It would likely be very problematic for the security model as it is crucial that you only sign your own requests that you understand what they do. I guess you can technically sign someone else's request made with your identification number today as most service don't use QR codes for presence verification. In general I am also not sure that further expanding, and blurring the line, of what you can do with BankID is a good idea. If anything I would like more limits.
> There is also already a clear precedent to allow delegation of access that require strong authentication IRL. For example, PostNord allows you to retrieve someone else's mail as long as you provide ID for both yourself and the recipient.
They have the same service in their app with BankID + QR code (at least for packages).
It wouldn't work, because services using BankID want a (presumably contractually-obligated) assurance that only that particular person is using the service. If someone else can be authorised use your ID, it undermines that.
They could still add such a feature of course, but they would need to inform and have the co-operation of services when someone else is using the ID, so it wouldn't be widely supported.
Person A initiates and signs request to delegate for Person B. Person B receives the delegation request and signs it, which produces a positive response. The response (containing Person B's signature= is then 'wrapped' in Person A's request and is only sent on the to destination.
I am not so sure. It is hard to teach ethics, but you can have ethics as a basis for a framework. Most MBAs will be very aware of something like compliance or labour law. And if know that framework you can critique them. Not every hardware engineer understand the importance of ethics, but they mostly accept the regulations or principles derived from ethics. In tech we don't really have that, so it is often a non-starter to begin with. The exception being GDPR, but you have probably noticed how messy those discussions are.
Honestly it is a bit weird how you seemingly jumped the thread to address my other comment. My point is still the same whether it is about programming or programming culture. This material is mostly produced elsewhere and present in all programming outlets. What makes HN different is to a large extent what they focus on in the article, including the mix of programming and mainstream news. Most other outlets don't allow this, especially not as liberally. It is easy to equate HN with programming culture, but I just don't think it is really how things are. Hacker News also has a specific different culture. Of course one might argue that allowing more popular content makes programming culture more accessible, and exposes more people to it. I just object to the slight dismissal of the article, because that is the topic at hand. But now below the fold.
It is a pretty common way to setup these stories, to play into stereotypes to disarm the reader (basically acknowledging their fears) and open them up to something else. It just isn't written for this audience or from its perspective.
To be clear, I'm aware of the device your talking about. They did that for sure for dang and sctb's character to highlight how they in particular buck the stereotype but throughout the piece the author makes it clear their focus was essentially on the fringe of comments that occur on this site and how they fit into a larger narrative about silicon valley culture. I provided the quote because it is specific evidence the author approached the writing with this perspective towards the site, and should one be totally surprised it is the dominant narrative throughout?
This is not quite related to your reply, but I will say it's rather ironic that the author had this expectation of the mods in particular because in my mind they are often the ones rushing to defense of civility and often chide people making comments of the disposition that the author expected them to have. Of course, that might be because I use this site and see dang or sctb's replies to dead comments and they don't, but approaching subjects you intend to learn about in good faith instead of tired stereotypes would be best.
The author is certainly bringing her own expectations about HN's common biases and attitudes into play, but some of those biases and attitudes are on slightly ironic display in this discussion, aren't they? For instance, there's a clear subtext -- sometimes open text -- of "this author knows nothing about the HN culture!", basically dismissing the opening where she mentions how she learned about Hacker News originally from her coworkers at the tech startup she'd moved to San Francisco to join. The bias of "I expected the moderators to be a couple of middle-aged white guys" doesn't come from her lack of knowledge of this industry and the HN crowd, it comes from her immersion in it. Also, the moderators are in fact a couple of middle-aged white guys.
It's true that HN readers are not the intended audience for this -- she's writing for the large set of people who have little to no idea what Hacker News is. But the story she's telling in the article is not "here's how cool HN is," nor is it "here's how terrible HN is." It's a story of how HN reflects the tech culture in Silicon Valley and beyond, how politics and our current culture war intersect with the tech sector whether or not we like it, how declaring a space to be non-political has become an implicitly political statement. And I think in that light, it's a pretty good article.
(And dang, I think getting a third moderator in who's non-white and/or non-male might not be a bad thing -- regardless of their level of balding.)
One thing that surprises me is that HN is in fact, full of humanities. The non-technical topics are just as rich and interesting as the purely technical ones. To paint the opposite as this article did makes me think that the world really just wants nerds to be exactly as their prejudices imagined.
> I provided the quote because it is specific evidence the author approached the writing with this perspective towards the site, and should one be totally surprised it is the dominant narrative throughout?
At least partly that is about being topical for their audience. What I am trying to point out is that just because it is written from a different perspective or for a different audience doesn't mean that it is wrong. You and I might dislike things about Hacker News, but by being here we have accepted those things. But when they write about Hacker News, they don't have to fit into the Hacker News narrative like we do. They don't have to avoid calling out what they see as bad or find what we see as good.
That certain topics can't be discussed because they disappear from view is a defining characteristic of Hacker News. But on Hacker News it has always been justified by it not being moderation. "It was flagged by users" is the common explanation. But for someone coming from the outside, that isn't blinded by internal politics, it doesn't really matter as the result is the same. The same is true of other dogmas or faux pas. For their perspective to be damaging it has to go beyond valuing different things.
The other reason I have a bit of a hard time seeing it as judgemental is because they provided a lot of space for other perspectives (and even link to discussions). And those perspective seems consistent with the different positions. The article for example does not only address your perspective on the moderation, but conclude with it. They specifically and at length talk about the style of moderation and mention things like dead comments. You might even say it is the entire premise of the article.
> That certain topics can't be discussed because they disappear from view is a defining characteristic of Hacker News
What topics are those? When I hear claims like this, it usually turns out to be a topic that gets plenty of discussion on HN—just not as much as someone feels it should. It never feels like one's favorite topic gets discussed enough (see https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... for why), but that's not "it can't be discussed".
> But on Hacker News it has always been justified by it not being moderation.
We answer questions about moderation all day. When asked what happened to a submission, we say what happened. If users flagged it we say users flagged it. If we moderated it we say we moderated it. How do you get from that to something sinister?
> "It was flagged by users" is the common explanation.
I do not mind particularly if someone writes something from a different perspective, and I don't think I would have minded if that were so. The problem I have is that different perspective appears to be due to negativity bias, to be more explicit than my first comment. I say that because the bad bits (like sexist, racist comments) you point out are given more emphasis whereas in reality they are a fringe of the comments that occur and are, as I said, generally dead, meaning they aren't at all representative. That said, I don't know how their audience being different (New Yorker readers?) plays into that, you should seek to best inform your audience whoever they are, not potentially mislead them with a biased sample of a community.
Finally, I agree with your last sentences. sctb and dang are painted in the best possible light throughout apart from the paragraph of the author's expectations. I perhaps was much too mild with my praise at the end of my comment; I did find those parts important and interesting; I don't think I've ever heard of a moderator invoking actual philosophy in their methods of dealing with users. I still believe even if that was the conclusion of the article (the gallant mods fighting the hordes of tech bro sexists), the premise is still flawed because of what I've addressed above, the sexists, racists, etc are a minority contingent, just like there are in most of the popular forums on the internet.
That's a nice way to put it. I'd have said it was a way of coloring the audiences' initial impression of the information with the journalist's own racist and sexist views.
Edit: And, I'd agree that it is a common practice in journalism these days.
I do think it is an underappreciated point, but also arguably why politics should be part of discussions. Not having to talk politics is really something that is earned. It is when you have a solid enough foundation to your field or profession that you feel secure enough in to not have to address it. In computing or software, we don't really have that. So people run out of vocabulary rather quickly, ending up in arguments like nationalism or free speech because there often isn't an intermediate layer of something like regulation or duty that you can be discussed by everyone. That is ultimately more a factor of the "everything goes" attitude, because if "everything goes" everything is also relevant to the discussion.
In defense of the article, what you are talking about is a different story more "finding the Internet and programming" that isn't really unique to Hacker News. It can surely be used that way, and people likely do, but you can also find those things by searching for "top programming books" (or hanging around twitter, quora, medium or other sites). They did sort of talk about that with the early motivations for Hacker News. And you could absolutely go to a music festival and write about the food trucks, the people and the atmosphere that if that is what unique about that festival. I think they did a good job in that regard. People don't obsessively read Hacker News to help newcomers, they do so because it is all in all a technical tabloid.
I don't see HN as an intro course to programming, but more of like that older kid on the block who you notice is listening to bob dylan, and then you try again, you start to get past that nasally voice, really listening to the lyrics this time, and now you're turned on to a whole world of good music.
Sure. I should clarify that I didn't mean "lmgtfy". There are five to ten books that covers things most programmers won't learn by practicing and therefor will uncover most of the mystery experienced by self-taught programmers. There is no need to listening really hard to the lyrics when you can learn how to play. You just need to go and read material that actually covers how to design programs, rather than are about "learning programming". And you will literally find those books about algorithms, design patterns, workflow, refactoring and whatever else by searching for "top programming books". Or in discussion on most platforms. I don't think it is as esoteric as you think.
I don't really see it though. The article seems pretty clear on what kind of discussion they think is unproductive. One can argue whether text is data, but it still has structure and meaning. When they say "ill-advised citation" or "logic, applied narrowly, is used to justify" that is what they are arguing.
You own argument seem much more a moral one though. For one it doesn't even say what you said it says. For example:
> accusing HN commenters [...] abusing unreliable tools like "data" and "logic" to counter "humane arguments"
Actually says:
> humane arguments are dismissed as emotional or irrational
It doesn't say that human arguments are countered with data or logic. That statement is never made. It doesn't imply it either. If it was to be read as implied it would still be logic and data used in incorrect ways. So it seems hard to favor data if you don't even look at the text at hand.
Instead you seem to pretty much make a "slippery slope" argument, which if not outright is at least close to a moral argument. That questioning data dismisses the role of data, and that this leads to anti-intellectualism. Therefor we shouldn't question data in this way. That is, they are morally wrong to do it. Instead of the less moral argument that misuse of data is what leads to people questioning it.
You also back this up with all kinds of appeal to emotion from it being "a smug, flowery dismissal" to "basically saying I wish these annoying nerds would stop thinking". I don't see that reading as factual. If anything the article seems to argue that people should start thinking. One could argue that their reasoning for why people isn't thinking is incorrect, but that doesn't change the actual meaning in relation to thinking (that they think people should be thinking more). So again you are not arguing the text, but your moral conclusion from the text.
The more critical reading of your comments would simply be that you don't see the problem with data and therefor you don't understand the article's concerns nor the problems with your own comments. Which is pretty much what the article argues people don't do after observing this very forum.
I have a hard time even reconciling your one sentence in this comment. Because you are essentially saying that you rather have flawed data than a humane or morally superior argument. But that again seems very much in itself like a morally superior argument. It rests on that data is always better than a humane argument. Even when incorrect, and potentially more incorrect, than a humane argument.
I saw parent commenter as making an epistemological argument rather than a moral one.
There are two fundamentally different sources of truth: ethical consensus and physical data.
They are ultimately incompatible, in that only a single option can be your ultimate source of truth. Albeit other(s) can be valued to some degree.
The issue they took, and I would take too, with that portion of the New Yorker article is that it attacks the idea of physical data as a valid, supreme source of truth.
Consequently, the rhetorical paraphrasing of the passage into the comment dismissing nerds seems on point.
Objectively, the humanities has a poor track record of getting pissy and taking cheap shots at science as a viable supreme source of knowledge.
> The issue they took, and I would take too, with that portion of the New Yorker article is that it attacks the idea of physical data as a valid, supreme source of truth.
But I doesn't say that. Throughout the paragraph the emphasis is on the recklessness.
"hyperrational, dispassionate, contrarian, authoritative—often masks a deeper _recklessness_"
"_Ill-advised_ citations"
"_thought_ experiments"
"logic, applied _narrowly_, is used to _justify_"
"data, but the _origins_, _veracity_, and _malleability_ of those data [...]"
And that is also in line with the conclusion that "message-board intellectualism that might once have impressed V.C. observers like Graham has developed into an intellectual style all its own" and "can find themselves immersed in conversations that resemble the output of duelling Markov bots". The critique here is essentially that people don't have scientific literacy.
That people on hacker news think they can be rational, dispassionate and authoritative but that their recklessness with citations, logic and data (and their dismissal of other arguments) suggests they can't.
That is the argument.
All of this is questioning the substance of the arguments made, not the substance of such arguments made correctly. The entire point is that they aren't made correctly. You might even read the paragraph as acknowledging that it once worked, when it impressed observers.
> Consequently, the rhetorical paraphrasing of the passage into the comment dismissing nerds seems on point.
You can argue anything you want, but the argument here was made from a basis of facts. If the commentator wants to concede that their argument isn't based on the text itself, then they and you might have a point. But instead the rest of the argument isn't very believable. Which is the logic behind my argument in the first place.
> Objectively, the humanities has a poor track record of getting pissy and taking cheap shots at science as a viable supreme source of knowledge.
Again not relevant to the facts at hand. Especially since again they aren't making those statement. Otherwise we can bring anything into the discussion, from nationality to sat scores.
At what point in the article does it state that well-executed, fact-supported, scientific arguments are a superior (or even valid) form of policy debate?
That isn't relevant either. I never said it did nor does any of my arguments rest on that. You and "cloakandswagger" are making claims that aren't supported by article, which I have addressed, and should back those up to have an argument.
This is exactly why fact based discussions not only don't work, but don't happen on hacker news. Because you can just say something different. And that is how it always is. Someone posts a citation and someone else goes out of their way to debunk it. Then they just say something else. Next time no one bothers. Because the point isn't to have a fact based discussion, but to not be questioned on an already existing view. And that is what the article correctly caught on to.
So you decline to provide evidence that the article positively
> state[s] that well-executed, fact-supported, scientific arguments are a superior (or even valid) form of policy debate
We both agree that the article goes on at length about the recklessness of fact-based arguments on HN.
Furthermore, I point to two direct quotes that I characterize as anti-fact and elevating non-factual or (debatably in the case of the latter) semi-factual methods of discussion to the same level as fact-based discussion.
You decline to provide evidence rebutting those two points, and instead cite the "emphasis" of the surrounding paragraph as a reason those two points should be ignored.
The argument appears to be that we need more emotion and intuition, and less facts and data. It's absurd, and quite scary. I have never made a good decision while in an emotional state, and my father warned me about doing so in my teens; though he was too subtle for me to get the point being made.
Still, I react to extremist rhetoric on HN with vitriol that is often unhelpful. During Obama's admin, I was actively flagging political content, and the extremist stuff was kept at bay. We were also calling out FB and Zynga/ Farmville and their dark patterns, not calling for government action, but personal discipline to stay away.
> ... it [the cited paragraph] attacks the idea of physical data as a valid, supreme source of truth.
No, it does not.
It attacks the idea of using glib, incomplete, or poorly examined "facts" as the basis for a valid argument.
If you want to say that poorly vetted "facts" are a basis for "supreme truth" and, further, that you can only choose that or else some kind of mushy ethical considerations... that's your prerogative, but you're wrong.
] "humane arguments are dismissed as emotional or irrational. Logic, applied narrowly, is used to justify broad moral positions."
Those two points can't be construed any other way than as anti-intellectual. They were cheap shots, and the author should have known they were a cheap shots.
That those points are somewhat incongruous with the subsequent assertion and surrounding piece doesn't mean they're any less anti-intellectual.
] "The most admired arguments are made with data, but the origins, veracity, and malleability of those data tend to be ancillary concerns."
And indeed, I'd say that prefacing the immediately above (defensible) with the prior claims (indefensible) is the reason this entire comment thread exists.
The author could have made a much stronger argument about poor citation and fact checking, but they instead chose to include what feels like knee-jerk humanities logic horror, substantially muddying their point.
That seems like a huge straw man. What they say is that people use data improperly on Hacker News, which is also my experience. Very frequently things like papers posted as supporting evidence don't really support the posters position. Sometimes they don't say even remotely what the poster thinks. But that takes time to figure it out, at that point it has already fulfilled its purpose and people don't care anymore.
The structure of Hacker News just makes it very favorable to muddy the waters until the story disappears. And I think they correctly call that out in the article.
This is exactly what I've seen here. I've had to read through reports and papers people have cited to see whether or not the paper supported what they were arguing. Or sometimes, people would link to incredibly biased sources whom bury the lede of the stories they cite which in turn only tangentially support what they said.
Isn't that still an improvement over the alternative though?
If the fundamental nature of short-duration comment consumption is antithetical to fact checking, that's certainly a problem.
But it's still superior to uncited points, as it is ultimately verifiable.
In a choice between the two, I'll take the ill (claims appearing more supported than they are) for the good (inculcating a culture of transparent citation).
I'd honestly argue that it can be worse. If someone cites a claim with a bogus citation and no one chooses to challenge it, then that becomes something that's not just an opinion, but something that's viewed to be scientific fact.
For example have you ever been in an argument where you recall reading a paper or statistic, but don't have it on hand? What if that statistic was a false correlation drummed up by a highly politicized thinktank?
This is why it's so important to not leave potentially misleading or outright wrong citations unchallenged. This is sort of how the 'vaccines cause autism' claims can quickly spiral out of control. It requires people to behave earnestly and not mislead with their citations.
> but something that's viewed to be scientific fact.
By who? Do you seriously read an HN comment that states something you didn't already know with a citation you don't bother to click and then just go forward assuming it's scientific fact?
I don't even take publications themselves as scientific facts until they have been reliably reproduced or provide ample evidence.
The difference I'd point to, in aggregate, is the falsifiability of cited claims.
I can make a claim without a citation, or attribute it to "some article I read awhile ago". No one can verify my original claim. Someone may attempt to dig up another citation refuting it, or find a suspect source making my claim, but these are inefficient ways of fact checking. And if I wanted to be a dick, I could claim that wasn't what I was talking about / my original source.
I can also cite my claim. In this case, 99% may accept it at face value, but 1% may fact check my citation and loudly pronounce it doesn't conclude what I said it did. The 99% then gain the benefit of an erroneous report.
