RFC: Blanking all Wikipedia as SOPA protest - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Request_for_Comment:_SOPA_and_a_strike <comment><USER2> Here is what I recommend:

Facebook, google, youtube and wikipedia should take down their sites and replace them with a message about SOPA all on the same day. But it shouldn't end there. They should also personally attack each of the original progenators in the Senate/House of the bill. Their political careers need to end that day.

It's not enough to simply stop this bill. If they do, another will be enacted pretty soon with pretty much the same problems. Politicians need to understand that if they take on the internet and choose record labels over their own constituents they cannot expect support from their own political base.

<comment><USER3> I believe this is what they call "raising the stakes" and the consequences of this may not be what you want/expect. In fact, taking such an aggressive move may hasten the very thing you're trying to prevent.

Let me elaborate. Right now most politicians in the US are pretty out of touch with the Internet, that much we can all agree on. They hear that it's powerful, and they have young staff members saying how the Facebooks and the Twitters are necessary nowadays, but it's easy for the regular politician to not really buy into the hype. Despite that politicians (and nefarious people in influential positions) aren't really happy with the Internet and the whole open thing. Which is precisely why we're getting SOPA. Now, US politician attacks have thus far been limited media copyright and piracy, dabbling a little bit into privacy with the Facebook stuff. These are easy targets.

Now, if these sites take this kind of action, and has the kind of effect that you want - namely kicking these politicians out - you don't think every other politician is going to learn a very big lesson. And I'd hope that we plebes have also learned a lesson. When politicians/people in power have a "threat" that they are actually vulnerable to, they don't respect it and learn to co- exist. Instead they try to destroy, co-op, or otherwise remove it as a threat.

Maybe I'm being cynical/pessimistic, but given the history of humanity and the way people in power behave, I think I have reason to be.

<comment><USER4> Actually, I think you're on to something, but I would go farther. Politicians are not just out of touch with the Internet, they are governing a country that is rapidly ceasing to exist outside the walls of their debating chambers. They do not have control so much as complacency of much of the public, and they seem more than willing to do away with the reality that does exist before letting it supplant the fantasy in which they continue to govern.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There seems to be a lot of sentiment that Wikipedia should stay out of politics. This is not a maintainable stance. In the vein of the oft quoted "First they came..." (which has it's own wiki page, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6>), sites like Wikipedia cannot ignore a law like SOPA and have to make their position heard. Wikipedia is not sticking their nose where it doesn't belong, politics have come to them pitchforks and torches in hand.

Do it. Paint it black.

<comment><USER6> As a 501(c)3, the Wikimedia Foundation is legally required to stay out of politics, and has limits on how it can lobby Congress on specific pieces of legislation. This is why, for example, the Sierra Club is not a 501(c)3.

Changing Wikipedia, and tying it to a specific bill like SOPA, would likely tread very closely to that line, or over it. That really WOULD threaten the future of Wikipedia as it would face legal sanctions, or be forced to give up its 501(c)3 status, meaning that donations would no longer be tax-deductible.

<comment><USER7> IANAL (particularly a tax attorney), so no-one — least of all the Wikimedia Foundation — should be taking my advice on this, but it was my understanding that the rules surrounding 501(c)(3) organizations and political action had more to do with endorsing for or against _candidates_ than taking overt positions on specific issues.

For example, from a 2007 IRS ruling on the subject: "Section 501(c)(3) organizations may take positions on public policy issues, including issues that divide candidates in an election for public office. However, section 501(c)(3) organizations must avoid any issue advocacy that functions as political campaign intervention." [1]

Further details in the referenced ruling suggest that if WM were to make reference to specific legislators and their respective positions, for or against SOPA, and thus even _implying_ that WM wanted you to vote one way or another for those candidates, they'd have crossed the line.

Simply saying, "We don't like SOPA. Here's why it's the worst bill since the Let's All Grind Up Babies For Pet Food Act of 1887..." OTOH, seems to be kosher, per my reading on the subject.

[1] <http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-07-41.pdf>

(EDIT: clarification.)

<comment><USER8> I'm pretty sure you're correct. I've worked with a number of 501(c)(3), and most of them have worked on political issues and bills. They cannot endorse a candidate though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think that's a great idea. The vast majority of people do nothing until it hits them personally, that's why there's so much apathy. Cut Wikipedia for a week, something used by so many people, and then normal people will start caring. Show Americans what it can look like to be behind a firewall by having many popular sites blank out for a week, and by the end of the week the whole country will be in an uproar.

There's nothing more powerful to make people move and contact their representatives than blocking them from their farmville, celebrity news, homework help (wikipedia) and so on.

<comment><USER10> Agreed.

If Wikipedia is locked out for a week, it will make mainstream international news in no time flat.

I think it needs to happen.

<comment><USER11> I don't think the mainstream news media cares about Wikipedia. Plus, the site's process and product are a direct challenge to the legacy news oligarchy.

<comment><USER12> Eh, I would say (sadly) that the mainstream news media practically depends on Wikipedia to fill in background info for half of their stories. Gaffes by TV reporters have occasionally been traced back to Wikipedia vandalism. Sometimes Wikipedians then cite the misguided journalist(s) when adding the falsehood into the article [1], a circular phenomenon of "fact-creation" that has been lampooned by xkcd [2].

[1] [http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/02/10/2211220/false- fact-o...](http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/02/10/2211220/false-fact-on- wikipedia-proves-itself)

[2] <http://xkcd.com/978/>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> \-- My thoughts as posted in the other thread: --

 _SOPA is awful, but political neutrality is an important principle._

When a law threatens the existence of your organization as we know it, what else are you supposed to do? Would you rather have:

a) a completely politically neutral organization that has silently been neutered such that it cannot fulfill its mission

b) a mostly politically neutral organization that only expresses political views when the issue directly impacts their ability to fulfill their mission

 _The readers will be able to figure out the right position, for their own interests._

I don't think the problem here is whether people would be able to make up their mind if they had all the facts. The problem is that this issue has not received enough media attention and as a result very few people are even aware of it, let alone aware of its repercussions.

National media outlets certainly have a reason to avoid coverage of this issue since most of their parent companies support this legislation.

<comment><USER14> Yeah, neutrality is only possible if Wikipedia, and the Wikipedia Foundation, hosts itself in a nation which isn't going to be controlled by legislation that will affect it.

Even if it did, the domain seizures by the US means that Wikipedia is always going to be vulnerable for as long as the US owns the root DNS zone.

You can only be neutral until you're the one getting beat on.

<comment><USER15> But if there was hypothetically a law that was good for wikipedia and bad for the people in general, then should they just keep quiet? I'll protest because it impacts me isn't such a viable strategy. You either protest everything that is "wrong" from some view point or you protest nothing. And this is where we get on the slippery slope.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I find it interesting that many of the commenters would rather see legislation passed that could harm Wikipedia than see the site "politicized" in any way.

I definitely understand the sentiment, but I think there's a big difference between simply taking a political stance for the sake of it and fighting to make sure your non-profit organization is legally allowed to survive and continue operations as it has.

<comment><USER17> > _I find it interesting that many of the commenters would rather see > legislation passed that could harm Wikipedia than see the site "politicized" > in any way._

That's a false choice. Many of the commenters would rather _take the small chance that a Wikipedia protest could have been the deciding factor preventing SOPA_ than see the site politicized.

FWIW, I agree with them, and certainly one factor which weighs into my decision is that in my opinion the chance that Wikipedia would be the deciding factor is, say, less than 1%.

<comment><USER18> A Wikipedia protest would be a _huge_ factor. It would put a recognizable face on the potential consequences of SOPA, whereas now it's kind of vague what's at stake to most people. Opposition to SOPA would go from "A majority of geeks" to "A majority of the Internet-using population," which is a few orders of magnitude. I don't see how you could doubt any of this. Since the effect would be massive — definitely beyond any politician's ability to ignore — there are only two situations in which it is unlikely to be a deciding factor:

1\. SOPA will inevitably fail even without Wikipedia's help, so it's not even worth worrying about SOPA

2\. SOPA literally cannot be defeated

<comment><USER17> I'm glad you stated that argument, because it's kind of what I suspect a lot of people think so it gives me something to attack ;).

My specific concerns are:

a. I think politicians _can_ ignore something that "a majority of the Internet-using population" knows. As long as the "mainstream" media (i.e. television) chooses not to pick it up, the politicians won't be forced to answer for themselves.

b. If there is opposition to SOPA, either the public media spin will be controlled by politicians announcing that the draft law has been modified "in response to" the concerns/opposition/protests, or "SOPA" will be defeated but the powers that want it passed will regroup and send it through again next year under a different name.

c. If there's room to argue that Wikipedia is exaggerating the threat, then that is what will be publicly argued when this story breaks. This might not turn out so positively for Wikipedia (or negatively for SOPA): after all, which side has more experience and resources to put towards controlling the public debate? And that's before we consider the possibility that someone will seriously suggest that it would be _better_ for Wikipedia to be censored.

Don't read (b), in particular, as defeatism: I understand that this is a war and that we have to fight the current battle as well as future ones. I claim only that in the cost–benefit analysis, the utility of defeating this particular incarnation should not be approximated by the utility of being free from SOPA-like law for ever.

<comment><USER19> a. I disagree, but this is speculation on my part. For instance, I think an issue can gain sufficient public attention without television coverage. In addition, I think a Wikipedia blackout would in fact garner a not- inconsiderable amount of mainstream coverage.

b. The cost-benefit is highly skewed towards immediate action. It is highly likely that some incarnation and/or descendant of SOPA will eventually become law. However, it's critical that SOPA does not. If publicly defeated, future versions will be less ambitious and more rational.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> SOPA is going down. I think it is obvious. I also think it is quite obvious that it was _meant_ to go down by its creators. The open question now is what part of SOPA will be reintroduced later.

\--

This is a trivial tactic based on the idea of _anchoring_. Say, one wants to pass an unpopular piece of legislation. He would then introduce something that is 5x as bad (an anchor), let the public take it down, and then reintroduce a (what now seems a much milder) version. Sure, the public may take an issue with it too, but it won't be as unified and uproarious. The public had their win, they prevailed, and they are simply bored to fight the same fight all over again.

<comment><USER21> Which, as others have said, is why the black banner or page should target the Senators behind the legislation, not just the legislation itself. The Overton Window needs to be slammed shut on their fingers.

<comment><USER22> I was unsure who the Senators were, and had to look it up on Wikipedia. Here is the relevant section: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#Supporte...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#Supporters)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I wonder if it would also make a difference if Google arranged to censor all of the supporting members of the House and Senate. It shouldn't take long for at least their aides to get the message in a particularly realistic way. For my .02 worth, I'd leave the 'switch' on for good, but I'm old and vindictive :)

<comment><USER24> Wouldn't that run counter to Google's point about how hard / difficult it is to censor specific sites?

<comment><USER25> Suppose they just blocked access entirely to all publicly known IP blocks used by congress members and buildings?

That wouldn't be the same sort of technical challenge as SOPA would pose, but would drive home the point pretty well.

<comment><USER24> This is an interesting idea, insofar as it falls generally in line with one of the potential effects of SOPA enforcement.

But perhaps more interestingly: because people would still have a job to do, they'd use Bing or something else, which would hopefully demonstrate to Washington just how circumventable the legislation is.

<comment><USER25> Quite so, that's a great point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I'm surprised by how torn the community appears to be - after their success in Italy, I would have expected stronger support for such a proposal. Is there a tally somewhere on that page? My rough reading is that supports outnumber opposes, but not by much.

I'm heartened that they're considering it. I certainly think it's worth trying.

<comment><USER27> I can't find a tally on the page, but a quick Perl tally suggests "support" is getting ~75% of the votes.

<comment><USER28> It won't have a tally, as this is just a straw poll and not any sort of official !vote on the matter. Jimbo's floating the idea on his talkpage to guage the community's reaction to it and get some ideas for what he should say to lawmakers when he meets them.

If it seems like the motion has legs, then either Jimbo or someone else will create an actual RfC where the community will hash out a plan to enact it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Adopting a silent stance is still a political stance of abstaining.

Frankly, Wikipedia organisation has every right to protest if it means long- term problems with SOPA compared to maintaining the reputation of being neutral.

Surely, a Wikipedia editor can point out projected costs and article effects with the SOPA compared to losing some article experts/editors from having a less neutral reputation. Much less emotion through the evidence route.

</comment><comment><USER30> I thoroughly respect the stance that Wikipedia should remain politically neutral, but when there's legislation that _threatens your existence_ , it's the right time to get act on it.

"Blanking" Wikipedia uses the Wikimedia Foundation platform to make a statement to educate the public about an issue that threatens to kill the Wikimedia Foundation (and Wikipedia, by extension), and thereby to enlist help in keeping the site alive. This is functionally no different from the Jimbo Wales Annual Stare-Into-Your-Soul-Until-You-Donate funding drive, except that then, the issue threatening Wikipedia is money rather than legislation. This is not Wikipedia taking a political stance on an issue just to take a stance; it is Wikipedia trying to educate the public about and beg for help regarding an issue that threatens Wikipedia's existence.

If Congress introduced a "Make Wikipedia Illegal" bill, would it be wrong or "politicization" for Wikimedia to attempt to defend their existence by making an emergency call-to-education to the public?

</comment><comment><USER31> I understand why Wikipedia wants to editorially remain unbiased. That said, they have a huge ad on top to raise money to stay in business. I don't this action any different than brining to attention laws that could harm Wikipedia.

This is a simple darwinian situation. Entities that can defend themselves survive and those that can't vanish in time.

</comment><comment><USER32> Here were my thoughts:

"You are trying to send a message that the SOPA is crossing the line for the internet, because it gives too much power to corporations to shut down websites and cut off their funding -- even if Wikipedia is unlikely to be among them. Shutting down wikipedia can _illustrate_ this, but consider the consequences. First of all, Wikipedia content is replicated elsewhere, so people would be able to get at least a recent copy of Wikipedia articles somewhere. But before you take such an action, consider when you will "pull your troops out". Certain countries have started "military campaigns" due to a very controversial reading of their constitution (ahem, [[8]]) , and it always became unclear when to pull out. I am worried that if Wikipedia goes down this road, it will likewise be unclear when to revert back. Suppose the SOPA is passed anyway. Will Wikipedia voluntarily be its first casualty? In that case, be aware that your attempt at a protest may very well get Wikipedia permanently removed from the internet. If you are supporting this action, please explain below what it will take for Wikipedia to go back online, or else why you think it is OK for Wikipedia to never reopen for business as a result of this brinksmanship. I would oppose because if we all know Wikipedia will be back whether or not SOPA passes, then it's not a credible threat at all, merely a protest -- which at the end of the day is worth shutting down the site. "

<comment><USER33> Thats a good point. What if, instead of shutting down completely, wikipedia shuts down for just one day every week (say, each Monday). That way, people will continue using the site most of the time, instead of adapting by switching to some other source (like a website of replicated content), and hence the periodic loss of access will continue to be noticed. Moreover, in the event that the bill passes, wikipedia can comfortably continue protesting, without permanently shutting down.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Facebook and Google (or YouTube) might be the only other internet powerhouses with enough traction to successfully pull something like this off. I hope they take a stand. It is an awful bill with awful consequences.

<comment><USER35> I can't say I'd mind youtube getting shut down for a day...

It'd be comical though when a study puts a value to the U.S. productivity increase when youtube videos are an inaccessible distraction.

Some of those videos have sucked up millions of man-hours of viewing... if even a single digit percent of those views were by workers procrastinating, we're talking millions in lost productivity. (Per clip!)

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Too bad WOW didn't purpose this instead. I'd wager millions of angry, hair- pulling, screaming 13 year-olds are a lot louder than all of America's partially inconvenienced adults.

<comment><USER37> "It is easy to dismiss video games as pointless activities that only teenagers indulge in. The truth is that the average age of MMORPG players is around 26. In fact, only 25% of MMORPG players are teenagers. About 50% of MMORPG players work full-time. About 36% of players are married, and 22% have children. So the MMORPG demographic is fairly diverse, including high-school students, college students, early professionals, middle-aged home-makers, as well as retirees. In other words, MMORPGs do not only appeal to a youth subculture."

<http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/gateway_demographics.html>

<comment><USER36> I'm fully aware. That wasn't the point I was emphasizing, though!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Imagine if all The Greats did this: Wikipedia, Google, Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, hell even 4chan.

80% of Internet traffic (just pulling that number out of thin air) blacked out? People will notice. People will care.

Wikipedia has the right idea and needs to kick this off. Then others need to follow suit.

</comment><comment><USER6> What a terrible idea; I can't think of a faster way to kill the public credibility of this open encyclopedia project.

</comment><comment><USER39> Perhaps someone here at HN can do what the RfC's opposing commenters repeatedly asked someone to do, but which no one (at least in the few hundred comments I read) actually did:

Explain how SOPA threatens the existence of Wikipedia. Show your work.

It's one thing to say "this situation is different! we're fighting for survival!" and another thing to argue it based on past real events and the actual contents of the bill.

There is a reason WP avoids political advocacy as a foundational principle, and it's not just to preserve their status as a charity.

</comment><comment><USER40> I'm torn. On the one hand, I strongly oppose SOPA, and I agree with most of the online protests I see of SOPA and PROTECT-IP.

On the other, Wikipedia prides itself on its neutrality; it is one of Wikipedia's selling points, that they (at least attempt, as much as a collaborative, anonymously edited encyclopedia can) to provide a neutral point of view, keep from giving undue weight to fringe viewpoints, don't allow themselves to be tempted into being non-neutral or appear non-neutral by offering advertising. Making a strong political statement that takes advantage of their popularity would move away from this neutral stance.

On the gripping hand, this is something that would impact Wikipedia directly. Wikipedia would instantly become much more liable for any problematic content posted by users. They would likely have to change their editing policies, add domain blacklists to avoid linking to verboten domains. Many sources of information that Wikipedia editors use and link to may be banned. SOPA is in direct opposition to the open and free dissemination of information that is Wikipedia's mission.

So, I don't really know. I wish there were a good answer here. But there really isn't.

<comment><USER41> I stand in a similar position to you; and am going to say something sappy here:

Perhaps even the neutral have to fight be allowed to remain neutral.

Censorship stands in the face of neutrality.

<comment><USER42> It's simpler than that. Even the most neutral body will be very much pro its own existence. If Wikipedia views SOPA as an existential threat, it is not inconsistent to oppose it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> There is no SOPA bill in my country, please don't block English Wikipedia from me. Unless you are willing to block enwiki for everyone incl. USA when some law somewhere threatens it, please don't do the same when a law threatens only USA.

I know the USA is big in the anglosphere, but please be a bit less USAcentric.

<comment><USER44> Wikipedia was created and is _hosted_ in the US, the Wikimedia Foundation is based in the US, Jimbo Wales is American, and I'd wager a large part of en.wp visitors and editors are American. Like it or not, Wikipedia itself is US- centric.

And though it may be besides the point, you know as well as I do that if SOPA happened to pass in the US it wouldn't be long before most Western countries had their own version too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> At the moment - just by doing a find 'support'/'oppose'; there are 161 'support's and 62 'opposes'

<comment><USER46> Really? When I quickly skimmed through, the supporters seemed to be in the absolute majority.

Well, it's a straw poll anyway, so they may or may not act according to it. Let's see.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> "He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." \- Martin Luther King, Jr.

SOPA is evil. We need to do everything we can to fight it. Wikipedia is one of a handful of sites who have the power to really make a difference.

I suggest that not Wikipedia, but blogs, community sites, even your business sites all have at least some temporary display against SOPA.

I only get ~15 visitors to my site per day.

That's still something to work with.

We must all support a temporary Wikipedia white out. Those who are opposed are blind and need to understand SOPA.

</comment><comment><USER48> While I agree taking a neutral stance is important for an organization like Wikipedia, it is imperative the world understands the impact SOPA will have. A majority of the people I know understand enough about SOPA to say, "I'm against that," but

(1) these people do not resemble your average American, and

(2) even they couldn't tell you much more than "it isn't good," or "it's what the entertainment biz wants."

People really need to understand SOPA. It needs to make headline news. This will push it there.

</comment><comment><USER49> This is very, very interesting. I'd like to point out that the situation is very similar to Asimov's Foundation. In the novel, the Encyclopedists where arguing whether they should stick to their scholar work on the Galactic Encyclopedia or become a very strong force in the history of mankind.

That decision has come to Wikipedia.

</comment><comment><USER50> I'd definitely like to see this happen.

I agree with a proper blackout that presents the use of some/most of the site, and a detailed reason about why it is happening and who's responsible in the senate/house/etc for the bill so people know not to vote for them.

If you do nothing, its too late. One day of no Facebook won't be so bad.

</comment><comment><USER11> If Wikipedia won't protest, a outside group (like Anonymous) could do the job for them with a week-long DoS. They could just peg the Wikipedia servers or use bots to continuously auto-wipe/censor random articles.

<comment><USER51> You know, that's a really brilliant middle-of-the-road solution.

And if someone at Wikimedia, you know, notices a DoS and just happens to have problems with their load balancer.. hey, it's not their fault - they stayed neutral!

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Frontpage of Wikipedia should be changed to:

"We're sorry. SOPA passed so we can no longer legally show you Wikipedia content. So long and thanks for all the fish."

</comment><comment><USER53> This seems pointless.. wikipedia pages will still be accessible via google cached pages. Also i think wiki should remain neutral in this matter.

<comment><USER46> The point isn't to not let anybody access the content, they just use it as a means to raise the awareness on an issue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Uh, hello, don't take sites down, just use the ad revenue to support the political opponents of the officials who support SOPA.

</comment><comment><USER55> If the law passes, Wikipedia will die. It's as simple as that. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.

<comment><USER56> That's alarmist hyperbole. Even if the worst form of SOPA passes...

• it's unlikely that it would be used against Wikipedia for fear of backlash – smaller sites have much more to fear

• the law could be struck down by the courts on 1st amendment grounds, or modified/repealed before any application to Wikipedia

• Wikipedia could move to another jurisdiction

• etc., etc., etc.

SOPA is bad, and should be voted down, and failing that should be struck down by the courts. There's lots of equally bad legislation in the USA and elsewhere, every year. The principle of neutrality lets Wikipedia keep doing its main job, year-in and year-out, without constant 'interrupts' generated by the ephemera of silly politics.

<comment><USER57> "it's unlikely that it would be used against Wikipedia for fear of backlash – smaller sites have much more to fear"

The _threat_ of use is often significantly worse than the use itself. Realistically, big sites like, say, Google are not going to get shut down for a violation of a silly Internet law; the backlash is too big. That doesn't stop Google from being one of the most zealous enforcers of legislation like COPPA or DMCA, because the cost of a lawsuit, when you have gigantic pockets that can be raided, is simply too large a risk for them to take.

Same with SOPA. No big company will ever be sued under SOPA. They simply won't provide platforms for user-generated content, and then the Internet as we know it ceases to exist.

(Same with startups: would _you_ start a company to fill that void if you _knew_ that the first thing that'd happen if you became popular was that you'd be sued for a potentially dream-ending sum of money?)

<comment><USER56> I agree completely and such chilling effects are more reasons why SOPA is bad for the web. But I was only listing why it's not, realistically, an existential threat for Wikipedia.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> not during college finals!

<comment><USER59> If the aim is to maximise news coverage, that would be the perfect time to do it.

<comment><USER60> But think of all the poor students forced to find original sources instead of just visiting Wikipedia!

Would be interesting to see the changes in grades for assignments due during a period when Wikipedia was unavailable.</comment></comment></comment>


Saving a Million People from a Cyclone - happy-go-lucky https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/03/world/asia/cyclone-fani-india-evacuations.html <comment><AUTHOR> I am a resident of Bhubaneswar, the capital city of Odisha, India . We are currently bearing the brunt of Cyclone Fani. The wind speed was phenomenal , comparable to the super cyclone of 1999.

Even after 48 hours the city is in dark.

But thanks to proactive steps of the govt agencies the casualty number is much less than that of '99s.

</comment><comment><USER2> Good to see this! In 2013, Cyclone Phailin had hit Odisha. Even then large scale casualties were averted owing to proper co-ordination between various Government agencies.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone_Phailin#Odisha](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone_Phailin#Odisha)

</comment><comment><USER3> >Government workers drafted lists of people in vulnerable houses, particularly the elderly and children.

This is particularly important to note given the current contention over the 2020 US Census. The administration desires that a "citizenship" section be added to the survey, in an environment where that same government has used these kinds of lists—those of DACA recipients and process-abiding individuals going to court for their immigration hearings—to conduct broad sweeps for deportation.

Failure to collect information as critical as "how many people live in a given area" weakens us in the face of disaster response. As climate change ensures we have more catastrophic events, racism at the very top of government ensures its ravages are felt by the most vulnerable.

<comment><USER4> The Census and Census takers have always worked on dealing with homeless, transient, and undocumented populations, and survey them regularly.

Trump's thing is about "asking the question".

<comment><USER3> "Asking the question" of undocumented people is not innocuous from a nazi- sympathizing administration[1] that has called that population "animals[2]."

1\. [https://www.vox.com/2019/4/26/18517980/trump-unite-the- right...](https://www.vox.com/2019/4/26/18517980/trump-unite-the-right-racism- defense-charlottesville)

2\. [https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-ol-enter-the-fray- about-t...](https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-ol-enter-the-fray-about-those- immigrants-trump-referred-to-1526569123-htmlstory.html)

<comment><USER4> No, I absolutely agree. That was my point, that asking that question is irrelevant from a "well, we need to know how many people are really here". The Census already does a good job of that, for a wide variety of populations.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


From 0 to 450k, an App Store Success Story - With Charts and Numbers - <AUTHOR> http://struct.ca/2010/the-story-so-far/# <comment><USER2> The most interesting thing to me is that the app sat in relative obscurity for 4 months before being featured by Apple, at which point sales exploded.

And judging by the App Store, being 'featured' only meant that the app icon was added to the New & Noteworthy section....not the giant banner you get for being App of the Week (currently Nike GPS) or Game of the Week (currently Cut the Rope)...unless I missed it earlier in the month?

<comment><USER3> I'd consider that "featured" because you touch the little "featured" spotlight icon in the bottom of the App Store to get to these apps.

I probably buy a game from these sections every week, or 2 weeks, but I almost never scour the store for hidden gems myself.

I think this section of the App Store is a HUGE draw for developers because it allows them to use their imagination when creating a new game and they still have an inkling of hope that they'll get noticed or featured.

In the Android Market however - if you create something awesome but original, you're pretty much doomed to obscurity unless you find some other marketing avenue to drive traffic to your game.

Or maybe by some miracle Google will feature you, but they have pretty limited space available for featured apps, and nobody seems to know how those are chosen.

<comment><USER2> That's a good point, actually. The way the App Store looks and feels on the iPhone itself is a lot different than the version on the iPad or in iTunes.

You get a lot more visibility being featured on the iPhone compared to the other two.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Note that the 450k download number is of the _free_ version of the game, Trainyard Express.

There is also an impressive sales graph for the paid version at the end of the post, suggesting that the game has been rather lucrative since the beginning of October: [http://struct.ca/wp- content/uploads/2010/10/TheWholeShebang....](http://struct.ca/wp- content/uploads/2010/10/TheWholeShebang.png)

<comment><USER5> The little bump at oct 2 is $240, so it looks like each major horiz line is 2k/day. It seems the day he posted this, it made just north of 9k/day.

<comment><USER6> Looks more like $1k per horizon line to me, but $4.5k/day is impressive nonetheless!

<comment><USER7> Hey this is Matt, without actually saying the total value, I'll just tell you that the horizon lines are $1.2k ;)

<comment><USER8> So that's a peak of about $4.7k.

<comment><USER9> No, i think peak value is 1.2k * 4.5 ~= $5.4k

<comment><USER8> Whoops, you're right. I'm guessing $5.6.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is certainly an inspiration for developers that want to take the time to make a quality game, instead of trying to "game" the app-store with submissions like iFart, etc.

</comment><comment><USER11> I was just reading about this article in relation to how the submission system works here at HN...

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1808884>

<comment><USER12> It's not just the title that was wrong: when I load the article, there is nothing compelling in the first 3 pages of text! It takes scrolling a lot before some useful data shows up here and there. No wonder it didn't get any upvotes the first time.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah when I first read it I thought the same, but you do have to admit that the title made all the difference in regards to exposure. I even think i could have made a better job of the title had I actually though about it more, but since this was only a little experiment to prove the importance of titles in HN I guess it proved a point ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is awesome. The story, I mean; unfortunately, I do not have an iOS device, which means I cannot play the game (I would if I could!). It gives me hope knowing that there are great success stories out there like this still. I know the chances are slim, but it's still really cool to hear these sorts of stories.

Congrats on the success of your game!

</comment><comment><USER14> "always release on a Thursday" - never heard that one before

<comment> brown9-2 Anyone care to speculate or enlighten the rest of us on where this pearl comes from?

<comment><USER15> Enlightenment not implied, but here's my retrospective theory:

      Sunday: few people looking to start something new, languish for a few days.
      Monday: it's *Monday*.
      Tuesday: Still beginning of the week, things are still being piled on
      Wednesday: nothing wrong with it
      Thursday: early adopters try, advantage of full Friday + an extra day of users before weekend
      Friday: people finish / wind down / have more free time to start things
      Saturday: In the swing of X, or looking to start X.

With an assumption that you will _always_ have early adopters any day of the week, at roughly level values (or increasing on Friday evening through Sunday).

My final take from that: Thursday gives you part of a day with early birds to find game-breakers ASAP, and Friday and Saturday are useful days to have early to boost your numbers at the start. You're also sure to get _all_ of Friday by starting on the day before. Wednesday gives little advantage over Thursday, but costs you another day before bug-fixing weekend / next week. And early week releases are, well, too close to Monday. Nobody likes that.

All of which is _wildly_ subjective, and is merely justification and not reason. But it makes some sense in this light (to me, at least).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I noticed the paid app was sold at varying times for $2.99, $1.99, and $0.99. Anyone have more information about the physiology/performance/trade-offs of those different prices?

Do $0.99 apps sell way more than other priced apps?

<comment><USER7> Trainyard was at $1.99 at launch and for a while after that. I figured it was a low introductory price, but not so low that I'd get careless users who wouldn't put any effort into the game and would just give it 1 star reviews, which was a bigger problem back a few months ago before Apple took out "rate- on-delete".

These days, I feel like there are less tangible disadvantages to the 99c price point, other than the fact that you make less per sale. There's still the issue that users are willing to put more effort into a product they pay more for, and will even go to further lengths to defend it, because they want to justify their purchase and their taste.

On the App Store, it all comes down to perceived risk. If a user is unsure about an app, they probably won't spend much more than 99c because they don't want to overspend on a dud. Once a user sees an app in Apple's "featured list" or has used the lite version of that app, they'll be much more willing to splurge on a higher price, because they know what they're getting.

For Trainyard, I felt that there was no longer a big difference between the $1.99 and $2.99 price points, because by the time a user arrived at the purchasing page, they already knew they wanted it.

All that being said, there is a _large_ contingent of users that seem to only buy apps at $0.99, but most of the time, your apps won't be visible to those users. The moment I reached the top 50, I knew I would have tons of that sort of user looking at Trainyard, so I did the price drop.

<comment><USER3> I went the opposite route in the Android Market. When the lite version of my game hit the top 20 in its category, I made a few nice updates, and I felt the full version earned its higher price (~$4). After making the change, the number of sales barely went down, but revenue went up.

But now you have me thinking. Are MORE people in the the $0.99-only crowd seeing my app, and are there enough of those people to make DROPPING the price more financially beneficial???

I suppose I could run a "sale", but once you start getting comfortable with a nice daily income, taking risks becomes harder and harder.

<comment><USER7> Yep, that was exactly my dilemma. I was making a huge amount of income, so it was a pretty big risk to drop the price, but I knew I would only have the opportunity during the week I was featured. It very well could have dropped and failed.

I'm not sure how the Android charts work, but in the App Store, it's ranked by units sold, not by profit. This is the _KEY_ thing that is crucial to how the market works. Even if I make LESS money than I did the day before, I will be higher up in the charts, which will get me more exposure, and eventually more sales. Going high in the App Store is all about upward momentum. The volume of sales doesn't change linearly with rank either, it's quite exponential.

<comment><USER3> So, if you get high up on the charts, do you plan to put the price back at $2.99 or stay/go back to $0.99 since everyday will be like you're featured?

<comment><USER17> Looking at Gamasutra ([http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/31045/Top_iPhone_Game_App...](http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/31045/Top_iPhone_Game_Apps_Trainyard_Cartoon_Wars_2_Debut_as_Big_Sellers.php)) it would appear that top-10 == $0.99. I'd guess this is because, as has been speculated here, there is an enormous number of people who are simply going to spend a maximum of $.99 on an iPhone game and that's that. Either you sell yours for $.99 or they'll find something else for that price. The evidence suggests to me that if you don't realize this, you'll simply be replaced in the top 10 by someone who does.

Of course, next week when a $9.99 game is in the top 10 I'll have to revise this opinion. :-)

<comment><USER7> Part of the reason is just because these are GREAT games that are all worth much more than 99c, but because of the fact that they are 99c, they're also fantastic value. Why would a user pay $2.99 for a fantastic game when they can get one for 99c?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I got Trainyard as soon as I got my iPod Touch recently just because of this post on HN. Actually, it was the first (and only, so far) game I've downloaded, just because of hearing about it here. Awesome game, and definitely something I think most hackers would like as it makes you think through the solutions. Great way to kill a few minutes between projects =D

BTW, just like PopCap does with their games, I think this one could live on a Ton of platforms ... including PCs/Macs. That'd get in the people without an iOS device...

</comment><comment><USER19> Well deserved success. It's an excellent game and I love seeing solo developers at the top of the charts!

</comment><comment><USER20> Your story is very inspirational and makes me want to get back to work on my simple game!

Are you looking to bring this to the Android market, and if you do, would you consider the 'free but with ads' style that is being offered by Angry Birds producer Rovio?

<comment><USER7> Yeah, absolutely. I've heard way too many stories about return policies and all that on Android, so I think I'd try to do the same thing they did. It really depends on the market at that point in time though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Trainyard express is showing #1 top free and Trainyard (full) is showing #2 for me. Trainyard is also featured #1.

I'm not much into games but curiosity got the better of me and Trainyard Express is downloading.

</comment><comment><USER22> I wonder if Matt is one of Toronto's "App Kings": <http://www.torontolife.com/magazine/2010/11/>

<comment><USER7> Nope. :)

<comment><USER22> too bad, sounds like you deserve it

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Great story.

BTW, your dreamhost account was able to handle 100K submissions? not bad!

<comment><USER7> 400k now. Yeah pretty crazy, I've almost used 40 gb of disk space, and if the traffic keeps up, it'll be a TB of submissions. That being said, it's also a bit unreliable and users often have connections fail when submitting, but it's really pretty solid. I've now switched to Dreamhost PS, so it's a little more expensive, just to make sure it's a bit more reliable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I just bought Trainyard to thank you for having written such an interesting blog post.

</comment><comment><USER25> Any examples of iPhone game developers who made a decent game but didn't make six figure downloads?

<comment><USER26> It depends on your definition of "decent", but I wouldn't be surprised if there are many. This very article would be an example, if the author had not decided to release a free version and the Italian press hadn't picked it up. Prior to that, the exact same game languished in obscurity.

<comment><USER7> Exactly, but all it takes is the right mention from the right influential person, and it can snowball. None of this would have worked if I hadn't made a good game though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> great breakdown, from start to finish</comment>


Lifecycle emails with KissMetrics - <AUTHOR> http://www.j-ro.me/kissmetrics-for-lifecycle-emails.html

<comment><USER2> I cannot believe there is not a complete solution for this. I mean user tracking AND lifecycle emails in one single easy to use package.

<comment><USER3> Mixpanel actually offers this service now: <http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/22/mixpanel-engage/>

I've used similar, standalone services and also built my own, but I'm excited to try Mixpanels' offering because it's already integrated into the tracking.

<comment><AUTHOR> My solution is probably 3-5 times cheaper though. It's actually free for me (KM via appsumo and Mandrill free tier)

<comment><USER4> mixpanel is free with a small badge link back

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Lifecycle emails are a great way to look, capture and trigger events for your attention and at the most appropriate time.

</comment><comment><USER6> Site seems to be over the traffic quota. Mirror?

<comment><AUTHOR> And we're back. Sorry for the issue, got caught by site44's late warning.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Or you could just use customer.io or klaviyo</comment>


315B-tonne iceberg breaks off Antarctica - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49885450 <comment><USER2> The critical portion of TFA for most readers. It's what popped in my mind when I clicked the link. I found it halfway down the article.

>..The Scripps researcher stressed that there was no link between this event and climate change. Satellite data since the 1990s has shown that Amery is roughly in balance with its surroundings, despite experiencing strong surface melt in summer.

"While there is much to be concerned about in Antarctica, there is no cause for alarm yet for this particular ice shelf," Prof Fricker added.</comment>


Incel, the misogynist ideology that inspired the deadly Toronto attack - <AUTHOR> https://www.vox.com/world/2018/4/25/17277496/incel-toronto-attack-alek-minassian <comment><USER2> > Beyond their shared frustration with not having sex, the incel community is > not monolithic. Many of them are simply sad and lonely men, suffering from > extreme social anxiety or deep depression.

Seems like most extremist communities can be described similarly. You have people in a very bad place, and then you expose them to an ideology where they're part of the "in" group instead of feeling like an outsider, effectively forming a social connection but in a profoundly negative way.

I think we, as a species, have always benefited from being part of a small community, be it a village, religion, or social club. Seems like large urban settings are socially isolating people, even if they're technically surrounded by people.

When I found myself in a similar place in my life, I found a community in WoW (as many others have), that too is unhealthy just to a lower degree.

<comment><USER3> > When I found myself in a similar place in my life, I found a community in > WoW (as many others have), that too is unhealthy just to a lower degree.

Ditto, though mine was due to depression and my subsequent withdrawal from pretty much everything else around me. I immersed myself in EverQuest and it quickly got to the point where I feel like it "ate my life".

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Disappointing that this was flagged, seems like an interesting topic for the HN community.

</comment><comment><USER5> Does this mean that if we legalize prostitution the incels will stop killing people? Seems reasonable and completely improbable that such a simple solution would ever be implemented.

<comment><USER6> If they're going to kill people you'd think the illegality of prostitution wouldn't be an impediment.

<comment><USER7> If their rage is a symptom of lackanookie then nookie may calm them. Hopefully legalizing it will be sufficient and we don't have to subsidize it.

<comment><USER6> But sex is available to them.

The problem isn't with "lack of sex", it's with "lack of puppets to fulfil their weird fantasies of what they think a woman is, vs what a woman actually is".

<comment><USER7> You can't banish scarcity by denying it. Fertile females have always been scarce. And that's a good thing, as it's a primary driver of evolution. Frustrated men will always be with us and will continue to take their pain out on everyone around them, sometimes tragically. This dynamic is a major force in history, e.g. incentivising more warfare by polygamist cultures.

Sexbots have the potential to change this, at an existential risk to our species.

Here's hoping that your own bubble of plentiful sexual partners is never burst.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-08/google-can-t-seem-to-tolerate-diversity <comment><USER2> What this whole episode really seems to show is how authoritarianism has crept into our lives and how incredibly difficult it is to resist it even amongst highly educated people.

I would wager that none of the people calling for this person to be personally ruined, expelled from society, terminated from their job and forever vilified as an outcast would view themselves as authoritarian.

Not the Tweeters shaking with anger and demanding for him to get fired.

Not the Ex-Google guy with his medium rant about how people would punch him in the face and he would understand.

Not the diversity officer reaffirming the commitment to diversity in a dystopian way.

It is scary, it really is. We have all grown up learning about regimes like this, we are all aware, yet seemingly nobody can help themselves.

<comment><USER3> _I would wager that none of the people calling for this person to be personally ruined, expelled from society, terminated from their job and forever vilified as an outcast ..._

Maybe some people are calling for stuff like that.

But that's not what Google's doing to him. Google's just saying: "You can't do that _here_."

<comment><USER4> That's kind of the point though.

Google is one of, if not the, biggest player in terms of information served over the internet. If they are willing to censor at this level, how far will they go to protect their public image and suppress discussion they don't agree with?

<comment><USER5> But Google isn't really "censor"-ing anyone.

Any more than I "censor" you if you come on to my property and refer to my daughter as the "c"-word. I mean... you can call my daughter whatever you like, I just don't allow you to do it in my house. That's not really censorship no matter how big the house is, that's just something that people should expect to happen. In fact... I think people should find it more strange if my daughter and I did NOT put you out of our house.

You can still call her whatever you like outside of our home. You're still free to do that.

<comment><USER4> I think it would be more like if your Son said "what if I called my sister a c-word" and you kicked him out of the house and cut him off completely.

I'm not saying you don't have the right to do that, or that in this example your son was right, I just think it would be an over-reaction and would create a chilling effect on your other children from asking questions or thinking about things differently.

<comment><USER3> From the context it sounds like you're talking about the actions of some hypothetical _teenage_ son, here.

Recall that the employee that was fired is an _adult_ (and apparently in his 30s, at least).

<comment><USER6> Yeah he ist talking about the hypthetical son, but obviously not because of the age but because of the relation. The point was rule through fear. (Siblings don't speak up anymore - coworkers don't speak up anymore)

Also yeah he had to bei in his 30th how else would he have gotten his phd? But like I said the age wasn't the point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > Media outlets like TechCrunch, Gizmodo and Motherboard jumped on board to > declare the memo an "Anti-Diversity Manifesto." It appears that the > ideological echo chamber extends beyond Google's campus.

As I look up and see this article flagged on HN (since unflagged).

The points and ideas from his memo may be wrong or they may be right (or anywhere in between) but more important than this incident has been the reaction to it. I don't understand the attempts at shutting down conversation about it. If you think he's wrong, you share your opinion and persuade others. You don't shut down the conversation and pretend the issues don't exist.

<comment><USER8> There have been several very active threads about this incident, the conversation has been mostly people talking past each other, the headline is inflammatory, and the article adds nothing new to the discussion.

<comment><USER7> If people want to talk about it, let them talk about it. If you don't want to read them talking about it, don't read them talking about it. It's weird hearing anyone claim we need less discussion and communication about anything. An unproductive conversation won't hurt anyone. If anything it'll teach everyone we are further apart on an issue than anyone thought and that maybe we need to step back and think about the issue more broadly.

<comment><USER9> > An unproductive conversation won't hurt anyone.

An unproductive conversation, becoming more hostile, can hurt the HN community. This is supposed to be a place for reasoned conversation. It's already difficult to maintain that. A raging flamewar won't help in that direction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Here, here. I'm a software engineer who happens to be a woman. Mr. Damore's piece didn't offend me at all. There were parts I agreed with and parts I didn't agree with. I'm more bothered by Google's response(s) which seemed to reveal an incredible lack of critical reading ability, and far more disturbed by the levels of harshly enforced group-think that seem to increasingly dominate supposedly intelligent circles.

<comment><USER11> _incredible lack of critical reading ability_

When factoring in all the egregiously false headlines, news stories, tweets, etc. about this I think what is really going on is not lack of critical reading ability, but rather some people's willingness to tell outright lies and willful misrepresentations when someone points out aspects of reality that these falsehood peddlers would prefer didn't exist for whatever reason.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The problem here is the people assuming "diversity" means actual diversity.

Just like "inclusiveness" or "safe space". They do not mean what most people unaware of the political use of these expressions mean. These expressions are politically loaded.

The confusion is orchestrated, on purpose, by the ideologues who redefined these words. Who can say he is against diversity? inclusiveness? safe-spaces, off course people want to be safe! these are positive words. Until you actually understand that a safe space isn't a physical safe space but a ideological safe space, where dissidence is prohibited.

For the "ignorant", they mean one thing, for the ideologues, they have a complete different meaning.

I too was completely fooled by the post-modernist double speak and engaged in the attack of the people who were against these "concepts", I too engaged in witch-hunts, before I truly understood how these words were politically loaded and didn't mean what I thought they meant. It is extremely subtle and cunning. Redefinition of words is an extremely effective and manipulative weapon.

People say, well, keep politics out of work and you'll be fine. But if the internal rules at work use expressions such as diversity, inclusiveness or safe-space, these are politically loaded at first place! your work environment IS adopting the intersectional ideological framework.

</comment><comment><USER13> What's more likely: the author was fired for suggesting alternate methods of improving diversity at Google or the author was fired for repeating unsupported gender stereotypes, offering alternate methods that themselves played on gender stereotypes, and creating an environment in which he would not be able to effectively carry out his responsibilities as a result of promoting gender stereotypes?

<comment><USER14> > unsupported

Did you only read the Gizmodo version that removed all the references?

Here's a copy with the references:

[https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...](https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles- Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf)

<comment><USER15> I don't see many references. I just see a lot of stereotyping with no citations at all. Eg:

> Women, on average, have more:

> ● Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women > generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, > relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing)

> ● Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, > higher agreeableness.

> ● Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).

A bit further down:

> Men's higher drive for status

> We always ask why we don't see women in top leadership positions, but we > never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often > require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a > balanced and fulfilling life.

Holy crap!

\- Edit below this line -

This is not expressing a different opinion based on facts, but pure stereotyping.

As a person who appreciates logic in arguments, I wouldn't like to work or have an argument with someone who presents his views of the world as axioms without data to support them.

<comment><USER16> Hey, from the original document (I have added the references for you):

\- Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things [1], relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing [2])

\- Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.

\- Neuroticism [3] (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).

Now what do you think about it, now you know the real references of the article?

[1] [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9004....](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x/abstract)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathizing%E2%80%93systemizin...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathizing%E2%80%93systemizing_theory)

[3] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism)

EDIT: noncoml I wanted to reply you (but I cann't I don't know why) and apologize because my comment sound like an attack when It wasn't my intention. I just wanted to provide the references and know your opinion. Take your time to check them.

<comment><USER15> > Now what do you think about it, now you know the real references of the > article?

I think that a quick dismissal is not appropriate, that it is the right basis for a discussion and would definitely like to take some time and look at the citations and how they tie up and support the arguments.

<comment><USER16> Now I can reply: I apologize because my comment sound like an attack when It wasn't my intention. I just wanted to provide the references and know your opinion. Take your time to check them.

<comment><USER9> For hot-button issues (or maybe just for heavily-commented articles?), HN sometimes limits the reply rate.

<comment><USER16> No I think the reason is that they keep flagging and unflagging the post. And when it is flagged you cannot comment anymore

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> "If the goal was to confirm Damore's thesis, Team Google is doing a great job."

Yes, indeed.

This is something we, as a culture, need to look at more carefully.

</comment><comment><USER18> Has he set Google up for this blowup or do Americans just usually have complaints to federal regulators written and ready to send?

 _Before being fired, Mr. Damore said, he had submitted a complaint to the National Labor Relations Board claiming that Google's upper management was "misrepresenting and shaming me in order to silence my complaints." He added that it was "illegal to retaliate" against an N.L.R.B. charge._

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/business/google-women- eng...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/business/google-women-engineer- fired-memo.html)

<comment><USER19> I think it's more likely that there's a history here that we're not aware of. His complaint suggests he's been arguing with Google's management for some time, and that this memo was the last straw.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> > "Companies don't have viewpoints."

They do. Not reacting would have been an endorsement. Many would want to think that these issues are apolitical, or scientific, or anything "neutral". They are not.

Make no mistake. This is a fight. A struggle between two visions of the world, maybe more. Such conflicts are not won over peaceful arguments. Sooner or later, one must take a stand, which is exactly what Google executives just did.

<comment><USER21> > Such conflicts are not won over peaceful arguments.

They are. At least that's how civilised societies would handle it. It could be a textbook example of a decision a civil discourse could approach.

<comment><USER22> But it's not civil when you suggest there's inherently biological reasons for your coworkers to be inferior to you.

<comment><USER4> But it is. Just because he holds one opinion does not mean that he will act on it, expect google to act on it, or cause harm because of it.

Ideas don't hurt people. People with no way to voice their ideas and opinions become angry, and then hurt other people.

<comment><USER22> Guessing you're not a minority in anyway. When others who aren't a member of your class tell you anything that's inherent to your class DOES hurt people... such ideas are often used to restrict what you can do or set you up for failure in society in a particular way because ideas spread. They also do a lot of internal self-harm just from being expressed by others.

It's bad enough to get that in life in general, but then to get it at work as well....

<comment><USER4> You know what they say about assuming things...

I get this is a sensitive topic, but don't try to discount my opinion by claiming I don't have the necessary experience or vantage point. You know nothing about me.

<comment><USER22> You asked for a substantive reply given the downvotes by others, and I gave you one. Are you going to reply to it or focus on the guess (which I called out as a guess... hardly an assumption).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Here is a link to the guy's original memo (with all his references that have been removed from much popular media coverage of its content): [https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...](https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles- Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf)

You should read it before you draw any conclusions. Although I don't necessarily agree with everything he says (and how he says it), he does make some interesting points in a way that I would hope can promote constructive discussion. I definitely don't think he should have been fired _just_ for the memo - maybe there is more to the story? - or maybe he shouldn't have been fired?

</comment><comment><USER16> I find it funny he was fired by "promoting gender stereotypes" when what he wants it to evaluate each individual without taking account any stereotype. And then Google has policies for increasing the minority diversity (like helping women to get in tech). Just the fact you have programs target for specific demographics supports the fact that there are "gender stereotypes". Not to mention all the analytics tools that split the population by gender.

I would find more helpful if companies have programs to increase the tolerance and respect inside the company. Because the problem of sexims or racism are not the women or the black people, the problem is the people with prejudices. Adding to the company people of minorities is useless if the internal culture is a shit. At some point they will leave the company. I think Google made a step in the wrong direction and promote a worse culture with this action. People now will not talk about issues afraid of getting fired, even when they do it with respect.

</comment><comment><USER24> Google is in a no-win situation here. Fire the guy - get these kind of reactions about not listening to opposing voices. Not fire the guy - incendiary reactions from the general public.

If Google had not fired the guy, a large majority of women (and men) in Google wouldn't want this guy (as brilliant as he may be) in their teams - that would create an unnecessarily hostile and uncomfortable workplace.

<comment><USER16> I think Google could have done things better. First, do not fire the guy the next day the article is in the public. Second, taking time and create a committee to evaluate the situation and decide the actions to take. Third, express in public they official opinion as a company and what they really do in the diversity programs (I still not sure if they have positive discrimination or/and just increase the pool of candidates from minorities). Forth, fire the guy or arrange any deal with him if that is what they have to do giving him an option to make clear any statement he did. I think the guy is intelligent enough to know the impact of the article he wrote and would leave the company by himself to avoid more internal conflicts even when a lot of people think he is right.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> It's hard to say things that can easily be misconstrued. The wage gap: guess what, women don't take high paying dangerous oil rigging jobs. Men suffer 90% of workplace deaths. Those deaths are high paying. It's unpopular, because it sucks, but it's true, so lets not tabloid-ize it.

The same people saying there is a wage gap are saying that every rich person is too greedy. So, if they're greedy and only care about money, why wouldn't they hire only women? They can pay women less and they only care about money. Are they saying that the only things ceos care about more than money is men? Doesn't add up.

This is a single issue, a single "one liner" that won't die. Remember the old story "if you flash your headlights at a certain gang, they'll follow you and shoot you". Sometimes lies are more viral than the truth. It's much easier to fool someone than convince them they've been fooled. It hurts to be told you were fooled, it feels fun to be a fool.

</comment><comment><USER26> I find it rather sad that, before writing this comment I had to reconsider what I wanted to say , because, as a young engineer, I am worried how my opinions will effect my job prospects.

When I am afraid to say what I believe, for fear or ramifications, it flies directly in the face of what Google and others profess to trying to do: 'create a work environment in which all people, regardless of political affliation, opinion, or creed feels safe.'

The worst part for me, is that many in the valley (particularly on university campuses like Stanford's) have used the disguise of promoting diversity to battle ideas they disagree with. There is not enough emphasis on diversity of ideas.

<comment><USER16> Too late. I already took an screen shot of your comment and will post it public tomorrow and they will fire you. (so sad this can be true for some of the people commenting here, I am even scared that my comments in this topic here can have consequences in the future).

young engineer, women, white, black,... we are all worried because of this event. The people who was scared to talk before now are not going to talk for sure.

</comment></comment><comment> grey-area _It's worth noting that the author has a Ph.D. in systems biology from Harvard University._

This footnote is incorrect according to Harvard he never completed a PhD.

</comment><comment><USER27> Is any organization of meaningful size (# of employees, revenue, market cap - pick your metric) handling diversity issues in a way that completely satisfies the "proportional representation of the population" metric? Are there any success stories that one could use as case studies?

<comment><USER11> _" proportional representation of the population" metric?_

Is there some reason the social disrupters only get all frothy mouthed about this in certain areas? Like shouldn't we spend much more time going after the NBA, Fishing, Logging, Elementary teachers, Nurses, etc. because these industries are far more out of "diversity balance."

Are people clamoring for a "proportional representation of the population" metric prepared to fire a whole lot of Asians and Jews at places like Facebook and Google in order to bring these populations more in line with their broader United States society proportions?

<comment><USER28> I think diversity is not exactly an end in and on itself, but a way to reduce general inequality. Increasing the number of woman in fishing, or logging, or coal mining is not going to have as much effect on the general economic/social power of women as doing the same on bigger, richer industries such as programming. As resources are limited, you want to be as efficient as possible and that will probably shift the focus away from industries that are not that influential. Of course the fact that they're not as attractive is also relevant, but it seems that being non-attractive and being less important are correlated features in an industry sector.

<comment><USER11> _I think diversity is not exactly an end in and on itself, but a way to reduce general inequality._

So it's basically a shakedown.

 _general economic /social power of women_

History and stats don't back up the image of women as some horribly oppressed group at least in western society.

And I am tired seeing this pitted as some kind of battle. The vast majority of people don't feel this way. Men and women are meant to, and do work together for their own mutual benefit and the benefit of succeeding generations.

And they work together in complementary ways, it is silly and destructive to think of the sexes as interchangeable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> This Bloomberg blog post doesn't add anything more to the discussion of what happened than would any >100 word comment, drawn at random from the biggest HN thread on this fiasco. All it's doing here is giving us a license to pointlessly recapitulate the same debate we had yesterday and the day before.

Stuff like this is what the flag button on the site is for.

<comment><USER30> The media, that before completely warped what the memo is saying, now reporting differently is interesting, relevant to HN and newsworthy, and not something we saw yesterday.

<comment><USER26> Absolutely seconded, this is the first article with this tone that I've seen

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Does no one see what's happening? This whole thing is a massive sign of progress. Men are deeply scared of an increasingly growing population of female developers. This is a pretty significant moment of anxiety and fear. That's good. It means there's change. It's no coincidence that more women are joining CS AP courses than ever before:

"HIGH-SCHOOL GIRLS ARE taking more Advanced Placement computer engineering exams than ever before, according to a new report from Code.org and the College Board. In 2017, largely thanks to a new test aimed at expanding the reach of engineering classes, female participation in these AP tests increased at a faster rate than young boys' participation on the exam in 2017."

Source: [https://www.wired.com/story/ap-computer- science-2017/](https://www.wired.com/story/ap-computer-science-2017/)

</comment><comment><USER32> I am surprised how big this 'manifesto' got. Is it really _that_ big of a deal that it a) got all the press that it got and b) that it required a personal condemnation from "Head of Diversity" and the CEO - who will now hold a town- hall to, I guess, denounce it even more?

The entire thing seems like a big nothing-burger from every side.

<comment><USER33> > I am surprised how big this 'manifesto' got. Is it really that big of a deal > that it

I'd guess that you feel that way because you're not affected by the issues discussed in the essay. I've been there myself, it takes a lot of time and effort to understand the real impact of something that doesn't impact yourself.

Also, please don't think that I'm judging you or saying that you're a bad person because of it. We all share the same difficulties, and that doesn't make us better or worse, just humans.

If I had a superpower, it would be making people see the world through other people's eyes.

<comment><USER32> >I'd guess that you feel that way because you're not affected by the issues discussed in the essay.

I don't work at Google, so I'm not.

The manifesto itself is controversial in that if you poll the plurality of the population or employees of Google on whether they agree with some or all of it, you won't have consensus, I'm sure of it.

>I've been there myself, it takes a lot of time and effort to understand the real impact of something that doesn't impact yourself.

Yeah, thanks for the condescension - just because I haven't reached the same conclusion must mean I haven't taken "time and effort to understand the real impact of something that doesn't impact yourself".

>Also, please don't think that I'm judging you or saying that you're a bad person because of it.

Uh huh.

>If I had a superpower, it would be making people see the world through other people's eyes.

Why don't you try making an effort sometime.

<comment><USER34> I think what the GP meant is that if you're a young white guy this all seems a bit accedemic because your job isn't in direct question. Perhaps it would be harder to get hired in the future.

If you're in a minority being questioned (women here, could be a racial group, age range, etc) people are directly questioning your ability and implying you aren't fit for your job. It looks like a much more personal attack.

So they're a lot more incentivised share/discuss it.

<comment><USER32> >I think what the GP meant is that if you're a young white guy

I know what he meant. I know what you mean as well. This isn't a substantive conversation on the issue. You and OP are not putting forward a cogent argument to support a position. You're making an appeal to emotion and valuing an opinion based on the skin color and gender of the person that argued it - not on its own merits.

>It looks like a much more personal attack.

And what does what you are doing look like to you?

<comment><USER33> > I know what he meant.

No, you don't. By your extremely aggressive tone, I can see that not only you completely misunderstood my post, but also was offended by it.

Not only that, you don't even seem to think that maybe you don't know, that there are different ways to voice and interpret messages.

I'm not making an appeal to emotion, I'm explaining that perhaps you can't comprehend why people act in a certain manner because you're not in their place. That is normal, we all do it. It has nothing to do with gender or skin color, just with not being in the place of the other person.

I even tried to make it very clear:

> Also, please don't think that I'm judging you or saying that you're a bad > person because of it. We all share the same difficulties, and that doesn't > make us better or worse, just humans.

But you just chose to ignore it and believe in your own truth.

So not only you don't know what I meant, you intentionally ignored my clarification and decided to create your own reality. And I'm sure that no matter what I say, you'll continue to claim that I just mean to offend you.

Well, if the cap fits, wear it.

<comment><USER32> >No, you don't. By your extremely aggressive tone

I responded to your patronizing and condescending tone. If you want a civil debate, make an rational argument.

When you write: "I've been there myself, it takes a lot of time and effort to understand the real impact of something that doesn't impact yourself." Isn't that the most condescending thing you could write to someone else? You're implying that because I don't share your opinion I must have not thought hard enough about the issue. "Please teach me your ways so that I too may be as enlightened as you".

>you don't even seem to think that maybe you don't know, that there are different ways to voice and interpret messages.

Do you? Are you maybe wrong about how you see the world?

Honestly, you're lecturing me but you cannot even fathom the idea that you may be completely wrong about this ... because you took time and effort to really really really think about it and you finally figured it all out.

Urgh.

>I'm explaining that perhaps you can't comprehend why people act in a certain manner because you're not in their place

Does a gay black woman know the experience of straight white man? Or a recent immigrant from China? Or a rural farmer? Or black executive from Wall Street?

Democracy is based on the idea that we collectively make decisions that then apply collectively. You're saying that a gay black woman cannot comprehend the experience of white, straight men so she shouldn't engage in policy debates that affect them? Are you seriously making that kind of an argument?

So you're either making a meaningless pointless statement that implies nobody knows anybody's experience, or you're saying I don't have empathy or the ability to reason. Which is it?

<comment><USER33> > Isn't that the most condescending thing you could write to someone else?

Wait, I'm admitting my own fault at being able to see the world through other's perspectives, and that's condescending?

> Do you? Are you maybe wrong about how you see the world?

There's is no right or wrong way to see the world per se. There are just different ways. And yes, I'm usually wrong, I never claimed not to be.

> you're lecturing me but you cannot even fathom the idea that you may be > completely wrong about this

Do you disagree that people see the world from different perspectives and it is often hard to understand each other's actions without trying to see the world from their perspective? That's my only point so far, nothing more.

> So you're either making a meaningless pointless statement that implies > nobody knows anybody's experience, or you're saying I don't have empathy or > the ability to reason. Which is it?

It was actually neither. I was saying that when we don't understand someone else's actions, it is often because we haven't put enough work into seeing the world from their eyes.

> Does a gay black woman know the experience of straight white man? Or a > recent immigrant from China? Or a rural farmer? Or black executive from Wall > Street?

No, they don't necessarily know, and that's my point.

> You're saying that a gay black woman cannot comprehend the experience of > white, straight men so she shouldn't engage in policy debates that affect > them? Are you seriously making that kind of an argument?

No, I'm not, and I'm actually quite surprised that you're even considering that I'm saying that. So far I fail to see anything in all my comments resembling that, but I might be wrong.

> So you're either making a meaningless pointless statement that implies > nobody knows anybody's experience, or you're saying I don't have empathy or > the ability to reason. Which is it?

It was actually neither. I was saying that when we don't understand someone else's actions, it is often because we haven't put enough work into seeing the world from their eyes.

But you actually proved that not only you can't understand other's experiences (or even acknowledge that people have different experiences and base their actions on different perspectives), you also don't seem to have empathy or the ability to reason.

The cap keeps fitting better and better. But given the downvotes on your posts, I think I'll call an end to this subthread. Have a nice day :)

<comment><USER35> You think you won the argument but all youve done is created 10 more another trump supporters in silicon valley no less.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Apparently Jordan Peterson will have an interview with the google memo guy on his youtube channel today. Just curious how this will go down, since youtube already took down Jordan's channel last week, before brining it back without explanation, fueling many conspiracy theories. Jordan is probably the first to layout a coherent logical, scientific argument against Identity Politics, that seems to have inspired the google memo.

<comment><USER37> Flagged discussion here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14967693](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14967693)

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I don't have strong feelings about the original memo, but the media coverage has been an absolute circus.

Google's hand was forced because of the negative PR storm that happened, not because it systematically suppresses the voices of its employees.

> This algorithm is tuned by an internal team of evaluators. If the company > silences dissent within its own ranks, why should we trust it to manage our > access to information?

I'm almost convinced that this is satire.

<comment><USER34> I agree with you that given the level of coverage I don't know how Google could NOT do something. It's becoming a huge distraction and to let it continue on for a few weeks seems like it would be even worse.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> My time at Google many years ago led me to the conclusion that they are completely full of it. Many employees are repulsive, off-putting, and enjoy treating others like nothing. They also couldn't care less about diversity.

Based on their diversity report, only ~200 (of ~20,000) software engineers are black, which is still likely an exaggeration, as I bet many are software engineers in test.

</comment><comment><USER40> I'm glad that there's still at least some truly liberal voices out there.

Regressive neo-liberalism is a cancer on society.

Edit - also sad that this keeps getting flagged. Dissenting opinions and debate is good for society.

</comment><comment><USER41> This guys mistake was thinking that his organization was interested in learning. Learning requires admitting you didn't know something or that you were wrong about something. People who are in diversity leadership positions are often dogmatic, true believer types. The last thing they will tolerate is someone trying to tell them that the belief system on which their position is based might be faulty in some way.

</comment><comment><USER42> I find it disturbing that they still link to the censored Gizmodo version. They should know better and use the original, either the PDF or [https://diversitymemo.com/](https://diversitymemo.com/)

</comment><comment><USER43> Wow so many hit pieces on how to tolerate sexism.

</comment><comment><USER44> If companies/people REALLY want to solve the diversity issue, we have to have open discussion and let even "stupid" opinions be openly shared/discussed.

If you are right about something you don't need to silence/censor others. If you are not, then you do. The witch-hunt has to end.

<comment><USER34> I think a lot of people ( __on both sides __) feel like we 've had the "stupid opinions" part of the debate repeatedly for a long time and are tired of having to put up with hearing the same "stupid" arguments and are ready change instead of vague platitude and promises.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Wish I could paste that Michael Scott "Thank You" gif here.

</comment><comment><USER46> Oh the irony...

</comment><comment><USER11> Who wants to discuss the suppression of content on HN?

163 pts in 37 mins, but flagged off the front page as soon as it appeared.

Does the number of flags required to trip the [flagged] trigger increase with the number of points and speed of those points on a story?

If not, why not?

Yes one could say rapid point accrual on a story of this nature is telling of a hot-button issue that and thus likely to create discussion not up to our desired standards.

But what I think is really being shown here is that this is an issue many feel is in much need of attention and the fact that a small group can just flag these so quickly when the rest of the community is saying this is important seems strange.

</comment><comment><USER47> What else could Google have done? He made himself a visibly toxic employee to have on most teams. This might be weird to some people, but at work you have to work with other people, and while it may be OK to hold <X> belief in general, advocating for it at work can make it harder for you to work with others.

Abstract free speech crashes and burns in any situation where you can't select your peers.

<comment><USER48> The issue at hand is that it's entirely work-related (it's about Google's hiring policies) and that it's framed by offended parties entirely as something it's not (a suggestion that women can't perform in certain roles as well as men).

Google could have:

* Clarified the opinions shared are not theirs and they do not endorse them. * Clarified their existing position on the topic at hand (as they did). * Created or clarified a new policy on how such suggestions can be shared in a way less likely to be read by people easily offended by opposing views. * Created some training policies regarding how to effectively avoid or even (gasp) tolerate opposing views without taking personal offense. Perhaps this could be just after the microaggression training mentioned in the memo.

This whole idea that it's A-OK to preach the need for discrimination to account for effects unmeasurably attributed to white privilege, yet as soon as one suggests an alternative view, it's suddenly off-limits and political is ridiculous.</comment></comment>