1. 3

    I could have sworn I implemented this already many years ago but it seems I’m imagining things. It was a “fork” link shown on each comment to moderators that would break it and its children into its own thread, which had a link back to its original position in the original thread. It wouldn’t happen automatically in response to voting because it would fragment things too much, but moderators could allow large off-topic threads to live on their own in a new root-level thread.

    1. 43

      Is this a paid position?

      1. 57

        Rather the opposite for you, I have a stack of past-due therapy bills you’re delinquent on.

        1. 6

          There’s always the option for cathartic revenge by assigning him the Victor Frankenstein hat.

          1. 9

            Please, let’s be reasonable here. He should delegate assigning the hat to one of the new mods.

      1. 4

        So, uh… I see that Passing the torch is tagged as “meta” and Migration Date and Plans is tagged as “announce” but otherwise, there’s nothing to distinguish these threads as anything particularly special. They aren’t, like, pinned to the home page, or listed at the top of the index, or highlighted as anything fancier than the rest of the stuff under their respective tag markers.

        I guess this means these threads are roughly as significant as any of their peers. Or, maybe I should just decide for myself, based on all the information I have available, and go with that, whether my hunch is right or wrong, and everyone else can just point and laugh, as usual.

        Anyway, figure they’ll get buried in a day, and we can all just move on with our lives.

        1. 2

          P.S. Thanks for pinning this as the top thread! Figure it’s relevant enough, since user action is prescribed for users interested in preserving or destroying information before the hand-off.

          1. 2

            Lobsters doesn’t have any thread/comment pinning features - this thread is at the top of the homepage solely due to upvoting of the story and its comments.

            FWIW, I originally tagged this thread meta and jcs retagged it with announce, as visible in the moderation log.

            1. 12

              Actually, I cheated and made the hotness_mod of the announce tag really high so it will stay at the top of the front page for a considerable amount of time. It was already falling down to number 3 the other day.

          1. 6

            If you want to export your messages before the migration, I added JSON interfaces for your inbox and sent messages:

            1. 31

              I will be deleting all private messages before handing over the database, just for increased privacy in the event someone doesn’t see this before the hand-off. I’ll have a backup in case there is some critical info in a message that gets deleted, but I’d rather err on the side of caution.

              1. 2

                Wait, so are all messages getting zorched or not?

                1. 11

                  I will back them up, delete them from the database, then give the dump to @pushcx. So the site on his hardware will have no private message records in it, but if someone urgently needs something from the backup, I can manually fetch it for them.

                2. 2

                  Great, then the only other thing for folks to do is change their email address if they don’t want me to see it - anything @mailinator.com should work fine.

                  1. 4

                    I’ll probably change all deleted accounts to have an email at @lobste.rs before the dump as well.

                    1. 30

                      Might I suggest @localhost instead? In case lobsters emails are valid someday.

                  2. 1

                    Perhaps there could be a setting that you don’t want your messages deleted?

                  1. 151

                    Hi jcs,

                    In an attempt to preserve a community which has been a large part of our lives for a better part of the last few years, @angersock @pushcx @355e3b @alynpost and a few other of the IRC folks feel that we can take over running the website. @alynpost will be able to provide the hosting in Santa Clara, CA under pgrmr’s infrastructure. @pushcx will assume the role of head administrator and take over the domain name along with the Twitter account. @355e3b and @aleph- will take over the care and feeding of the Rails codebase.

                    We will not be making any moderation changes at this time—continuity is the important thing.

                    Our transition plan is as follows:

                    • @pushcx will take over the domain name and Twitter account; @angersock will also have access to resolve emergencies.
                    • @pushcx will set up a GitHub organization to own the repository long-term.
                    • @alynpost will provision new hardware.
                    • @355e3b and @aleph- will take over the administration of the IRC channel on Freenode.
                    • @alynpost will invoice @angersock, @pushcx and @355e3b for the costs of running the server long-term.
                    • @pushcx and @alynpost will pick a deadline by which anyone who wants their private messages or email address deleted should request it. Once that date has passed, we will pick a date and time for the migration to occur.

                    This is solely to ensure continued hosting and maintenance of the website, and a continuation of the community. Long-term, if the existing moderators wish to step down, @pushcx will be responsible for picking new candidates.

                    We would also like to thank you for all of your years of work put into this.

                    ― #lobsters IRC regulars (aka the clawlateral committee)

                    1. 79

                      And I assume @tedu will be in charge of the TLS certificates?

                      1. 22

                        This comment made me super happy :D - Thanks!

                        1. 2


                        2. 57

                          That sounds like a great plan, thanks for putting that together. I’ll feel better knowing the site will be managed by a group instead of falling all on one person.

                          1. 22

                            Glad to see your approval. :)

                            /u/pushcx should be the central point of contact for the migration deets. We’ll keep the community updated!

                            1. 26

                              Great! We’re really happy to step up and take good care of a community we love.

                              And, for the community: the first update is that I just started an email discussion with me, jcs, and alynpost to handle the technical details of the migration. I’ve migrated barnacl.es a few times, so I’m familiar with the procedure. My guess for a timeline is two weeks, but that’ll be adjusted if needed. I’ll post a comment in this thread when we’ve picked a date or there’s otherwise news.

                          2. 18

                            This sounds great. I’m thrilled to see people working together on this. :)

                            1. 10

                              I got back from talking to the people planning out the transition (aleph, push, socky, goodger, alyn, 355, irenes) on Mumble and IRC - they’ve all been wonderful people putting in their best to ensure the community will experience a smooth transition and avoid any turmoil.

                              1. 10

                                Awesome, glad to have regulars and good people taking things over.

                                I would strongly recommend, and as a lobste.rs regular personally request that as a group you take a bit of time to define some basic agreement about decision making and ownership, so that it is clear between you all, and also to the community.

                                This is not a problem when there’s one guy in charge - it’s simple and clear and whether you agree with them or not you have consistency and stability (thanks @jcs !)

                                When there’s more than one, you need extremely strong value alignment and high levels of trust. If you guys have not known each other for 5+ years and can meet in the same bar to share a beer, you need to talk about and get down some basics. Who makes decisions, how, when; who is in control of the domain / hosting / features / community management.

                                Personally, I like the ‘benevolent dictator’ situation. It reduces ambiguity and facilitates short sharp clear decisions. Greater than 2 people needs work to define that recognises that you will eventually have a conflict, that some of you will come and go, and that there is no way you can all have perfect understanding of what each other wants for this community and what your values are.

                                Not doing this is a valid choice too; equal to commitment to cede to whoever has ‘root’ and control of the hosting and then domains if a conflict happens, and requiring proactively thinking about forking / commuity splits.

                                1. 6

                                  The way that I personally view it is, @pushcx will step into @jcs’s role and take over as the benevolent dictator.

                                  1. 2

                                    Is that what you’re thinking too @pushcx ?

                                    1. 10

                                      That’s the current plan I’m executing on, yes. I want to continue this excellent community. Lobsters is in a good place: we have a healthy, active userbase, the code is stable, bug-free, and has little need for new features, and I’m on sabbatical so I have plenty of time and attention to devote to a smooth transition.

                                      After the migration is complete I think it’s worth having a new meta thread about if we want to shift to a new community governance model. I’m comfortable being BD for years if not indefinitely, but there’s enough folks talking about community models that I want to have a dedicated discussion to explore examples and consider the option.

                                  2. 4

                                    One of the guiding principles we talked about a lot during the clawlateral committee meeting was that we wanted to stray as little as possible from the existing governance structure for the time being–the site has done well in its current incarnation, and @pushcx is we believe a good steward to carry on the precedent set by @jcs.

                                    The plan explicitly has redundancy in roles (think failover) for all important things you mentioned. We also tried to follow a principle of least-trust and a little bit of separation of powers for the failover folks, so that continuity of service is easy but forking and hijacking is hard.

                                  3. 6

                                    Thank you all. I work a lot, don’t know Rails, and don’t really have anything constructive to contribute, but this is far and away the best signal to noise community I’m involved with and I really appreciate it.

                                    If throwing money at the problem will help the new maintainers along please consider setting something up and I’ll chip in.

                                    1. 4

                                      They said they should be able to pay for everything out of pocket, as far as I know.

                                    2. 6

                                      Does this mean we can finally get an @angersock plushie?

                                      1. 2

                                        You guys were my first thought when I saw this post lol. Thanks for your continued commitment to the community ~

                                        1. 1

                                          I love how fast this plan was put together and I feel it will be in good hands. I was scared seeing this post and am excited to see the community I love will keep going and be in good hands!

                                          1. 1

                                            Thanks @angersock, @pushcx, @355e3b, @alynpost!

                                            I’d hate to see lobsters die!

                                          1. 5


                                            1. 2

                                              fantastic ?

                                            1. 12


                                              1. 3


                                              1. 10

                                                work: adding support for UDP Options to FreeBSD while trying not to mangle the network code too much.

                                                !work: More work on drivers for my GPD Pocket. I figured out the ACPI junk to get most of the power related stuff attaching to i2c buses described there, but I have hit a snag with ig4 where it times out transfers. While avoiding looking at that I found OpenBSD has a driver for the gpio(chvgpio) so I am porting that to FreeBSD now.

                                                1. 4

                                                  What are you planning to do for the Broadcom wireless?

                                                  1. 3

                                                    I am using a tiny usb dongle right now, tear downs have shown there is no way to replace the internal card. The wireless is the same as the pi3(though pci) and there is an effort right now to add support for the colocation controller on the soc. It might actually be a card that sees support in the next year or two.

                                                    1. 4

                                                      The corresponding Linux brcmfmac driver is ISC licensed.

                                                1. 3

                                                  I appear to be hitting an ssl exception on this URL. Something about the certificate issuer being unknown.

                                                  1. 6

                                                    @tedu hasn’t gotten to the book about CA infrastructure yet

                                                    1. 2

                                                      Lol. Oh he has. @tedu went further to launch a small-scale experiment on the psychological effects of highly-technical users encountering SSL problems on the homepage of someone they expect understands security. Aside from personal amusement, he probably focused on categorizing them from how many ignore them to quick suggestions to in-depth arguments. He follows up with a sub-study on the quality of those arguments mining them for things that will appeal to the masses. He’ll then extrapolate the patterns he finds to discussions in tech forums in general. He’ll then submit the results to Security and Online Behavior 2018.

                                                      Every tedu story on Lobsters having a complaint about this is the fun part of the study for him. A break from all the tedium of cataloging and analyzing the responses. On that, how bout a Joker Meme: “If a random site by careless admins generate CA errors, then the IT pro’s think that’s all part of the plan. Let one, security-conscious admin have his own CA and then everybody loses their minds!”

                                                      1. 2

                                                        Not far from the truth.

                                                        1. 2

                                                          He’ll pay the $$$ and jump through hoops for DNS; but, the CA system— the line is drawn here!

                                                          1. 2

                                                            Well, domain names are scarce in a way that RSA keys aren’t, and have unevenly distributed value. My domain name was not randomly generated. :)

                                                            1. 1
                                                              tedunangst.com name server ns-434.awsdns-54.com.
                                                              tedunangst.com name server ns-607.awsdns-11.net.
                                                              tedunangst.com name server ns-1775.awsdns-29.co.uk.
                                                              tedunangst.com name server ns-1312.awsdns-36.org.

                                                              Did you ask for people to add your nameservers to their resolver roots?

                                                              Domain names and RSA keys are equally scarce. It’s all protection money, for root servers and for root CAs.

                                                    1. 6

                                                      Anyone know if any browsers explicitly define their caching semantics for what they store, for a live-streamed object which is never “terminated”? This isn’t server-push object replacement, after all, but one object which has internal framing, and so keeps getting larger. So if the 4kB/sec claim on the page is right, then if you leave the browser open for a day then that’s a third of a GB. I know people who can forget their browser tabs for days on end.

                                                      1. 4

                                                        I remember on older webcams, their web interfaces could stream video via motion JPEGs, which just sends endless JPEG frames to the browser. I don’t think it was a problem back then even for those old browsers.

                                                        1. 1

                                                          I don’t think it was a problem back then even for those old browsers

                                                          Even if it was a problem, this was the nineties we’re talking about. People would barely even notice if you crashed their browser or computer and they had to restart it, so long as you didn’t crash it much more than once an hour or so.

                                                      1. 10

                                                        From CNN:

                                                        The charges relate to alleged conduct occurring between July 2014 and July 2015.

                                                        The indictment

                                                        1. 1

                                                          Ok, a bit weird, why did they redact the name of his co-conspirator?

                                                          1. 2

                                                            Perhaps they acted as an informant?

                                                          2. 1

                                                            I don’t know how much damage (i.e. the total of the thievery) the people who used Kronos caused but $2000 seems to be a pitiful sum. I’m just surprised at this number. In my mind malware would be something you’d be selling for like $50000 or $100000.

                                                            From http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/03/technology/wannacry-bitcoin-ransom-moved/index.html I see the total take looks like $140000, which I guess is a high return for the investment ($2000) and who ever sold Kronos didn’t want to deal with the risk of the actual crime. It’s just such small potatoes to say other ventures.

                                                            1. 2

                                                              WanaCry isn’t derived from Kronos, and that sale has nothing to do with it.

                                                              I read elsewhere that Kronos “licenses” used to sell for $5000-$7000.

                                                          1. 24

                                                            Bring back IRC I say

                                                            No need to bring it back, it’s always been there. The problem is convincing everyone else to use it.

                                                            1. 33

                                                              IRC has a fair share of problems which are often circumvented by layering additional services like bouncers on top of it. I like it for its ubiquity, but let’s not pretend it doesn’t show age everywhere.

                                                              1. 19

                                                                I think matrix could very well be the successor to IRC. Open, federated, secure, multi-device sync and good support for bridges to other protocols.

                                                                1. 13

                                                                  I can’t bring myself to like a communications protocol that’s based on HTTP+JSON, with the reference client written as an Electron app. It just all feels so… inefficient :(

                                                                  1. 4

                                                                    The very core of matrix is just the graph behind it all. JSON is just one representation of the information and HTTP is just one transport. Those are the only reference implementations right now, but others are possible, if I’ve understood correctly. But someone more knowledgeable should probably weigh in.

                                                                    1. 2

                                                                      Those are the only reference implementations right now

                                                                      The problem with reference implementations is that, by inertia, they end up being the only implementation.

                                                                      1. 1

                                                                        Would you rather there wasn’t an implementation? But, in this case, there are several other implementations. There’s the next generation reference home server dendrite (in golang instead of python like synapse) and ruma (in rust). And there are lots of clients. I think only riot supports e2e crypto, but I hope others will start supporting it as it stabilises.

                                                                    2. 4

                                                                      To be fair, Riot can run perfectly happy standalone. In fact, I have it running right now on my OpenBSD box. Also, there are many other clients!

                                                                      1. 5

                                                                        HTTP+JSON isn’t all that inefficient, just a bit of extra headers, whatever.

                                                                        Matrix is actually fundamentally inefficient in a different way — it’s not ephemeral message passing like IRC or XMPP, it’s a replicated database — and it’s worth it.

                                                                      2. 6

                                                                        I stopped using IRC and my bouncer 2 weeks ago for Matrix/Riot on my own server with my own IRC bridges and couldn’t be more pleased. Works incredibly well.

                                                                        edit: was an irssi+irssi-proxy user for over 15 years. Tried every other bouncer. Hated them all. Had a perl script to send my phone a pushover notification for mentions. It worked, but it sucked trying to open up IRC app and find the conversation with no scrollback and respond.

                                                                        Now I have: consistent chat client on every device, always have scrollback, all my logs are stored in Postgres, logs are searchable in every client and the search is handled server-side, and I can do E2E encryption with my friends on Matrix. I will never experience Slack bloat because the federation means I only need one server connection and account.

                                                                        1. 4

                                                                          The Riot web app can also serve as a nice IRC client (+bouncer, email notification, etc) if you only need the networks they bridge to.

                                                                          1. 3

                                                                            I haven’t been impressed with the quality of tooling or clients yet. Their Debian package documentation is incorrect and commands tell you to… run the same command you just ran. I haven’t seen a client I’ve been terribly impressed by either; Riot is your typical Electron fare.

                                                                            1. 3

                                                                              Riot is your typical Electron fare

                                                                              The electron wrapper is completely optional, why do so many people say such things, that’s unfair :( I just use it as a pinned tab in Firefox.

                                                                              1. 3

                                                                                Even without the performance concerns of Electron or running in the browser, there’s still the fact these overgrown web apps feel alien in UX on every platform.

                                                                                1. 2

                                                                                  I’ve found it to be very unperformant and laggy.

                                                                              2. 1

                                                                                Didn’t know about this. Thanks for the tip.

                                                                              3. 10

                                                                                The IRCv3 working group is attempting to standardise a lot of interesting extensions to the old IRC protocol in a backwards-compatible manner. Amongst other things, they seem to be working on history, standardised registration/authentication, and metadata such as user avatars.

                                                                                1. 2

                                                                                  One aspect of Slack I’d be interested to hear any progress on is the fact that it combines chat and fileshare for groups.

                                                                                2. 1

                                                                                  Is Twitch still running this way?

                                                                                3. 5

                                                                                  Maybe if it was written in JavaScript, used a million npm packages, invented some new Json/Jose derived protocol,.. then you might have a hope.

                                                                                  In all seriousness, I ask myself that question all along. At work we use lync and skype for business and those still feel like a step backwards compared to old Skype, man, icq, and irc. In fact we had logging turned on for a while but the fat xml logs are up our entire email box so it was turned off company wide.

                                                                                  1. 5

                                                                                    Additionally, Slack supports IRC. I just use tmux + issi to connect to Slack and other IRC networks.

                                                                                    1. 6

                                                                                      Slack’s gateway is highly lossy though.

                                                                                      1. 2

                                                                                        What do you mean? I haven’t had a single issue.

                                                                                        1. 12

                                                                                          You lose formatting, inline replies (so you will see out of context messages), that kind of thing.

                                                                                          1. 1

                                                                                            Ah, gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

                                                                                  1. 12

                                                                                    if i were to spam lobste.rs I’d search up random blogs and register profiles with a similar name than the ones uses in random tech blogs.

                                                                                    I don’t think anyone’s done this in all the time the invite queue has been around, but such blatant spam would be really easy to spot and those accounts would quickly be banned. The bigger problem is legitimate accounts posting corporate blog spam and marketing for their startups, which account verification would do nothing to prevent.

                                                                                    1. 3

                                                                                      OpenNIC’s TLDs grant you access a whole new space on the web. These domains can only be accessed using our democratic nameservers.

                                                                                      This seems like a bad idea considering ICANN keeps approving new TLDs all the time and the OpenNIC ones could potentially conflict in the future. Then users using OpenNIC servers suddenly can’t see properly-registered domains on the internet. I would imagine it’s also impossible to register TLS certs for such domains, since providers can’t do domain/whois validation on these fake domains.

                                                                                      1. 1

                                                                                        Then running a local resolver could be a better compromise.

                                                                                        1. 1

                                                                                          This very thing happened with opennic’s .free TLD, and it was a cause of some annoyance.

                                                                                          There have been talks of trying to set up a CA, but nothing concrete yet.

                                                                                        1. 12

                                                                                          So will this finally be the laptop that @jcs ends up with happily ever after?

                                                                                          1. 2

                                                                                            Thank you for this!

                                                                                            Small bit of feedback: Should unlogged in users see “Saved” in the header?

                                                                                            1. 1

                                                                                              Nope! Fixed, thanks.

                                                                                            1. 5

                                                                                              Very nice.

                                                                                              Small bit of feedback: on mobile, Saved is unfortunately placed right under the logo because of how the menu items wraps on small screens. I’ve missclicked/touched a couple of times already, I apparently click the logo a lot.

                                                                                              /Someone with big fingers

                                                                                              1. 7

                                                                                                It should probably be one of those hamburger menus so the options can drop down and have big hit targets only when you need them.

                                                                                                1. 6

                                                                                                  That could work, but keeping the most commonly used links visible would save clicks. A bit larger targets would suit me well, but I’m only one data point :)

                                                                                              1. 6

                                                                                                Today I learned that downvoting a comment requires you to pick a category. I guess I’ve never tried to do that here before.

                                                                                                The comment provided as an example is the first comment I tried to downvote here on Lobste.rs…

                                                                                                And indeed, none of the available categories fit.

                                                                                                If there was a ‘destructive’ category, I’d pick that one. Meanwhile, I’ll use ‘troll’, which is clearly not correct. AFAIK.

                                                                                                [EDIT: uh-oh, it looks as if I’ve committed a “me-too”!]

                                                                                                1. 5

                                                                                                  I only learned that downvotes require a category today as well. And I was pleasantly surprised both because I realized that I haven’t needed to downvote a comment here before, and because I really like that lobste.rs requires a reason for a downvote. I feel like your comment had value beyond just a me-too, so you’re fine :)

                                                                                                  1. 6

                                                                                                    Interestingly, gave me an opportunity to upvote that comment. Don’t know why someone’s personal feelings, which is what they are describing there should be less valid because of the color of their skin. I thought that was what we were all striving for.

                                                                                                    1. 4

                                                                                                      People reading that comment who missed the thread might not know it was very context-sensitive. Remember that the context (OP) is specific people pushing a specific set of political views on everyone asking that all disagreement be censored. They say they benefit minorities but wont allow them to have a say if they have different beliefs. Coraline et al are uncompromising in that the options are (a) agree with them pushing same things or (b) shut up and leave every public space they take over.

                                                                                                      With that backdrop, I read the various Github articles and the OP. She constantly talked about extreme negative reactions she got as if it’s incidental to being a minority. She was a minority, did some work, and piles of hate emerged. She never mentions when doing so that she aggresively evangelizes, insults, and coerces FOSS projects usually with a pile of likeminded people behind her. I kept bringing that behavior up since I think her showing up at people’s doorsteps insulting them and telling them to do her bidding in their projects might be why people dont like her. That pisses all types of people off here in the Mid-South, including minorities. Consistently. I imagine some in other areas, too.

                                                                                                      Anyway, in the thread you linked, my main comment on that article was judged by site as follows:

                                                                                                      +73 yes -4 incorrect -1 off-topic -8 troll

                                                                                                      It means the main post got overwhelming support esp considering how few upvotes I normally get. The others were peripheral supporting it as part of a larger debate. Anyone trying to judge the linked one should probably look at OP and first comment to get context:


                                                                                                      Im just a political moderate calling out hypocrisy/deceit of an article’s source (i.e. source integrity) and protecting right to dissent as usual. I do it on all topics. Even my favorites on occasion. On political ones, people tend to have strong emotional reactions that clouds judgment or just evokes strong reactions. Im not saying whose right or wrong so much as disagreement they take personally, get disgusted/angry, and will hit any button to make that person or post disappear.

                                                                                                      I think I warned of that in either linked thread or Community Standards discussion. Both then and now, people started calling out others that should disappear with often opposite views of what should be allowed. There was no consensus except against comments that are blatantly harmful where there is a consensus by most peeple that it’s abusive. The same thing I see play out in person every day. So, I oppose comment deletions or bans in political situations without consensus so long as people keep it civil and about specific claims with supporting evidence. And if one side can speak, the other parties better be able to as well.

                                                                                                      And a minimum of politics on Lobsters period! Keep it focused on tech and such. Somone had to post something by a decietful activist on politics pushing a mix of truth and propaganda. And that hit my mental button of calling them out staying as civil and factual as I could despite knowing with every word I might be censored for it. Might. The upvotes from my first comment were reason I kept taking the risk of more argument given there was a surge of dissent that needed to be represented. Not just me. I always help the underdogs. :)

                                                                                                      Note: That was long as we were just talking about but I wanted context and intent clear given it’s about whether to filter or ban me. I also hold no grudges against anyone who did. It’s their deeply-held, personal beliefs about what’s right and wrong. People will do what you believe is necessary there.

                                                                                                      Note 2: Lunch break is over. Darn. I was hoping for tech over politics. Ill do what’s necessary, though, since I value and respect this community. Gotta defend dissent as it’s critical.

                                                                                                      1. 3

                                                                                                        While I disagree with your positions on the topic of the OP, that’s not really what I wanted to bring attention to in this thread. And, as you correctly point out, the longer post you had there does contribute to the discussion. This is why I specifically linked only to that one comment, because that is the only one I feel is not contributing, constructive, or otherwise meaningful as a part of the larger thread. Under no circumstances do I think any of what happened in that thread is cause for banning or deletion; on that, we are in complete agreement. What I wanted to highlight in this topic is that we should have a way of discouraging comments that are solely inflammatory without carrying other value, and I believe that particular one was of that kind. I did not downvote your other posts despite disagreeing with them, because (as also mentioned elsewhere in this thread), I do not think disagreement should be a reason for downvoting. We can have a whole different discussion about how politics and tech mix, but that does not belong in this thread.

                                                                                                        1. 3

                                                                                                          This is why I specifically linked only to that one comment, because that is the only one I feel is not contributing, constructive, or otherwise meaningful as a part of the larger thread. Under no circumstances do I think any of what happened in that thread is cause for banning or deletion; on that, we are in complete agreement.

                                                                                                          Well, my respect just went up for you quite a bit. Very reasonable position far as critiques go. The selected comment was lower info than the other one and maybe even unnecessary. Likely because it was part of a back and forth on politics where comment quality on all sides (including my own) tend to get lower as it goes on. One of reasons I don’t like political discussions in low-noise sites like Lobsters. They also can have less info since more of the specific points and context is already defined where the replies start just implying that stuff with less info content in general. That one was some combination of those.

                                                                                                          In any case, I appreciate you clarifying your position. I at least get why you’d want to see less of that kind of comment than the main one.

                                                                                                          1. 4

                                                                                                            I’m glad we’ve found common ground. As I’ve said elsewhere (this thread is getting pretty large), I don’t want to see downvotes used as a way to signal disagreement, nor do I want them to be used to “punish” a particular user or otherwise label the user as bad. Downvotes to me are a way of signaling that a particular comment is unwanted, along with the reason why, nothing more, nothing less.

                                                                                                            1. 1

                                                                                                              I’m fine with that as long as there’s a consensus across majority of community’s users. That’s really all I ask with these sorts of things even though I’m biased toward free speech or low censorship. Your proposal isn’t a big risk to that esp given it’s mostly a tech-focused forum.

                                                                                                      2. 1

                                                                                                        alynpost’s suggestion meets my needs and I withdraw my support for a new category.

                                                                                                      1. 10

                                                                                                        I fee like, purposely or not, the title of this post is misleading as is, even with the caveat in the text that it’s simply one user’s opinion. That should have been made clear in the title IMO.

                                                                                                        Additionally it’s worth noting that this particular interpretation of downvotes leaves a lot of room for unfriendly, hostile, and ugly behavior provides that it can be plausibly denied as an opinion.

                                                                                                        The idea that opinions cannot be subject to downvotes coupled with the admonitions against “badthink” leave room for things like:

                                                                                                        In my opinion, women are generally inferior programmers than men.

                                                                                                        Black people are genetically pre-disposed to be good slaves (author will present “evidence” to back up their “opinion”.)


                                                                                                        More broadly, the idea that social interactions can only be mediated by some objective set rules in order to be fair is a peculiar oddity of the internet that runs counter to meatspace human behavior and often enables, intentionally or not, abusive and exclusionary behavior.

                                                                                                        1. 5

                                                                                                          That’s the core of it, though–what’s wrong with expressing those opinions?

                                                                                                          If an opinion is actually totally bonkers, ignore it. If an opinion might be based on incorrect facts, a polite discussion–followed, perhaps, by an agreement to disagree–is an adult way to handle it. The mere gut reaction of “this person says that they feel like about and so must be punished” is just tribalism, pure and simple.

                                                                                                          If the opinion is, say, “I think that angersock should be violated with a rake for being such an argumentative shithead”, that’s something that falls under our usual civility guidelines. Something like “I think that angersock is ill-suited to public discourse because of their race” is something that can either be engaged with (and nuked once civility is dropped) or ignored entirely. And even in that latter case, usually the off-topic flag becomes relevant. We have mechanisms in place to deal with this, we just need to use them.

                                                                                                          As an aside, your second example is stated as a fact and not as an opinion (is similar to the borderline example in my original post).

                                                                                                          1. 10

                                                                                                            Because they create a hostile environment. I’m entirely uninterested in reading bonkers racist statements, but I am interested in reading technical content from people who won’t put up bonkers racist statements. You have to decide what audience/participants you want.

                                                                                                            1. 5

                                                                                                              I think that angersock is ill-suited to public discourse because of their race

                                                                                                              I don’t think racist arguments of any kind fall inside the realm of civil discourse. I would downvote as troll.

                                                                                                              1. 9

                                                                                                                Racist comments would be moderated.

                                                                                                                1. 4

                                                                                                                  Given the other comments downthread, I think it would be more accurate to say that overtly racist comments would be moderated, which is not quite the same. I’m not suggesting we ask moderators to make decisions about where the line is for overt / implicit / accidental racism, but additional ways of downvoting would let the community draw those line, which we should expect to be somewhat fuzzy and subjective, but should still exist.

                                                                                                                  Modern racism (and other isms) rarely takes the form of explict denigration and demonization of minorities. It’s typically framed as believed to be true (honestly or not) “facts” or “i’m just saying” opinions, and we have a terrible habit of building rule systems that excuse any behavior that can’t be proven to be malicious (which is extremely difficult), regardless of how negative the actual outcome of that behavior is.

                                                                                                                  In this case, both @grumpyoldman and @tm knew that their position would be considered racist, which means they should also know that going out of their way to express and defend those opinions here would create an environment hostile to PoC. No matter how much they believe their statements to be true, I think it’s reasonable to expect them to know that their personal belief in the truth and meaningfullness of something does not make it objectively so, and that expressing those particular beliefs creates an environment of hostility.

                                                                                                                  This sort of behavior is counter-productive to community building, IMO, and is not exclusive to social topics of race. It’s entirely possible to generate unwelcoming hostiliy by ranting about systemd or non-constructively dismissing technical work as useless. In general, I think it’s reasonable ask people to consider the effect of their behaviors on the community and give the community an easier way to speak to damaging behavior that’s independent of intent.

                                                                                                                  1. -1

                                                                                                                    No matter how much they believe their statements to be true, I think it’s reasonable to expect them to know that their personal belief in the truth and meaningfullness of something does not make it objectively so, and that expressing those particular beliefs creates an environment of hostility.

                                                                                                                    Finding something uncomfortable or “offensive” doesn’t make it false either.

                                                                                                                    For example, we all know that on average, black men have larger penises than white men. In other words, being white kind of sucks in that regard. We’d all much prefer having big penises, just like we’d all prefer being smart.

                                                                                                                    But somehow talking about the differences in penis size is perfectly fine, but anyone who brings up the differences in IQ just absolutely needs to be shouted down for being “racist”. It’s a double standard.

                                                                                                                    Facts are not racist. Everyone on this forum is certainly smart enough to understand that, and we’re all capable of discussing and debating things. So why the irrational, extreme hostility to some ideas then? It makes no sense.

                                                                                                                    Unless.. the larger problem here is that the world is allergic to the truth.

                                                                                                                    Not only that, but just like when something seems “too good to be true”, when someone seems “too irrational to be true”, it’s probably not true!

                                                                                                                    So basically people are just pretending to be outraged by some uncomfortable truths being mentioned.. but not others, like penis size.

                                                                                                                    I have no idea why this is happening, but it is. And it’s incredibly destructive to our societies as a whole. In fact, it’s almost like there’s a concentrated effort to drive Western civilization into the ground.

                                                                                                                    We’re all up shit creek, sans paddle, and a large percentage of us “little folks” is busy drilling holes in the boat as best they can.

                                                                                                                    The mind boggles..

                                                                                                                    1. 1

                                                                                                                      Yes, if expressing a true statement which is supported by objective and evidence and fact and not subjective opinion “creates a hostile environment” then a community that holds that viewpoint is itself toxic to humanity. I hope that isn’t the case here.

                                                                                                                      If certain facts and truths cannot be mentioned and falsehoods are upheld because they aren’t what people want to hear, then that creates an entire layer of falsehood I have have to view everything else through if the community norm is decided to be a standard which supports and encourages deliberate dishonesty.

                                                                                                                      “Offensiveness” is about the worst criteria for moderation or self- censorship imaginable in a world where everyone is offended by anything and everything, reasonably or unreasonably.

                                                                                                                      Heck, I’m highly offended and consider it disgustingly ‘racist’ that minorities and PoC are being effectively ignored and are suffering lost opportunities because instead of seeing our differences as mere differences (or strengths) we choose to shut our eyes or claim they don’t exist. This is absolutely toxic, hostile, and ignorant.

                                                                                                                      In the end we need to decide what sort of culture we support and want sort of world we want to live in. Monocultures can be fragile and diversity can be our strength, and to claim these differences simply aren’t real and don’t exist is ignoring the elephant in the room. The unintended consequence of such hyperbolic political correctness is that it hurts the very people it claims to be supportive of.

                                                                                                                      1. 0

                                                                                                                        I hope that isn’t the case here.

                                                                                                                        That’s the case everywhere.

                                                                                                                        For example, speak certain uncomfortable truths on Hacker News, and you’ll be shadowbanned. It’s happened to me several times.

                                                                                                                        The same will/would probably happen here too. This post might do it! Not that I really care.

                                                                                                                        If certain facts and truths cannot be mentioned and falsehoods are upheld because they aren’t what people want to hear, then that creates an entire layer of falsehood

                                                                                                                        The world we live in is a massive pile of falsehoods. As a random example, we’re told that 2% is a good rate for our income, savings and pensions to be losing their purchasing power, i.e. that 2% inflation is somehow good for us.

                                                                                                                        But in reality, there’s no good rate for a bad thing to be happening. How fast would you like gangrene to spread through your body? How about not at all?

                                                                                                                        We’re also led to believe that being ruled over is in our interest, instead of say, our rulers’.

                                                                                                                        In the end we need to decide what sort of culture we support and want sort of world we want to live in.

                                                                                                                        There’s two sides to “we”: psychopaths and humans. The former run the world and are turning it into shit, and the latter have no clue what’s going on and are abused and exploited by the psychopaths.

                                                                                                                        But hey, there’s a pretty decent chance that you’re a psycho too, so I’ll just stop here. In fact, posting on the Internet is mostly a waste of time, because I’m mostly talking to a psychopath anyway.

                                                                                                                        It’s just a bad habit I picked up before finding out what’s going on.

                                                                                                                2. 2

                                                                                                                  I am hard-pressed to think of a reason that such a line of discussion should ever come up here, unless in maybe cogsci or culture threads. I’d trust our mods to crack down the second it strayed from reasonable science.

                                                                                                                  (On a related note, that’s why submissions that lend themselves to that sort of bile are cancer.)

                                                                                                                  1. -2

                                                                                                                    I don’t think racist arguments of any kind fall inside the realm of civil discourse

                                                                                                                    Even if someone actually made an argument, instead of just running his mouth?

                                                                                                                    On a related note, there are studies that find different races to have different average IQs. But if someone brings that up to support a related claim, lots of people will shout him down as a “racist”.. and that’s bullshit.

                                                                                                                    1. 3

                                                                                                                      Actually that is not bullshit. People who claim race influences IQ are racist and I’m 100% uninterested in their odious opinions.

                                                                                                                      1. 4

                                                                                                                        Sure, but the point being referenced above refers to correlation and not causation.

                                                                                                                        Anyways, in some cases, it’s basically impossible to talk about policy issues without noting biological differences. Like, there are other cases (alcohol flush reaction) where we could talk science and biology and be having a strictly racist but civil conversation.

                                                                                                                        The problem is that people often go off on dumb tangents and assert policy choices that should be made, or that they go and overgeneralize when things are complicated.

                                                                                                                        1. 0

                                                                                                                          Yay, I’ve absolutely prepared and resigned myself to be down-voted to oblivion, but here goes.

                                                                                                                          The claim that race influences IQ isn’t “bullshit” - it’s the accepted scientific consensus and if you’ve chosen to wholly disregard a truth because you don’t want to hear it, then I might be 100% uninterested in your odious opinions as well. I’ve hesitated on commenting in these meta-discussions, and I won’t be down-voting any comment as “Incorrect” because it’s not helpful to do so, but it would be absolutely correct in this case.

                                                                                                                          See https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00399 for good recent meta-study that appears in a high impact peer-reviewed journal. I could literally provide you with hundreds and hundreds of similar articles, but what would be the point, as you’ve already decided that you are going to ignore both reality, scientific consensus, and the accepted views of most scientists working in this (controversial) field, all because they don’t fit your preconceived ideas of the way things should be?

                                                                                                                          Just my $0.02, but I’m venting that this is even a topic on lobsters at all. It shouldn’t be and if there is any strict moderation necessary, it should be to keep these political posts off this site and away from this community. If lobsters is going to start allowing this sort of discussion - is it “uncharitable” or to start marking Incorrect statements as incorrect even if I would be perceived as some sort of racist and start a whole circus?

                                                                                                                          The truth here is complicated and not what people want to hear. It is absolutely incorrect to state that race and IQ are not correlated and to claim otherwise is to ignore decades of data. Does this mean science is racist? I wouldn’t make that argument. I actually would agree with vyodaiken, if he said that it is “bullshit”, if the argument presented was that race can be seen as the causative factor and used an indicator of innate superiority or directly linked to ability; that sort of thing is not supported by data and while never argued seems to be what was inferred.

                                                                                                                          I’ve never down-voted in a meta topic and usually avoid this sort of discussion because it is so far off the scope of this community I would argue it doesn’t belong anywhere near this site. I absolutely understand that people will be offended when they think they are being attacked based on their gender or race.

                                                                                                                          Simply discussing the scientific findings in this field is upsetting to many people and makes them feel uncomfortable or unwelcome. That is an unfortunate truth. But, using false statements to defend against perceived racism is just as intellectually bankrupt as using false statements to support racism - and none of it has anything to do with technology.

                                                                                                                          Where does it end? Are we going to add “fact checkers” to support or overturn “Incorrect” down-votes? Is it “uncharitable” to down-vote a factually incorrect statement that is being used in an argument defending minorities - a righteous position? Would it be not “uncharitable” to down-vote the same sort of factual incorrectness being used by a racist to support their argument?

                                                                                                                          With that said, I’ve hidden the “meta” tag going forward, because these recent threads are so far off-topic I don’t care to see any more of them. I appreciate being allowed in this community, outside of the meta threads, it is generally civil and tightly focused, but if we start mixing in subjective down-voting rationales and having threads about controversial topics of self-identity, race, or religion, it is my opinion that will greatly diminish this community and I probably won’t want to participate any longer, especially if we are going to accept hostility to facts and reality.

                                                                                                                          Edit: A good related piece - http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/opinion-jason-richwine-095353 - Why can’t we talk about IQ?

                                                                                                                          1. 4

                                                                                                                            I do sympathize with your position, but I will observe that blocking meta threads means that you’re going to be subject to rules and norms that you will not have any warning of or input into.

                                                                                                                            1. 1

                                                                                                                              So the unintended consequence is that I will likely end up contributing much less and commenting much less than I might otherwise, which would be unfortunate.

                                                                                                                              I’ve enjoyed that what makes the front page here has generally been free of politics. I’ve not noticed any recent outbreak of uncharitable behavior here. I’ve actually found lobsters to be a rare gem of an online community with some cohesion and civility absent elsewhere. It’s a refreshing retreat, especially since we live in a world that is politically polarized on a global scale. The extremists on both sides not only claim they have the sole moral high ground - they share so little common ground and finding their opposites so abhorrent that civility is purposely abandoned, often to the point where violence often rationalized.

                                                                                                                              I’ll reconsider filtering meta - for now - but if lobsters starts to get political and new subjective down-voting reasons are added where ‘feels’ have the same weight as facts, I’ll probably have find somewhere else to get my tech links from.

                                                                                                                            2. 3

                                                                                                                              The claim that race influences IQ isn’t “bullshit” - it’s the accepted scientific consensus

                                                                                                                              Only to racists. This is not a debatable question. There is not even a scientific definition of race. IQ is not known to measure anything at all. The only people who keep pushing this phrenology level bullshit have an axe to grind and their pretense of dispassionate scientific interest is transparent. The fake plea for civility doesn’t fly either.

                                                                                                                              1. 1

                                                                                                                                Then feel free to consider me a racist and ignore my further commentary and I’ll do the same.

                                                                                                                                Edit: I’m not going to do it, but this absolutely Trolling here - as well as Incorrect. I guess I’d much rather be called racist because it’s a laughable term that has no sting when it’s thrown around in response to a refusal to accept facts and reality. Also, that you decide that you know my intentions and think I have some axe to grind without knowing me is just pure trolling. Enjoy, I’m done with it because I have no need to gain your respect and I’m not going to waste my time defending myself against your personal attacks.

                                                                                                                                1. 1

                                                                                                                                  So, I’m broadly of the opinion that individual and cultural differences trump (nebulous at best) “racial” differences.

                                                                                                                                  That said, given that complex traits are typically 30-50% heritable, I would be very surprised if any given measurement of intelligence turned out not to be heritable.

                                                                                                                                  The degree to which heritability generalises to racial traits in a multiracial society is arguable (largely hinging on whether race is a useful concept in genetics at all), but is far from settled.

                                                                                                                                  In short, you are making an assertion which isn’t falsifiable (let alone evidence supported) and it adds nothing to the debate.

                                                                                                                                  A more useful question might be: if racial intelligence differences were proven to exist, would that justify racism?

                                                                                                                                  (In my opinion it would not; curious about contrary arguments).

                                                                                                                                  1. 0

                                                                                                                                    It is a double-edged sword, of course.

                                                                                                                                    We can use our knowledge of differences to make us stronger and better as a culture or we can use that knowledge to support (or justify) our hateful and unhelpful behaviors. Would such behavior be justifiable? I would argue absolutely not in a civil society.

                                                                                                                                    The choice of course is ours. What sort of community do we want?

                                                                                                                                    My point remains that to label certain knowledge as inherently ‘racist’ is absurd and and then to claim only ‘racists’ acknowledge those truths, well, I’m gobsmacked. If this is how it is, I will be ‘proud racist’ in this context as the alternative is to be a proud ignoramus.

                                                                                                                                    1. 2

                                                                                                                                      Your representation of the discussion is not correct and what you claim to be “truths” are opinions that are not even posed as scientific questions and are being deceitfully marketed as scientific consensus. Whatever motivates people to insist on bringing up political claims about race/IQ in a discussion forum about computer technology, it’s not science. I am not asserting that scientists should not study genetics and intelligence, I am asserting that the pseudo-science such as that promoted by Richwine is off topic and offensive and has no place in a forum such as this one.

                                                                                                                                2. 0

                                                                                                                                  This is a perfect example of the kind of HN content I come here to escape. A tech forum is the wrong place to express your plaintive cry that you need more social experience.

                                                                                                                                  1. 0

                                                                                                                                    argument presented was that race can be seen as the causative factor and used an indicator of innate superiority or directly linked to ability; that sort of thing is not supported by data

                                                                                                                                    If the data shows that there are differences between the average IQs of different races, why wouldn’t the same data support race being a causative factor?

                                                                                                                                    1. 1

                                                                                                                                      Ah, simply because correlation does not necessarily imply causation. In this specific case, it should also be noted that due to disagreements on a “scientific” definition of “race” most of these studies use racial self-identity as the criteria.

                                                                                                                                      There are too many uncontrolled variables to make any reasoned conclusion as to a cause, but to deny these differences exist at all, like some here are trying to do, is insanity.

                                                                                                                                      (Also, I use “insanity” here as “extreme foolishness or irrationally”. I’m not intending to imply their positions are enough to medically diagnose and label them mentally ill - only that the many of the arguments made in this thread are irrational.)

                                                                                                                                      1. 0

                                                                                                                                        The question is what makes some people insist on bringing up this topic in forums like this. Are they truth seeking iconoclasts, unwilling to let irrational mobs limit the scope of their scientific curiosity? Given the quality of the “science” presented in these arguments, that’s impossible to credit. Jonathan Richwine is a professional ideologist who was forced to resign his position at the Heritage Foundation! Charles Murray wrote a book that was roundly denounced by the most prominent genetic scientists as a racist rant - he’s merited his own page in the SPLC directory of hate groups.

                                                                                                                                        1. -4

                                                                                                                                          Ah, simply because correlation does not necessarily imply causation.

                                                                                                                                          Necessarily, huh? :P

                                                                                                                                          Race happens before IQ tests though, and for some mysterious reason there are people in Africa trying to cure AIDS by having sex with virgins, and living in huts without any plans to change that.. and they’ve had just as much time to develop as we have.

                                                                                                                                          Go figure.

                                                                                                                                          1. 2

                                                                                                                                            I am waiting for the defenders of free and open scientific inquiry to explain how this stuff about Africans living in huts fits into their brave defense of rationality. To me, it’s just racist nonsense, but perhaps that’s just me.

                                                                                                                                  2. 1

                                                                                                                                    I find interesting highly entertaining that I was just shouted down for being a “racist” for merely trying mentioning the scientific consensus on the matter. I wish there was a way to ignore these people but sometimes, like a train wreck, it’s too crazy to turn away from.

                                                                                                                                    New Scientists’ Ethics Special issue out now actually has a debate that science itself may be “unethical” to practice going forward because of its potential to be dangerous/destructive/racist! What fragile and special snowflakes we all have become these days!

                                                                                                                                    I wonder if a better option would be when clicking down-vote, you are given the option to ignore the user.

                                                                                                                                    Seems like it could be a mature choice, but possibly it would just fragment the site and make echo chambers?

                                                                                                                                    I guess a Greasemonkey script could collapse the comments automatically as well.

                                                                                                                                    1. 0

                                                                                                                                      That racist babble is not even close to the scientific consensus . That political hacks claim a scientific consensus doesn’t make it so.

                                                                                                                                    2. 1

                                                                                                                                      To quote a small (fair-use) bit from that now famous “Why can’t we talk about IQ?” article, emphasis mine:

                                                                                                                                      For people who have studied mental ability, what’s truly frustrating is the déjà vu they feel each time a media firestorm like this one erupts. Attempts by experts in the field to defend the embattled messenger inevitably fall on deaf ears. When the firestorm is over, the media’s mindset always resets to a state of comfortable ignorance, ready to be shocked all over again when the next messenger comes along.

                                                                                                                                      At stake here, incidentally, is not just knowledge for the sake of knowledge, but also how science informs public policy. The U.S. education system, for example, is suffused with mental testing, yet few in the political classes understand cognitive ability research. Angry and repeated condemnations of the science will not help.

                                                                                                                                      What scholars of mental ability know, but have never successfully gotten the media to understand, is that a scientific consensus, based on an extensive and consistent literature, has long been reached on many of the questions that still seem controversial to journalists.

                                                                                                                                      Apparently accepting the scientific consensus, based on extensive and consistent literature, which has long been reached by the relevant researchers in the field, is still a struggle for many computer scientists and otherwise very smart and reasoned individuals as well, especially when the science doesn’t support their preconceived notions.

                                                                                                                                      I’m not sure if I should laugh or cry anymore these days.

                                                                                                                                      http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/opinion-jason-richwine-095353 for the original article.

                                                                                                                                      1. 6
                                                                                                                                        1. Richwine is not a scientist.

                                                                                                                                        Jason Matthew Richwine is a conservative public-policy analyst[2] and commentator[3] best known for his controversial views on immigration and IQ. Wikipedia

                                                                                                                                        1. Richwine’s dissertation was not in science, not in social science, but in public policy

                                                                                                                                        2. Richwine’s dissertation made claims that are unsupported in science about the genetic basic of IQ and tied them to public policy recommendations.

                                                                                                                                        Richwine appears to not understand what it was about his dissertation that disturbed people. He argued for a clear and persistent genetic basis to IQ, used that to argue for an immigration system based on IQ tests, and then provided political advice on how to hide the intent of that system. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/08/09/jason-richwine-doesnt-understand-why-people-are-mad-at-him/?utm_term=.4f44ca32a804

                                                                                                                                        1. In his Politico article, Richwine attempts to rehabilite the widely debunked Bell Curve and its racist political program

                                                                                                                                        “As a consequence, the interesting policy implications explored by Herrnstein and Murray were lost in the firestorm.” http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/opinion-jason-richwine-095353

                                                                                                                                        Here’s an example of Murray from Bell Curve: “The professional consensus is that the United States has experienced dysgenic pressures throughout either most of the century (the optimists) or all of the century (the pessimists).” - from https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/charles-murray

                                                                                                                                        There is no credible argument here that dispassionate scientific research is being shouted down. People who persist in bringing up this claim create a hostile environment for the targets of Richwine and Murray’s and others racist remarks and political program.

                                                                                                                                        1. 7

                                                                                                                                          I wanted to comment that this sort of clear, crisp disagreement/refutation with minimal quotes and links to sources is exactly the sort of thing I like to see more of.

                                                                                                                                          That said, let’s drop the subthread for now.

                                                                                                                                  3. 5

                                                                                                                                    In practice skepticism about Rust or Haskell nets more troll ratings than racist babble. Tells you something.