
Flag uncivil comments. Downvotes should be applied to comments that don't add anything to a discussion. Never downvote because you disagree. If you respond to a comment, upvote the previous comment, as whatever it said sparked you to add something, which is hopefully constructive.
What if they don't have a credit card? Not everybody on HN is from a western country where everyone can get a card when they're 13.
Also, many credit cards don't have the person's full name but their initials and surname, which is useless for googling (or is the full name accessible when processing?).
Given how many good discussion forums there are on the web and how easy it is to start a new one (freehackernews.com anyone?), do you really think that people will pull out their credit cards? This proposal is based on the same mistaken assumption that newspapers make: a failure to realize that in a world where there are tons of free alternatives, adding an entry charge is a bad idea.
Sorry if i'm going a "bit" off-topic, see disclaimer at the end.
Remove pseudonyms to improve accountability and quality of comments... it doesn't work that way on the internet, anyone could use a fake name and the only one that care about accountability are the one that have been treated harshly (in their opinion). No correlation to quality exists imo.
And i agree, using pseudonyms is the only way to maintain confidentiality when for example you want what you say to remain inside a certain community. In my case, while i have no problem with the HNers knowing who i am (and would be also quite happy to meet some of you), i don't see why someone googling my name should know that i post here, none of their business.
Disclaimer: I skipped the original "scary job hoppers/HN lack of civility/untested ideas to improve civility" querelle, because not being american i don't have a clear view of the job market there and discussion about lack of civility turn out to be pretty useless usually ("it's the internet,baby." it's usually the conclusion).
Now i've spent 20 min or so reading marks' posts and some comment here...
What i can add 10 days or so later? Not much :)
Generalizing in that way/posting useless rant will always attract a lot of angry comments, it's correct and it's also to be expected. And no, there is definately no loack of civility on HN.
Philk sums it up in a good way in his post: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1401113
Since switching to using my real name on Hacker News my comments have:
1) Gone down in quantity.
2) Taken longer to write, as I think harder before pressing the "add comment" button.
3) Become more "sterile" for lack of a better word.
4) Frequently been abandoned.
There's two sides to this argument. On one hand, I'm reluctant to express half-formed opinions that could potentially make for interesting discussion, because I don't always want to be judged against those opinions for the rest of my life. On the other, is the wisdom of XKCD 137 (http://xkcd.com/137/).
I thought I was getting the raw end when people downvoted like crazy my posts about Facebook, sort of defending them in the latest privacy debacle. People send personal hate mails on HN?
Much of the discussion here is about how you should be judged by what you write, not how you write it. I thought I'd mention an experiment I ran across a while ago.
Pseudonyms are good for a various reasons. Most of people, for example, are biased towards foreign names or a certain nations, even if they don't aware of it.
Also, some people may be biased towards their own natives (because of remarkable combination of ignorance, selfishness and nationalism) or whatever, and a nickname helps them to feel like a some sort of a different person. Everyone are playing their games anyway. =)
And, last but not least, exposing real names in a content which will be indexed by google is not a good idea for various reasons. Someone may don't like to show up or broadcast his presence on a certain site.
Civility is an artificial construct designed to preserve personal relationships. You want to say ‘X’ but instead you say ‘Y’ because your relationship with the person in the conversation is as important to you as the ideas being exchanged.
But HN isn’t necessarily like that. HN is supposed to be about the ideas themselves. So as long as someone’s expressing actual ideas (as opposed to ad hominem insults) I’m not sure I see the need for civility.
Moreover there’s a reason not to have it. When I post on HN I’m trying to convince people to adopt my opinion. Knowing how passionate people are about the opinions that oppose mine is a helpful in formulating a strategy to defend my own thoughts. It’s an indicator of not only how ingrained the opposing ideas are but also tends to give insight on whether the opposing ideas are based on rationality or emotion.
So the vitriol actually serves a purpose that civility does not.
I realize a lack of civility can chase some people away and that’s probably the only good argument for it. But if we all just got over it and accepted the internet as an uncivilized place I think we’d be taking a step forward in the exchange of ideas.