Screwed by Square - <AUTHOR> http://alexshvartsman.com/2014/02/11/screwed-by-square/ <comment><USER2> This is the experience you get with traditional merchant accounts (what every business had before 3rd-party processors like Square and PayPal, and most large and B&M businesses still use). You get chargebacks, you lose the money immediately, you often lose the disputes even if you shipped items, and if your CB rate is over 1% of your monthly volume for a few months, your account gets closed. Period. The only way to stay in business if you're a target for fraud is to become very good at screening orders, whether it's through systems or manual review, because nobody else is going to protect you.

This is the value of PayPal's Seller Protection Program, which people probably undervalue since they've never dealt with a real merchant account. If you sell with PayPal, and ship a tangible to the address on the buyer's PayPal account, and have proof of shipment, you have 100% liability protection. Someone charges back the payment, and it's PayPal's problem, not yours; even if they lose, you don't lose your money.

<comment><USER3> I agree. The headline should have been, "Screwed by Thieves that used Fraudulent Credit Cards". It perhaps should have had a subtitle of, "My Education on Implementing Adequate Anti-Fraud Measures at my Company."

I'm not sure I understand why he thinks Square screwed him.

<comment><USER4> Well, he alleges that Square cancelled his account without notice, and describes how that affected his business because he had made efforts to drive customers to use the Square payment method. He also admits that he should have developed a more robust solution, but rationalizes that he stayed with Square due to good prior experience.

Even if Square is perfectly in the right based on their user agreements they may be throwing good money away, and chasing off good customers. It's not hard to understand why a retail business owner would appreciate a little notice before an account cancellation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is such a common refrain in the tech space.

"We provide you with this disruptive new service that's really cool. Oh, it doesn't work for you? We also provide you with absolutely zero support."

Sometimes this means you lose business for a few days, realize you were dumb for building your business on top of a company that can't even be bothered to give you a phone number, and move on.

Sometimes the company takes the money out of your bank account and gives you absolutely no recourse.

If Alex had time and money, he could bring charges against Square. Not that he'd necessarily win, but he'd at least get himself on their radar (and hopefully get a settlement just to get him off their back). Thanks to Square, he has too little of both right now.

It's stories like this that make me realize how grateful I am for companies like Zappos, whose big selling point was (and still is, reputedly) "we're not jerks". I had to contact their customer service back when they were still independent, and I was very pleased with the experience. I still shop there, even when it feels like I'm paying a premium, because a company that treats me decently is worth it.

</comment><comment><USER6> This sounds like more of an issue with our card payment systems rather than individual merchants. All it takes is 16 digits to fraudulently use somebody else's money and the merchant is typically liable in case of that. And to add insult to the injury, they add a $20 chargeback fee on top. The banks and processors aren't taking responsibility and instead forcing merchants whose core focus is on selling and shipping rather than the intricacies of payment handling.

Due to this lopsided arrangement, banks and processors have no reason to change the system. We should force them to take the risk of fraud; it's the only way to make the system better for everyone.

<comment><USER7> Is it not 16+3, the code on the back of each credit card?

If not, why not?

<comment><USER2> The exact number of digits you need to know isn't relevant. The problem is that you can spend someone else's money just by knowing their digits, the recipient is expected to reject that money if it's not your digits, but is given no way to truly verify identity or ownership.

<comment><USER8> _The problem is that you can spend someone else 's money just by knowing their digits_

That's part of it. The other parts are that unlike a PIN or password, people routinely tell others what those digits are, and that the system works as a pull (the merchant decides when to collect the money and informs the customer's bank via the payment processing system) instead of a push (the customer decides when and where to send the money and informs their own bank).

Most of the problems with security, fraud, chargebacks and related areas in the card payment industry ultimately start from this fundamentally flawed model.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Not square at all, this is a fundamental problem with credit card processing. As long as the costs of fraud are borne by the individual merchants I doubt it will be fixed. Fundamentally flawed system design / perverse incentives.

To the best of my knowledge, anybody taking a credit card will lose a chargeback if they don't have a signature. And you never have a signature in an ecommerce transaction, so you will lose all disputes. (I know the very large company I used to do the CC processing for routinely lost our chargebacks for ecommerce transactions, and at our volume we should have been able to find a system for not losing if one could be found.)

The only current "solution" is to do a good job of filtering up front and rejecting suspicious transactions, which can be helped by requiring AVS and CVV2 matches and phone calls for large orders - but there isn't really a good system for handling this at all. The best I've seen so far is a company that would verify new customers by calling and asking them a question about their neighborhood from google maps. And it's a shame that each individual merchant has to come up with something convoluted like this, and the payment processors don't provide technical help or financial guarantees for the transactions they authorize. But that's just how it is right now, and it isn't Square's fault.

<comment><USER8> _To the best of my knowledge, anybody taking a credit card will lose a chargeback if they don 't have a signature._

It's not quite as simple as that. The customer authentication problem is what programmes like MasterCard SecureCode and Verified by Visa are supposed to solve. The trouble is, their implementations are so clunky that a lot of merchants/payment services don't use them, which in turn means a lot of end customers don't expect or understand them either, damaging legitimate conversions. I've heard that they are also not widely used in the US for whatever reason(s), though they're somewhat common here in the UK now.

In theory, these mechanisms should fix much of the underlying weakness in the current card payments model, because the end customer never gives the extra security information to others, only to their own bank/card provider. And there really are (or at least were the last time I checked) payment services that will eat the fees for chargebacks on transactions that were authorised using these kinds of 3-D Secure mechanisms given reasonable evidence that the merchant did provide whatever was being paid for. Unfortunately, I'm not aware that any of the new generation of online payment services offers 3-D Secure yet, which I expect to become a significant headache for them as more horror stories like the one we're discussing here come to light.

As a point of interest, much the same arguments apply to two-factor authentication schemes for cardholder present transactions, such as Chip-and- PIN, which has been almost universal in the UK for a long time now but again doesn't seem to have had as much take-up in some other countries. It's normal to consider a PIN-authenticated transaction at least as safe as one confirmed with a written signature. But again, these technologies don't seem to be universal in some other countries yet for whatever reason(s).

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Everybody's talking about how this kind of thing is baked into the credit card system. Even a few days back there was the article about processors changing to a system with PINs like in Europe or something.

What I don't get is why you can't do something much more simple.

Wouldn't 99% of these problems be fixed by something as simple as a credit card companies just requiring transaction approval from the card holder?

It could be handled by text message or an app and show up as on your phone within 5 seconds of running your card.

Swipe, okay it on your phone, done, forget giving everyone new cards with some sort of complex PIN # system.

Heck, you could even go a step further and make a barcode on your smartphone scan as a credit card at checkout, and then hit okay on your phone to complete the transaction.

Get an alert for something you aren't buying? Hit deny, it doesn't go through. No fraud, everyone's happy.

I'm guessing the reason there's not a system like this is that most credit card terminals are too archaic and dumb to have a live link to the Internet to handle something like this in real time? (Or the more obvious reason of not being able to use it without a cell phone?)

<comment><USER11> Almost every credit card transaction in India goes through this kind of system. At a POS terminal you need to enter a pin (same thing in Europe).

For e-commerce you need to enter a password after you enter all your CC details. It's called Verified by Visa or Mastercard Securecode, depending on what card you have.

The downside is that apparently the user agreement states that if your password gets stolen (as well as your credit card details) then all liability is on you.

<comment><USER10> I think requiring the card owner to know and keep safe some password rather than just okay a transaction seems more complicated.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Shopify might be worth considering, they have a pretty good POS system ([http://shopify.com/pos](http://shopify.com/pos)), and probably more experience dealing with these sorts of shenanigans, plus you can get them on the phone.

And you don't have to sign up for the whole POS system to get the card-reader for your phone/iPad. Their mobile app (available to any Shopify shop owner) ships out a free reader. [http://www.shopify.com/blog/11013977-introducing- shopify-mob...](http://www.shopify.com/blog/11013977-introducing-shopify- mobile)

<comment><USER2> I wonder if Shopify actually has any input into the chargeback process and risk evaluation of accounts. Shopify Payments are "powered by Stripe" rather than something they run themselves. They do have a nice integration and you get a discount compared to using Stripe directly without any minimum volume.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I don't like the trend of businesses becoming less and less easy to reason with. If an algorithm, or even a person, decides to cut you off, that's it. There's little recourse in situations like these.

<comment><USER14> Except, of course, internet diatribes like this.

I had a similar problem with eBay and the only way to get them to respond in a timely fashion was a similar rant that made it to the front page of Hacker News.

Customer support via blog post. Not the most effective method I can think of.

<comment><USER15> >>Customer support via blog post. Not the most effective method I can think of.

No - but the only one where a manager will have his job on the line.

(unfortunately)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Here's hoping a Square employee (or someone that knows one) reads this. It'll keep happening to the small guys as Square scales - they need to tackle this sooner rather than later.

<comment><USER17> What do you suggest Square do? This is standard operating procedure for merchant account providers.

<comment><USER18> I thought Square was supposed to be one of those "disruptive" startups. If they continue the status quo and don't try to improve their customer service then why should I use them?

<comment><USER17> I am not knowledgable enough about Square itself to know what they are "disrupting", but their chargeback section in their sellers agreement is no different than that of a standard merchant account. Seller liable for all chargebacks; they reserve the right to hold an unknown reserve; charge a larger fee; or close the account.

Do they try to differentiate themselves via customer service?

<comment><USER19> _Do they try to differentiate themselves via customer service?_

Okay, that made me laugh. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Paypal does the same. Blocked mine with 30k in it for 6 months and destroyed my business with it. We had to sell stuff from our house to pay providers (~20k) to survive that month. We lost subscribers and our business recovered in almost 1.5 years out of that "High risk" ban.

To them "high-risk" often means "you put too many questions" or "we don't have time to actually support you properly". By simply banning you they get rid of businesses that require more attention instead of hiring more capable people. That list of capable people should grow along with the customers list but they stop at some point and that's when they can't deal with you.

It's good that stripe is not available in my country because I really wanted to pick them after Paypal nightmare. I think I would have killed myself at round 2 with this type of support and bans they throw at you when you need help.

</comment><comment><USER21> Customer service is a cost center to most companies, even internet darling companies like Square. So you won't get any because it's cheaper to piss off a few customers than to invest in actual service. Until they feel some financial pain they don't care about you. Which would make a nice new startup, someone who actually worked with both customers (in this case sellers) and service providers to provide actual service. But I won't hold my breath as there is probably no financial reason to do this.

</comment><comment><USER22> Thanks for sharing. For nearly 10 years I managed and engineered a large e-commerce site. I learned a ton in the process. These posts always hurt. I feel the pain.

Also, reminds me of this post a while back - [http://elliotjaystocks.com/blog/good-riddance- paypal/](http://elliotjaystocks.com/blog/good-riddance-paypal/)

"PayPal have all the power of a bank and yet none of the responsibility."

</comment><comment><USER23> Most of the comments here seem to be that this normal practise, and he should have known in advance to check for fraud or else he would lose money and have his account closed.

If this is so obvious, why doesn't Squaree explicitly spell this out in a help page? Is this some magical knowledge that can only be learnt first hand, and never officially stated?

Square screwed him over by not being more transparent with their policies.

</comment><comment><USER24> Shouldn't Square be the one detecting fraud with address verification, CVV codes, etc?

And while it's ok to cancel an account that has a high proportion of fraud, it's wrong to do that AND take the money back.

<comment><USER2> AVS and CVV do not do much to detect fraud. Anyone that's bought a stolen credit card has the address and CVV code too. Square isn't keeping any money either -- that money is going back to the account it was stolen from (the owner of the stolen credit card). It left Square's bank account before Square was even notified of the chargeback; that's how the system works. The fact that they don't immediately deduct the funds from the merchant, as a merchant account would, is actually a nicety, as their own books are missing money until that chargeback is resolved.

<comment><USER24> >Anyone that's bought a stolen credit card has the address and CVV code too

Yeah, but for a shipped physical good, only being able to ship to the original cardholder's address doesn't do you much good. That $1800 package isn't going to you, unless you are physically close enough to steal it off their doorstep which is pretty risky.

So either it's the correct address, which points to the cardholder defrauding, or it's a different address, which should be caught by the processor. Or they shipped to a different address than the billing address, which would be totally the fault of the seller.

<comment><USER25> Different shipping addresses from billing addresses are absolutely standard practice. I don't know why you'd think that a seller would disallow shipping to something other than the billing address.

<comment><USER26> Back in the days when I worked at Newegg, average order values were in the thousands from all of the custom gaming rig builds so fraud was taken very seriously. Newegg did not allow shipping to an address that was different than the one on file with your credit card company so the only way to do that was for the customer to call the credit card company and add the new shipping address. I'm sure they lost some customers who didn't want to deal with that but they also severely limited their exposure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Square makes merchant wish for PayPal.... Wow.

</comment><comment><USER27> Can't he use Strip for the online portion of these transactions? I don't know if their customer service is any better, but at least he doesn't have to use Paypal.

<comment><USER25> My company uses Stripe. The chargeback resolution process described in the original article sounds identical to our experience with Stripe.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I know some companies like Google and Amazon are trying to automate-away all customer service.. but this seems exhaustive.</comment>


Social Networks Spur the Demise of Email in the Workplace - <AUTHOR> http://blog.socialcast.com/social-networks-spur-the-demise-of-email-in-the-workplace/ <comment><USER2> I am left wondering whether the author has ever worked in a corporate environment.

Social network platforms will not replace email in the workplace. Perhaps at some hip boho digital media outfits, but not anywhere else. They are quite different communication mediums with quite different strengths and weaknesses.

The strength of email is that it is personal, it is directed, it is private, it is asynchronous. Much of the time you would like your workplace communications to have these characteristics.</comment>


Jobs for JavaScript Developers in the JavaScript Professionals Directory - <AUTHOR> http://www.jsclasses.org/blog/post/11-Jobs-for-developers-in-JavaScript-Professionals-Directory.html

<comment><USER2> Kind of shocking how badly designed this site is, feels like it was built in the 80's

</comment><comment><USER3> The "professionals directory" app is....well, let's just say it looks like someone ported a Windows application from the 80's. Isn't it kind of ironic (and maybe insulting) that the people who'd implement modern interfaces would want to use something so archaic?

</comment><comment><USER4> Above the break: A gaudy menu and ADS! Nothing but ads.

Below the ads: whitespace.

After the break... I only noticed there even WAS more content when I saw how large my scrollbar was.

</comment><comment><USER5> Way too many ads! And like @flippyhead I feel the design is lacking.

</comment><comment><USER6> Hiring people listing themselves on what appears to be a beginners'/tutorial site? Not sure of the targeting there.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is a repository of JavaScript components submitted by JavaScript developers, not really tutorials for beginners.

<http://www.jsclasses.org/browse/>

The JSClasses site is derived from the PHPClasses site which has about 1 million registered users after 12 years of age. The JSClasses site was just started last year.

The PHPClasses professionals section was started in 2007. It has over 11,000 registered professionals looking for jobs. The PHPClasses jobs board was started in 2008.

<http://www.phpclasses.org/jobs/>

Just give it time to grow and sign-up if you are looking for JavaScript jobs, as there are already a few posted there.

<http://www.jsclasses.org/jobs/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I recommend hiring a graphic design professional, as well. The site looks kind of unpolished.

</comment><comment><USER8> <http://jobs.jsninja.com>

<http://nodejobs.com></comment>


Defeating SOPA and PIPA Isn't Enough - <AUTHOR> http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2012/01/defeating-sopa-and-pipa-isnt-enough.html

<comment><USER2> Cut the roots not the branches. Excellent post by the inimitable Jeff Atwood.

</comment><comment><USER3> Going after "money" in politics is treating a symptom. The disease is that the government is too big and has too much power. Limit the size and scope of government, and you'll reduce the influence of money in politics. One single reform-- a flat corporate tax, with no loopholes-- would eliminate half the lobbyists in Washington.</comment>


Why I'm returning my iPad mini - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2012/11/07/why-im-returning-my-ipad-mini/

<comment><USER2> This is quite possibly the finest linkbait article I've seen in a long time. :) (tldr: returning the base model because it's SO AWESOME that he wants a higher end version).</comment>


50B Restores and Counting - <AUTHOR> https://www.backblaze.com/blog/50-billion-restores-and-counting/ <comment><USER2> Backblaze looks great, but I really don't understand their encryption model, and why they made the choices they did. They're so close to being properly end to end encrypted, but when you do a restore, the decryption is done on the server side. Why? Why not just bake that into the client?

Other systems like restic manage to do this correctly, why not the biggest player in the backup space?

<comment><USER3> This is what turned me away from Backblaze Backup. I think it is disingenuous from them to advertise with "Encryption" and "Personal Key"[1] because it gives the impression of end-to-end encryption. In reality it is just a feel- good thing. As soon as you want to restore data you must provide them with the key and they decrypt your data on their side before sending it to you. When I inquired about this strange architecture they avoided explaining the reason which made me even more distrustful.

It's like a honey pot. Advertise encrypted backups to become big, force server-side decryption when people really need their data.

[1] [https://www.backblaze.com/cloud- backup.html](https://www.backblaze.com/cloud-backup.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Backblaze is one of the few services I recommend to everyone. The $5/month unlimited backup service with the 30 day versioning built on top of it is such peace of mind.

</comment><comment><USER5> >> 28,841 Total Restores

That puts it a little more into perspective. That's a much, much smaller number.

Now, how many "Backblaze lost my files", or 'I couldn't restore my data" stories are there? Hundreds of those (I'm speculating) would be bad, statistically.

</comment><comment><USER6> I had a hard drive failure, and on restore Backblaze lost ~70% of my files. They were unable to help. They were just gone (I cared about pictures mainly, roughly 160GB of them).

So in my experience they don't check data at rest very often. Unless you try to restore frequently, your data may be gone.

<comment><USER7> Sorry about yer data loss, mate. That's rough, I've been there.

Reminds me of most places database backups... I always check to make sure they restore correctly, a lot of people just assume they will.

\--

Other Engineer: We back up our database nightly! It's AUTOMATED and even copied to another data center in a different region!

Me: Have you ever tried restoring it?

Other Engineer: ... well, uhh, no... _awkwardly pauses_ I mean why? _scoffs and quickly walks back to desk_

[two hours later]

Other Engineer: Holy shit, our backups wouldn't restore.... good thinking, mate. We would have been totally fucked.

\--

You'd be surprised how often people don't check their backups, critical systems, restore functionality. Like just because you're doing it doesn't mean you're doing it right...

I personally think unless you somehow corrupted the data before failure, that Blackblaze sort of sucks hard here since this is literally their job. I hope they try to make it right somehow or actually figure out and find what caused that to happen.</comment></comment>


Venture Capitalists With Powerful Blogs May Run Afoul of the SEC - <AUTHOR> http://www.betabeat.com/2011/09/14/venture-capitalists-with-powerful-blogs-may-run-afoul-of-the-sec/

<comment><USER2> This may apply to 'small fry' as much as it does to larger companies but the wandering eye of the SEC will make a special exception for you when you do this for a public company. That is when they go after you with a bunch of very sharp pitchforks. Companies that have only had private investment and investors that are not about to sell or buy stock in those companies at the time they make their blog posts or other communications probably have very little to fear.

That said, it is probably good policy _not_ to write about any companies that you have an active stake in, especially while transactions are in progress.

The people involved in public companies all have been 'read their rights' on this stuff and know full well the consequences of breaking the rules.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'd be interested in seeing how fraud applies in the event that investors are talking about their investments in private companies. For example, it's not uncommon for you to see an investor to say something like, "I like the businesses in space XYZ and the ABC business model...and that's why I invested in company LMN". In this instance, I don't see an overt statement that is fraudulent...even in the event that the company pivots away from any of the above points.

I have heard investors say, "I'm not in deal ABC, but I could have been / wish I was, because now those guys are killing it." Is that fraud? While that type of talk can excite people to act, if the investor isn't involved...idk. Oftentimes, the common public perception a company is 'killing it' is neither news (to the general tech public), nor is it always true (lots of companies appear to be killing it, but are running out of cash.).

Another scenario is when a VC talks publicly about an investment they are in, in conjunction with details about how the company is performing. I can't recall ever hearing this type of talk, though I'm sure it does exist. In these cases, I'd suspect, as long as the company isn't about to go public, fraud would still be questionable. If this type of information was used to persuade other institutional investors, who conduct their own diligence, I'm not sure the statements hold much meaning. With private investments, which are not usually liquid, and investors are selected...it's akin to Goldman making the argument that their clients are professional investors and therefore responsible to make their own investment decisions. However, with the introduction of Second Market, this might not be the case. In the event that private stock acts like public stock, forward looking statements (either positive or negative) that move the market could have a fraudulent effect.

The whole situation is unclear, especially considering the rare IPO and Second Market effect, VCs can really only defraud professional investors / acquirers. In those cases, I'm not sure their words have much of an affect. However, VCs could potential make statements and sell stock on 2nd market.

It'll be interesting to see how it all works out and whether or not Second Market will be able to trade private company stock in the future.

</comment><comment><USER4> Does this apply to folks with personal blogs like Fred Wilson and Mark Suster or just big corporate blogs like TechCrunch and GigaOm?

<comment><USER5> _Mr. Ferrara explained, "When an investor or insider is engaged in an omission which proves to be a deception, and the result of that was a financial loss to another investor, a case for fraud can be made."_

That applies to any investor or insider, regardless of where they speak publicly. So, it applies to Fred Wilson, Mike Arrington, and any other investor.

<comment><USER6> So Fred Wilson and co. are fine as long as they do not "deceive"? I suppose that still exposes them to the possibility that they might have to defend themselves to prove that they have not "deceived"? Ah, the perils of the internet age. I wonder if general liability insurance policies cover those types of claims?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This really applies to anyone engaged in communication about a company in which they have a financial interest, doesn't it? If you take language like:

 _When an investor or insider is engaged in an omission which proves to be a deception, and the result of that was a financial loss to another investor, a case for fraud can be made._

As stated, at least, that seems like it would also apply to founders' blogs, or even founders' posts on HN.

<comment><USER8> No, it is not just about your interests, it is about whether you can be construed as giving investment advice, which is a very grey area, eg see [http://handbook.reuters.com/index.php/Personal_investments_b...](http://handbook.reuters.com/index.php/Personal_investments_by_Reuters_journalists#2._Investment_Advice)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The ironic part is that many of these VCs actually voted the people into power who are now turning on them.

I wonder if Fred Wilson and Marc Andreessen have buyer's remorse today. These SEC appointees didn't fall from the sky, they came from this administration.

<http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2008/11/barack-hussein.html>

      A world class management team. I remember the first debate
      I ever watched Obama participate in. He was asked whether
      he was a "strong operatating executive." He replied that
      he was not "the COO", that he was more like "the CEO". And
      then he went on to talk about surrounding yourself with
      the best people you can find and then letting them do
      their job. He did that with his campaign which was a
      masterful thing to watch, he did that with his VP pick (in
      stark contrast to the Palin fiasco), and I expect he'll
      build a killer cabinet and a killer administration (look
      for some picks from across the aisle).

<http://techcrunch.com/2008/03/03/marc-andreessen-for-obama/>

      Marc Andreessen: We asked him directly, how concerned should we be that you
      haven't had meaningful experience as an executive — as a
      manager and leader of people?

      He said, watch how I run my campaign — you'll see my
      leadership skills in action.

      ...

      He's got my vote.

<comment><USER10> I think everyone wanted to believe in Obama and they were finding reasons. I'm not sure why they did given how much support he received from the banking industry. The reason he won was because the bankers preferred him over McCain and gave him dump trucks full of money. It's easy to see why so far. Basically we've had to give the bankers foot massages because a slap on the wrist would have been too mean for their tender hearts to handle. I'm not arguing McCain would have been much better but on this kind of nonsense he definitely would have been better.

And of course Obama doesn't know anything about the market and certainly does not believe in the free market to do anything. His latest jobs program should make that painfully obvious to anyone paying attention. The notion of the technocrat appeals to people who are smart and like solving problems. They feel like any problem can be solved with a good enough team and a smart leader (as an aside why does anyone believe Obama to be anything but an average intellect). That is as FA Hayek put it a fatal conceit but it's easy to see why people fall into it. I said the same thing about Mark Cuban's comical jobs program: top down thinking is toxic to your brain.

<comment><USER11> I don't think this political rant belongs here.

<comment><USER10> Yeah in retrospect you are probably right. I meant in response to the people who supported Obama are getting what they asked for (without knowing it).</comment></comment></comment></comment>


I wanted to understand why racists hated me, so I befriended Klansmen - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/i-wanted-to-understand-why-racists-hated-me-so-i-befriended-klansmen/2017/09/29/c2f46cb8-a3af-11e7-b14f-f41773cd5a14_story.html?utm_term=.6a36e789bb86 <comment><USER2> I grew up in the Deep South, and you can really change the way people feel by being unflinchingly friendly. People who hold controversial opinions generally know that they do (if they aren't crazy) and expect people to recoil at first contact. When you don't recoil, it throws them and makes them think. At that point, you are entering mind-changing territory. Then you start asking them questions that allows them to do 80% of the talking. They will usually stumble on their own logical fallacies at that point, and you have thus led the horse to water, which is about all you can do.

Not very many people are very good at this. Which is unfortunate.

TL;DR When you get all worked up over the way people are talking, you have allowed them to seize control of the debate and have generally lost the opportunity to change that particular mind.

<comment><USER3> I finished reading Ben Franklin's autobiography earlier this year. He was notorious for sparking (and usually winning) debates with the people around him. After getting some negative feedback from a friend regarding just how insufferable he was to be around, he adopted the Socratic method of asking questions so that people would see their own folly.

Eventually, it got to the point where his acquaintances and coworkers would refuse to answer even simple questions of his, out of fear that he'd follow up with more questions that would prove them to be incompetent or illogical.

He later changed his methods to something you might read about in a book like How to Win Friends and Influence People. Rather than leading people to see the logical error of their ways, he moved toward displaying much more diffidence, which allowed others to save face when changing their opinions. Phrases like "certainly X" and "undoubtedly Y" became "If I'm not mistaken, X" and "I imagine that Y."

That change worked out well for him throughout the course of his career in winning many rich and powerful people (along with ordinary citizens, of which he was one) to his side on various controversial issues of the day.

Another benefit was that he opened himself up to helpful suggestions and feedback as well. Most people abhor argumentation, and will allow overly- confident people to persist in whatever mistaken beliefs they hold. But when you display humility, others feel safer telling you what they think of your ideas.

<comment><USER4> Franklin also describes a technique whereby you don't directly tell someone they're wrong, you simply tell them that in this particular case the circumstances are different.

E.g., the bad way to do it:

Person A: "We should do X!"

Franklin: "You are wrong. We should do Y!"

E.g., the better way to do it:

Person A: "We should do X!"

Franklin: "You are, of course, right that X would work if P and Q were the case, but here R is the situation. Don't you then agree that Y would work better here?"

This way, your "opponent" gets to preserve the feeling of being right, or at least avoids the defensiveness that follows being told you're wrong.

<comment><USER5> Yes, the trouble is that such exchanges are often a battle of egos on both sides. Person A has an egoic need to be right, and Person B has an egoic need to prove person A wrong and themselves right.

No doubt this is an effective technique, you just have to be able to release your own ego and also not directly challenge that of the other person.

<comment><USER6> I think the point is that this approach is meant to reduce the effect of ego and allow the other person an easier way to change their position.

All public differences of opinion involve ego, status and other emotional states. It's a case of finding a way to lessen their effect on all parties (oneself included).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> There is a fine line between collaboration and dialogue. In South Africa, there were a significant percentage of oppressed people who tried to get along with the (white supremecist) apartheid government. They participated in the sham elections that gave them political scraps. They governed the Bantustans that were used to deprive black people of citizenship by driving them into a tiny proportion of the country.

The apartheid government ultimately was a creature of greed masquerading behind an ideology. It enabled a part of the population to loot the wealth of South Africa for its own gain, using others as a pool of cheap labour. It deliberately, as a matter of state policy, gave blacks an inferior education, so they could be "hewers of wood and drawers of water". Yet it was always open to dialogue, as long as that dialogue enabled it to survive on its own terms.

The apartheid government did finally capitulate, but only after it realised that it was utterly alone and isolated and almost universally reviled, and the collapse of world communism meant that it wouldn't be shielded by its erstwhile allies. FW De Klerk, the then leader of South Africa, boldly ended apartheid, but has tended to equivocate about its evil. And many white South Africans remain somewhat ambiguous, at best, about the evil it wrought. Would white South Africans have eventually seen the light if they weren't isolated and treated as pariahs for much of the 1970's and 80's? I expect not.

Although I can admire the subject of this article for trying to reach out to individual racists, care needs to be taken to not read too much into his message. Evil ideologies still need to be condemned, unequivocally, since they crave legitimacy, and are often not just "idealistic but misguided concepts in the marketplace of ideas" but well thought out mechanisms for the exploitation and oppression of others.

<comment><USER8> > There is a fine line between collaboration and dialogue.

I think this is a very important point that a lot of people don't quite get.

For example, I am a pacificist. When I tell this to people, they sometimes assume I would stand aside and do nothing if a loved one was threatened with violence.

In fact, the opposite is true: I would act aggressively and assertively (or I hope I would).

Pacifist != Passive

Acting with compassion for those who hate you does not disarm your ability to aggressively support and defend your rights. Really, in such a case, one should strive to be increasingly effective.

The author of this article found a point of leverage that was effective in achieving his goals. I don't think I'd call what he was doing "dialogue," even though talking was part of it.

<comment><USER9> > For example, I am a pacificist. When I tell this to people, they sometimes > assume I would stand aside and do nothing if a loved one was threatened with > violence.

This seems like an own-goal, as the popular perception of pacifism is just that: _never_ using violence. I recommend not using the term on yourself, as it paints the wrong picture in people's minds. If you define pacifism as "only using violence in defense of self or loved ones", then that's totally compatible with getting a concealed carry permit and carrying a gun in public– not exactly most people's idea of pacifism.

<comment><USER10> The error is in equating "doing something" with "using violence".

<comment><USER9> A cryptic response. Besides running away (which is often not possible) what other options are there?

<comment><USER11> Perhaps somewhat inaccurate wrt a direct threat against family, but this image comes to mind:

[http://www.greanvillepost.com/wp- content/uploads/2015/02/Tia...](http://www.greanvillepost.com/wp- content/uploads/2015/02/Tiananmen-man-tank.jpg)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The hardest part of his approach is the genuine respect he showed for the racists. He approached them as reasonable and intelligent and let that work to his benefit by essentially forcing them to deal with the resulting cognitive dissonance in their heads.

The wrong lesson from this would be "being nice to racists" is somehow a meaningfully important aspect of his approach. He didn't bake them cookies and expect their racism to melt away. He showed them respect and didn't preach or moralize to them. In fact, he didn't seem to directly confront the poisonous beliefs at all.

His approach was the same as that of the most effective leaders.

So many social groups start from the premise of zero respect for those with whom they disagree. Which is great for feeling superior to others, but not for actually making a positive impact on the world around you.

<comment><USER13> Sorry if this comes out wrong, but it have read about a similar approach when dealing with would be IS fighters.

<comment><USER14> There really is no difference.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The story of Derek Black is also interesting. A former white nationalist (godfather was David Duke) who would later denounce his racist views after befriending an Orthodox Jew.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-white-flight- of-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-white-flight-of-derek- black/2016/10/15/ed5f906a-8f3b-11e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae_story.html)

[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/26/opinion/sunday/why-i- left...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/26/opinion/sunday/why-i-left-white- nationalism.html)

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/podcasts/the-daily- transc...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/podcasts/the-daily-transcript- derek-black.html)

<comment><USER16> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan_Phelps- Roper](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan_Phelps-Roper)

The same was true for Megan Phelps-Roper, a former member of the infamous Westboro Baptist Church. She explained in a TED talk that ultimately after being treated with respect by the people she hated, she could not reconcile her hatred of them with those experiences.

" _Sometimes the conversation even bled into real life. People I 'd sparred with on Twitter would come out to the picket line to see me when I protested in their city. A man named David was one such person. He ran a blog called "Jewlicious," and after several months of heated but friendly arguments online, he came out to see me at a picket in New Orleans. He brought me a Middle Eastern dessert from Jerusalem, where he lives, and I brought him kosher chocolate and held a "God hates Jews" sign._"

" _It took time, but eventually these conversations planted seeds of doubt in me. My friends on Twitter took the time to understand Westboro 's doctrines, and in doing so, they were able to find inconsistencies I'd missed my entire life. Why did we advocate the death penalty for gays when Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?" How could we claim to love our neighbor while at the same time praying for God to destroy them? The truth is that the care shown to me by these strangers on the internet was itself a contradiction. It was growing evidence that people on the other side were not the demons I'd been led to believe._"

[https://www.ted.com/talks/megan_phelps_roper_i_grew_up_in_th...](https://www.ted.com/talks/megan_phelps_roper_i_grew_up_in_the_westboro_baptist_church_here_s_why_i_left/transcript)

I don't normally like TED talks but hers was pretty interesting.

<comment><USER17> Pretty interesting is putting it mildly. Thanks for posting that.

 _But we know:_

 _Even hate against that which is low_

 _Disfigures the face._

 _Even anger over injustice_

 _Makes the voice coarse. Oh, we_

 _Who wanted to prepare the soil for friendliness_

 _Were unable to be friendly ourselves._

\-- Bertolt Brecht

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It's hard to find the Klan online if you use Google. Google is ranking the Southern Poverty Law Center first and the Klan's sites are not on the first page. Bing is more useful:

        http://kkk.com/

        http://www.theuka.us/

Stormfront is back: "[https://www.stormfront.org"](https://www.stormfront.org"). They transferred their domain from Network Solutions to Tucows. Stormfront is just a forum system now. It was originally David Duke's support organization, but he's out of Congress and the Klan, and not doing much with it.

The people posting there aren't evil. They're scared. Read "The destruction of white America from the perspective of a rural white man."[1] His town and life were ruined when the factories closed, unable to compete with cheap imports. _" The small town that I grew up in would be radically altered and I would experience much change in my personal life as a result of these globalist policies. The company for which my mother worked would move south of the border to Mexico. The company for which my father worked would see its doors close permanently. My reasonably prosperous family in rural America would eventually fall into destitution and dissolve. My parents would split up (in part due to these financial struggles) and I would move in with my grandmother."_

This is how Trump was elected.

[1] [https://altright.com/2017/09/21/the-destruction-of-white- ame...](https://altright.com/2017/09/21/the-destruction-of-white-america-from- the-perspective-of-a-rural-white-man/)

<comment><USER19> > _" The small town that I grew up in would be radically altered and I would > experience much change in my personal life as a result of these globalist > policies. The company for which my mother worked would move south of the > border to Mexico."_

I can see the impetus for anti-globalism there, but it baffles me when, for example, people use "all the jobs went to Mexico" as a justification to hate Mexicans. Wouldn't it make more sense to hate the white American managers and bureaucrats who decided to move the factories?

I see the same thing in housing protests. Gentrification sucks, but why blame yuppies just looking for a decent home rather than the landlords who are actually raising the rent?

<comment><USER17> > Gentrification sucks, but why blame yuppies just looking for a decent home

Because they're gladly paying a higher rent because they personally can afford it. That's what makes raising rents (to an unreasonable degree) possible. I think it's fine for rich people to want to move into "cool" neighborhoods, just have some solidarity and tact. There's plenty of ways to spend money, and the richer you are the better you'll be able to cope to have an okay flat for a normal rent, instead of accepting something that was half-heartedly modernized _just_ to raise rent a lot.

> rather than the landlords who are actually raising the rent?

You can can only blame the party paying the rent for paying the rent, and only the party trying to raise the rent for trying to raise the rent. Can you show me anyone holding greedy landlords blameless while blaming the yuppies for enabling them? You said you "see" this thing, after all. Where?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is the rare case of a submission that looks like flamebait and really isn't, so I've turned off the flags on it. It's a fascinating story that easily clears the bar for being intellectually interesting, and therefore on topic for HN. Please discuss what's interesting and don't go into flamewar.

Hints: to discuss what's interesting, read the article and respond to what's specific about it. To avoid flamewar, if your comment could just as easily be posted to any thread about race, and especially if you're posting to smite enemies rather than learn new things together, stop and read [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) instead.

<comment><USER21> As it happens, it is also the rare story on the subject that plays exactly to the opinion that the HN community already holds; namely that it is more effective to engage even the most vile theories in measured debate, and that any attempt to reduce the publicity that, for example, racists get will only make their ideology spread faster.

The irony being that sometimes people opposing that theory are to be found at the bottom of the threat, flagged and dead. But I'm assuming that to be the work of people agreeing with them, trying to empower them.

Meanwhile, a writer as mainstream as Ta-Nehisi Coates ([https://www.theatlantic.com/author/ta-nehisi- coates/](https://www.theatlantic.com/author/ta-nehisi-coates/)) can write all the #1 bestsellers he likes on the subject, but is considered to be "flamebait" here.

<comment><USER20> Well there's some truth to that, but I don't agree with how you interpret it. Unfortunately the question gets so complicated so quickly that I don't know how to write about it in an internet comment. So I'll respond with some things I do know how to say.

Perceptions of "the opinion the HN community holds" are in the eye of the beholder. If you don't believe me, take a look at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15307915](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15307915) and [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15032682](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15032682) and plenty more at [https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=...](https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment&query=13110004).

People see X they don't like and conclude that "the community endorses X". Advanced version: "the moderators endorse X". This is not how HN works—the opposite of X is here too, it just doesn't get noticed the same way (people notice most what they dislike the most). Since X varies with the observer, this isn't specific to any political view.

You wrote your comment in the combative style that is popular on the internet. From past exchanges, I'm pretty sure you have HN's best interests at heart as well as wanting there to be more good in the world. No argument there! The trouble with the combative style is not that the community (or moderators) disagree with the content ideologically. It's that in this style one comes out swinging and assumes bad faith, and that's bad for good conversation, which is really all we're hoping for.

Ideological combat insta-sorts the world into enemies vs. fellows and goes to war against the former. Indeed that's all it does—it's always on a war footing, and we all know how it has been taking over online. We're (hopelessly?) hoping to avoid that on HN. Is that because we hold regressive views about race or are milquetoast centrists? No, it's just that we'd like to have an internet forum that isn't dumb, which is what scorched earth leads to.

HN's goal is to be interesting, which means being unpredictable, which means not saying the same things over and over. Ideological battle has a different goal and _requires_ saying the same things over and over. That is why the two are incompatible; it's not because HN promotes ideology not-X where you favor X.

I'm sure we could do better and if you know how, I'd love to learn. But we need to agree that HN's goal is to gratify intellectual curiosity [2]. I think it's fair for there to be different forums that optimize for different goals, don't you? That's this one's.

1\. [https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix=false&page=0&date...](https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix=false&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment&query=by:dang%20cognitive%20bias)

2\. [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html), [https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html)

<comment><USER22> I'd like add evidence to your point that hn has multiple viewpoints. I am pretty close to the communist/socialist side of politics and find many people here who agree with me. I also find people like 'yummyfajitas who are on the opposite side of the political spectrum, and while he makes posts that make my blood boil they are well reasoned enough that I've upvoted him more often than not

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I've tried this, and sometimes it's worked. When it has, it's usually when I'm part of the group that's hated by someone. As in this article, or in my personal experience talking with people biased against atheists or liberals, I was able to make headway by demonstrating that I am not the idea of what they hate.

I have had absolutely no progress with this when talking about homophobia, racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, or anti-immigrant biases. I'm a straight white male with no Jewish heritage in sight and an nth generation German-Irish American. I've tried, in earnest, to apply the same "killing them with kindness" philosophy to folks to people who hold abhorrent views towards groups that aren't like me, and it's failed miserably. The cop-out from the other party is that being liberal, I'm brainwashed or following my mainstream media marching orders or something to that effect. That my impression and my testimony that black people aren't lazy, that women are not less capable managers and programmers, et cetera., is irrelevant to the person I'm arguing with. I'm not black/Latino, I'm not a woman, I'm not able to demonstrate those things in a way that is convincing.

This is deeply disconcerting to me, because it seems allyship helps in some cases (LGBT movement) but from testimony I've heard at conferences, the best way to change a homophobic or transphobic person's mind is to first, be their friend or family member, and second, come out as LGBT. The monumental success of acceptance of the LGBT movement seems to be almost entirely from encouraging people to come out to their friends and family members. Without downplaying it too much, I think that the language of allyship is primarily helpful at convincing people in power that they can be part of that movement, but it wasn't useful in changing people's minds.

My question to Hacker News is: why should the burden be on me, someone who is opposed to the KKK and the resurgent white nationalism in this country, to befriend people? And is there any evidence (or personal testimony from other commenters) that this sort of thing works when not part of the targeted minority?

Because I am exhausted. Again, I want to reiterate: "killing with kindness" was tremendously successful for me when I was dealing with people that didn't like some group identity I shared: liberalism, secularism. But it utterly fails when I try to talk to say, a racist friend of a family member who calls Colin Kaepernick "caperdink" and Barack Obama "obummer". Kindness doesn't seem to work when as a white man, they expect me to be kind.

<comment><USER24> It actually isn't incumbent on you to do it. As a non-white person, it isn't incumbent on me to be a model minority either. What you have to understand is what the author did is above and beyond the call of duty (if there is any), and as you have found, there are mixed results when you aren't the object of hate.

I know this is not a popular opinion here amongst most HNers and probably not for you, but you can't change a majority of people. Some people will never agree with you, despite your best efforts. Nonetheless, you just need to shave off a sufficient amount to win politically and in terms of policy. People forget Trump's win was a marginal one, a couple of thousand across a handful of states. In many ways, his victory was just that, convincing a handful to vote for him, while a large number of people on the left were suppressed for various reasons.

<comment><USER25> May I ask, as a minority member to a minority member:

Why do you feel like other people hate you or your "kind"?

I'd argue its because they hold some pre-existing assumptions about you.

Do you not feel like giving up on these "haters" is because you've got a pre- existing assumption about them? Specifically that more-or-less they are the type of people who will always hate?

Their assumptions cause them to not want you around them. Your assumptions cause you to not want to be around them. Aren't those both identical? Aren't they both negative beliefs?

You might not be able to change anyone else mind, but you are the only person who can change yours. It is definitely more taxing, and I may be wrong, but isn't it energy well spent, to hold onto a positive belief over a negative one?

<comment><USER24> >Why do you feel like other people hate you or your "kind"?

In the aggregate, stereotypes, negative towards me and positive towards themselves. Essentially what you say in your next sentence, although I'd argue there are unfairly positive stereotypes for themselves too that place them in a better place than others. Might be like the "positive self-illusions" most healthy people have on a personal level[0].

>Do you not feel like giving up on these "haters" is because you've got a pre- existing assumption about them? Specifically that more-or-less they are the type of people who will always hate?

The difference here is I don't condemn a particular group of people or adherents to an ideology or set of nationals, _all people_ are sticky in their pre-conceived notions. This has been demonstrated by psychological research, and I've run into this issue with all people I've met in my life, and surprise, not just over politics, but over all issues: choice of editor, choice of psuedocolor colormap, choice of programming language, etc. The sooner in life in general you stop trying to "save" people, the happier you become.

The subtext here I feel is that you are arguing racial stereotypes are in the same category as research approved by psychologists, but this is such a category error; it's like saying a page and a book are the same because they both have words. A racial stereotype is much lazier than one that is born through statistics, for example.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_illusions#Benefits_an...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_illusions#Benefits_and_liabilities)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I know this post will probably get flagged because it is so political. Still, I think this article is something everyone needs to read, especially in the current political climate where identity politics and group think have pitted groups of people against one another and spurred them to violence all over the western world.

This article shows the classical liberal values of discussion and dialogue are so important to making progress.

<comment><USER27> > This article shows the classical liberal values of discussion and dialogue > are so important to making progress.

Values which are disappearing on the "left".

I recently lost a friend (extreme lefty) for saying that Trump was elected because of the socio-economic situation of poor white voters in the US. He just railed on about how I was racist for daring to say that the Trump phenomenon is anything more than Americans being a bunch of Klansmen...

Oh well, when discussion is lost, you wind up with things like Brexit, nationalism rising in Europe (look at how the election in Catalonia is going today), etc..., when those people whose opinions you previously ignored decide they've had enough.

Edit - deleted the first edit.

<comment><USER28> > Oh well, when discussion is lost, you wind up with things like Brexit, > nationalism rising in Europe (look at how the election in Catalonia is going > today), etc..., when those people whose opinions you previously ignored > decide they've had enough.

THIS. Grew up in the midwest, could've told the coastal liberals that their nonstop (and unnecessary) attacks on everything even slightly valued by the flyover states was going to cost them someday. They didn't want to hear it.

<comment><USER29> Well you sure showed us, with this brilliant act of communal decapitation. Never mind that the people who feel hurt the most are hurting themselves the most, you're making a _point_ or something...

Seriously, if your narrative for political change is little more than hurt feelings, maybe the "other" isn't the problem. This article should have at least showed you that putting aside the petty can have real impacts on both parties.

<comment><USER28> Firstly I'm not a supporter of this Nationalist America First agenda, though the fact that simply because I'm willing to non-judgmentally listen to their side and hear their complaints and say yeah, those things are a problem causes you to react with hostility kind of shows my point well, so thanks.

Secondly, this is not "hurt feelings," not that something -just- being emotionally abusive and nothing else should be an excuse for pretending it isn't a problem, but we'll go with that anyways. No, this is the fact that the middle state's economies have been struggling for years, and that was before the 2008 housing crash, which the cities and coasts have recovered fairly well from, but has left everyone else largely in the cold. Now, it's true that a lot of those issues can be fairly directly traced to the local governments and their bad decisions; some cities, for example Chattanooga, have done extremely well at modernizing. But to pretend that the constant drumbeat of the culture that being in the flyover states (itself a term of derision) is terrible, that everything they believe is dumb, that they're uneducated prudes and all the rest of it has caused an incredible cultural scar between the rural and urban portions of the nation. And successes like Chattanooga are _in spite of_ , not _because of_ , that divide.

<comment><USER27> > Firstly I'm not a supporter of this Nationalist America First agenda

What a world we live in, where a government putting their own people first is considered a bad or controversial thing...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I've long said that progress involves changing individual hearts and minds more than just a political process - the political process is what happens after you've changed hearts and minds.

We saw it with the civil rights movement, we saw it with the gay rights movement, and we're going to see at some point with the trans rights movement too.

Merely showing up and demanding rights isnt enough, you need to convince people that their needs are bound up with yours.

</comment><comment><USER31> I grew up in the south and I think people are genuinely polite to each other. African Americans, redneck racists, everyone is polite in public, but the bad stuff comes out in private, in groups and friendships. That's where the hate festers.

</comment><comment><USER32> Daryl Davis had a really interesting AMA: [https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/70vcr0/im_daryl_davis...](https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/70vcr0/im_daryl_davis_a_black_musician_here_to_discuss/)

<comment><USER33> I've seen stories about Davis in the past but never read closely, though I've idly wondered how much danger he has been in.

A couple questions ask about this and it seems he has been attacked a few times. [https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/70vcr0/im_daryl_davis...](https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/70vcr0/im_daryl_davis_a_black_musician_here_to_discuss/dn64fba/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/70vcr0/im_daryl_davis...](https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/70vcr0/im_daryl_davis_a_black_musician_here_to_discuss/dn6485e/)

I'm not sure where the quote comes from, but [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Davis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Davis) says:

> However, not all Klan members were receptive to Davis's advances. Some > reacted with anger or even violence. Davis stated, "I was not seriously > injured. I've faced knives and guns and of course fists. I've had to > physically fight upon occasion, but that is not my first resort. I did not > carry any weapons to my interviews. On one occasion, it was only one > Klansman who attacked me. On another, it was 3 of them. I won, both > physically on the street and legally in court."

I would be too scared to do what he has done, even as a white gentile. The more physical distance between me and hate group adherents, the better. But hats off to Davis and anyone braver than me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> This might not be the right place to ask this but I respect the opinion of people who read and post on HN.

I don't believe I am racist or sexist. I like to believe that I love everyone. I care about people. I don't want to look at gender or race or sexual orientation or any other differentiator when I get to know someone, or ever. I don't want to judge others. I want people to have equal rights. I want people to live happily, healthy, and safely.

But, I am a highly paid middle class white male in the US. I want to know that I am helping to bring about this equality and lack of judgement. I see articles being advertised in the middle of the parent article like "What do black people have to lose under Trump? A lot" and I think "How can that be possible?" Then I realize it is no doubt completely possible. And I know my opinion doesn't matter much but I don't want that to happen. I want people to have equal rights. I want people to feel safe, happy, and healthy. But my desire is not enough.

I don't have an answer to this problem. I don't have some ulterior Motive. This is a bit of a rant against myself. I'm upset with myself that I don't know what to do to make it better. Maybe someone here will know.

<comment><USER35> I think the easiest thing to do is just be educated in the facts and able to defend your views without getting caught up in the political rhetoric of the day.

A lot of racism is just ignorance and callousness towards others, combined with a lack of resolve to do what's right, which is really true about all of us to a degree. People feel like they have enough to worry about without others' problems. Also when you expose racism you are exposing the nasty underbelly of this country's history (assuming you're American), which is hard for people to handle. People will make some of the most embarrassing and extreme statements when confronted about race. I believe that's because the topic puts them in a state of distress.

I try and have the mindset of helping and educating people rather than judging them or censoring them. After all, if you are saying racist stuff, it is _you_ who has the problem and no one necessarily has to say anything. It's like telling someone they still have a sticker on their shirt. You are really doing them a favor so if they don't want a favor, there's no harm in just leaving them alone. Like you said, I don't have all the answers and certainly am no Daryl Davis but I think about this stuff a lot and find myself in a lot of debates about it with family and friends.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Through this story, I get reminded how many times I see discussion being shut down by the phrase "As part of group X, you are not allowed to have an opinion about Y".

Talking relieve tensions between groups. It builds understanding. It one of the things in this world that can change how a individual think. Its nice to read such success story.

</comment><comment><USER37> I witnessed onece how approaching people with genuine openness helps.

I was in Aix-en-Provence (south of France) and got lost on the outskirts of the city. I waked into a "cité", which is a large area of block of flags, poor and full of drugs and angry people.

I walked to a group, the tension was obvious but I kept on walking and approched them with a simple question about how to get to downtown, and (most importantly), what THEY think is the best way to get there. A normal person talking with normal people.

Not only they showed me the way (after arguing about the best one for 10 minutes) but hopped into a car to drive me there.

Sometimes treating peooke genuinely kindky goes a long way.

</comment><comment><USER38> No thanks. Look, I understand where this guy is guy is coming from, but as a black man the last place you'd find me is near a self proclaimed Klansman.

</comment><comment><USER39> It's not clear to me from this article that the author ever understood why they hated him. From this account, it seems as if he just kept hanging out with them for decades till they magically weren't hateful any more. Not sure if this is very scalable.

<comment><USER35> Research more about his style and approach. He goes to great lengths to understand their views before meeting them. In his AMA he mentioned that he would even hold debates with himself in the mirror, representing his own opponent. Extraordinary stuff.

<comment><USER40> That's great, but I agree with the OP - I expected, given the headline, to find out why the Klansmen hated him. But the article doesn't actually say. In fact it doesn't give a voice to the Klansmen at all. It just says: I went and talked to them and they became friends. Eventually they changed and gave me their robes.

Nice story and I'm sure it's true. But it didn't help me understand the KKK any better, which is a shame.

<comment><USER41> As far as I can tell, the point is that there was NO actual reason why they hated him apart from they didn't know him. Once they knew him, they didn't hate him.

The ones that changed their point of view, eventually just realised they had no remaining reason to hate him. And by extension it was irrational to automatically hate every other black person they didn't know yet.

It was his attempts to understand them, that helped some of them understand him. As he points out though, there were plenty of klan members that this didn't work out with though.

It obviously takes some level of self awareness/reflection to change your mind like that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> The author of this piece was interviewed on All Things Considered about a month ago.

[http://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man- convince...](http://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man- convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes)

</comment><comment><USER43> Oddly enough, the pictures of Daryl in the article seem to show he has a lighter skin colour than the other pictures of him you can find elsewhere... in case anyone else is wondering whether that may have been a factor in his successful relations.

</comment><comment><USER44> Daryl Davis's singular story is courageous, fantastic and inspiring. He has risen way, way above an average dork like me.

</comment><comment><USER45> > How could anybody hate me when they didn't even know me?

That's an easy question to answer. People are not islands. They conform to stereotypes, culture, so at least to some degree one can group people into common patterns of behaviors and values. And people can hate some of those patterns.

</comment><comment><USER46> This reminded me of the podcast Conversations with People Who Hate Me: [http://www.dylanmarron.com/podcast/](http://www.dylanmarron.com/podcast/)

</comment><comment><USER47> Only mentioned in the byline, but there's a documentary out with Daryl:

[http://accidentalcourtesy.com](http://accidentalcourtesy.com)

</comment><comment><USER48> In many cases people just grew up to be and found a community where they are accepted. A dialogue with them like how it has been mentioned in the article is all it takes.

</comment><comment><USER49> I think people join gangs and clans because they want to get respect and feel appreciated. If you give them that, the clan/gang is no longer needed.

</comment><comment><USER50> What an incredible collection -- to keep the masks and robes of the people he has led to renounce their membership!

</comment><comment><USER51> He did a documentary on netflix.

</comment><comment><USER52> When an Antifa member punches someone who they identify as a white nationalist, at best they can make them shut up for a while. At worst the violence is reciprocated disproportionately. If instead the Antifa would attempt to befriend that person and to have good faith dialogues with them, they would at least have the potential to actually reduce racism, and reduce hatred on both sides.

Ideally, the result could be one less Nazi puncher _and_ one less Nazi. And with dialog, maybe they'd discover that not every political disagreement reveals a "white nationalist".

But I suspect that for many, that would be a whole lot less fun.

<comment><USER53> Which puts all the onus on the "not a fucking Nazi" half (not actually half antifa is wildly outnumbered) of the equation while not holding the "fucking Nazi" half to any standards re: not murdering people.

Contrarily this story starts out with the KKK member approaching and being civil to the black man.

<comment><USER54> Antifa and Nazis are both extreme fringe groups and not representative of a majority of society.

It would behoove everyone to think about that when reading about them; both extremes receive an amount of attention disproportionate to their actual amount of influence.

And by punching the Nazi, now it's a major news story with two "equal" sides instead of a footnote about a crazy dude in the subway.

<comment><USER55> Well neo-nazis believe that they are the alpha race and everyone else is subhuman/inferior. And who worships a regime that tried to exterminate quite a few of them. I'm not sure what the equal and opposite extreme to that is.

This is like the equivocating 45 is currently doing by framing fascists and antifascists as opposite sides of the coin.

<comment><USER56> Antifa believe they are morally superior to everyone else and use it to justify violence and oppression, so it is a fairly appropriate comparison. I can easily see the movement turn to killing if left unchecked.

<comment><USER44> interesting to hear Antifa feel they are ethically superior to everyone else.

my take has been that Antifa feel they are ethically superior to conservative/nazi/white supremacist/KKK demonstrators and that _violence is the best policy_.

it seems to me that _most_ special interest groups in the US feel they are ethically superior to others, but they do not feel that violence is an acceptable, much less _the best_ policy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> It's definitely good to talk to people like this, but it needs to be carrot and stick: their organisations need to be ostracised and labelled as the hateful, racist hellholes that they are, while people of any background still treat each other with respect in their communities.

The biggest risk with bringing the members of these organisations in out of the cold is that this might normalise the organisations and ideologies without actually destroying anything. E.g. like having a POTUS who equivocates over their behaviour.

<comment><USER58> I disagree. We get nowhere by making fun of other people or taking the moral high-ground. Progress comes by having real conversations with others, no matter how much we disagree with what they have to say. It's easy and fun to call someone racist and walk away, but the right thing to do is having them explain how they feel and just talking to them about it.

I also don't understand how normalization is an issue? We get nowhere by censoring the our least favorite ideas in society. We get somewhere by bringing them out, and talking about why we disagree with the points made, in a respectful manner.

Relevant article from The Onion: [http://www.theonion.com/article/former- conservative-recalls-...](http://www.theonion.com/article/former-conservative- recalls-belittling-tirade-coll-56825)

<comment><USER59> > We get somewhere by bringing them out, and talking about why we disagree > with the points made, in a respectful manner.

It's not as if Neo-Nazis are "making points."</comment></comment></comment>


I am developer,with no security exp, where can i host my projects? - <AUTHOR>

Hello, I'm a developer, i am building several projects for android and iphone platforms. This projects depend on a WEB platform (Tomcat) and a database to store some data. Unfortunately, i have no security experience on how to configure a secure server to host my projects. Any ideas ? <comment><USER2> I'm thinking your best bet is to hire someone to set up a secure server for you. Then you can pick whatever hosting provider you like, but still have a secure, proper setup.

</comment><comment><USER3> have you considered Heroku or any of the other PaaS companies?

<comment><AUTHOR> No, i don't know any PaaS services. How do they work ? like Amazon ?</comment></comment>


Show HN: website for the works of a deceased amateur Brazilian painter - <AUTHOR> http://florencio.herokuapp.com/

<comment><USER2> A few notes:

* the site needs more of a _story_ , and it needs to be visible without having to click the _About_ page. It doesn't have to be long, but it has to be enough so that the viewer doesn't immediately think that this is just another amateur art site

* the vertical paintings must be displayed as vertical. This is _not a trivial detail_. The misaligned photos say, "this person's art isn't important enough to curate properly"

* consider using the Isotope or Masonry plugin (both are the same thing basically) to better align the boxes:

<http://isotope.metafizzy.co/>

Nice work and thank you for sharing.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. I'll try to fix it when I have time.</comment></comment>


9GAG (YC S12) Raises $2.8M - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/07/30/funny-funding-humor-website-9gag-raises-2-8-million-and-releases-an-ios-app/ <comment><USER2> Over 1 billion monthly pageviews for r/funny in a pretty wrapper. I'm in the wrong business.

</comment><comment><USER3> My impression is that 9gag is a social fad. Memes became mainstream and the 'cool kids' (the early adopters) are already making fun of le upboat XDD I mustache you a herp derp.

9gag is pretty popular in Israel[1]. My coworkers (20yo) still read it, but it was all the rage a few months ago, and in a family dinner my 13yo cousin asked me if I know the site. All this indicates the eternal cycle: 'knew them before it was cool' -> mainstream -> 'omg are you still into that?'

Dubstep (recent example) stopped being cool because it went mainstream. Memes will not stop being cool - image macros are the laziest way to get information - but 9gag (unless they do something crazy) will become just a site. Remember the esoteric tumblrs?

[1] - <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mghhLqu31cQ>

<comment><USER4> Seems alot like... FunkyJunk. Hopefully they have nicer lawyers.

<comment><USER5> [http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/04/alot-is- better...](http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/04/alot-is-better-than- you-at-everything.html)

<comment><USER6> She really needs to finish her book, so she can get back to being awesome on the internet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> 9GAG is Reddit for the 90%. They Cherrypick the best memes from Reddit and wrap them in a social layer of Facebook comments and timeline integration to make them even more viral.

This company will never be nearly as big as Reddit but it seems to me that they're going to become more of a media company than a democratised news platform.

We'll start to see 9GAG Magazine, the book and TV shows. Like SocialCam, if Facebook cuts off timeline access I imagine they'll see a huge drop in engagement.

Although anyone can submit content it's very much editorialised and I think that will become more about submitting content for the editors.

A huge problem they're going to face as they branch out is copyright. They're trying to make a more legitimate FunnyJunk and this requires them to start looking at revshare and how they deal with copyright as they're promoting copyright content rather than it just being user added.

<comment><USER8> >9GAG is Reddit for the 90%.

Content is created in the chaos that is discussion boards (4chan, SA before that). Then it is peer reviewed on aggregators (Reddit, Digg before that), and finally it is distributed to the masses in an easy to read format (9gag, tumblr, FB, etc.)

The problem is the lower the food chain you go the greater the resentment you see people have. People on reddit hate 9gag, people on reddit.com/new hate redditors that only view the front page, people on 4chan hate redditors for copying (or stealing) their memes. And everyone hates that the original message/humor gets lost or diluted each time to goes up a level.

Now you may not think that's a problem, but people on 4chan sure as hell don't want to see 9gag succeed, and the people who create the most content also create the most mischief.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I was a little confused to see that 9GAG was in this current batch for YC. 9GAG is a 4 year old company, what sort of benefit does YC give them? What will they demo at demo day? Why not go to traditional VCs at this stage of operation?

<comment><USER10> There are plenty of relatively mature companies that go through YC - it gives you a leg up at pretty much any early stage. Demo day isn't really for demos anymore.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> 4chan-initiated and Reddit-fueled, 9gag's content has already been manipulated and their Facebook wall flooded with horrific imagery, fake memes and general buffoonery in order to offend and humiliate their community, which is basically this generation's eBaum's World.

Serious question - for a site that relies on user-generated content, how does this money help create a better user experience or bring a more intellectual community? Reddit's main feed is slowly toppling over as the "masses" overpopulate the number of people that provide true value with the saving grace being the subreddits. I'd also venture to say that Reddit's only-recent transformation to having proper staff and a CEO (that were huge contributors to the community before their hiring) is something a lot of people like about it too.

I guess I'm confused why a site as content-reliant as 9gag needs funding to beat out (given that's the intent) what is fundamentally an issue with their userbase, who have already been the laughing stock of the internet for quite some time now.

</comment><comment><USER12> The 9gag team is solid.I first met them at 500Startups early last year.

At the time they were working on a number of products, but they truly had a mastery in understanding the creation and sharing process of people between 15-30. It showed within each product they created and it was ultimately 9gag that went bananas in terms of user adoption.

They also have a pretty neat mission that extends beyond a r/funny wrapper -- though with the myriad of clones and previously created similar sites there is some credit due to them for their rapid expansion.

I hope the raise will give them the resources to expand further as I have no doubt they are already doing quite well.

As for why YC -- probably to connect more fully in the Valley since they are (or intend to be) based in Hong Kong.

Pretty connected names in the investor list over at angel.co/9gag // Ben Ling, Chris Sacca, Kevin Rose etc..

Oh, and while I agree to some extent that sites like these marginally improve the internet, humour is a great remedy to many of our ails.

</comment><comment><USER13> I'm still waiting for the 4chan ipo

<comment><USER14> Send an e-mail to email@example.com and I'll be sure to invite you to our roadshow.

<comment><USER15> Sent an email with the subject "it's time to take this sucker public," and it bounced. For a minute... I dared to dream.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Having only first visited 9gag two minutes ago, what is the appeal of this website?

<comment><USER17> 1\. Repost popular content on Reddit, 4chan 2\. Spam the shit out of social links 3\. ...? 4\. Profit

<comment><USER18> actually they manage to build their own community around it. there was even 'war' 9gag vs 4chan sometime ago and surprisingly their members were able to defend against 4chan spam and even counter attack.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Can we call it a bubble yet?

<comment><USER20> They have a _billion_ page views a month. I have no idea how well they're able to monetize, but at a $.20 CPM that's $2.4 million in revenue a year. Presumably they're still growing too. It seems pretty realistic that the investors could make their money back on this deal.

<comment><USER21> I would guess that the majority of those visitors are minors without a credit card. Even if you could convince advertisers to pay for those impressions today, they would soon become wiser and realize that they have no value.

See facebook's steadily falling income as an example of this happening: sure they have a stupid number of pageviews, but people are learning the real value of a pageview today.

<comment><USER22> "they would soon become wiser and realize that they have no value"

Children don't need a credit card to be a valuable audience to direct advertising at.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> "In less than nine months, 9GAG has more than quadrupled the number of monthly unique visitors to its site, going from 16 million to more than 70 million," said Tony Conrad, founding member and venture partner at True Ventures. "With its ability to easily and quickly spread entertaining visual content via Facebook and Twitter, the potential of 9GAG as a viral distribution platform is huge, and we look forward to working together with them to maximize this opportunity."

This seems like a large, risky bet to make on a humor site with fast growth but not much track record. I don't know a lot about 9GAG, but it seems like a case where since Funnyordie and Reddit were successful, any site with growth deserves investment.

<comment><USER24> 1+ BILLION pageviews per month. With a team that can kick enough ass to produce those metrics in such short time, doesn't seem so risky.

<comment><USER25> Pageviews are easy, especially on a social picture aggregator. It's not hard to imagine one person clicking on hundreds of images per day. The hard part is trying to monetize these pageviews.

It doesn't take a kick-ass team to put up a link farm and spam it out. It takes a kick-ass team to profit from it and not tank the reputation. Digg failed. Reddit is struggling. I'm not sure 9gag will do any better.

<comment><AUTHOR> 9GAG is killing it! This is an extremely competitive and cluttered space on the web. They were able to carve out their own niche and build one of the largest websites in the world. This wasn't a 1 night trick or hack, it takes a lot of time and patience to build anything remotely close to what 9GAG has built.

<comment><USER26> You sound slightly brainwashed and cultish in your reply.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Oh man, Imgur users are not going to be happy, not happy at all.

</comment><comment><USER28> I don't understand why reddit doesn't do the same thing on Facebook, perhaps in a mor ethical way with links to sources and sparing a few donations once in a while.

</comment><comment><USER29> What is 9GAG doing that other blogging companies like Cheezburger (failblog, knowyourmeme, etc.) aren't already?

The site doesn't seem like anything more than a wordpress template. What value do they add to the reddit content that people are posting on there?

</comment><comment><USER30> Did the 9GAG team join YC before or after developing this site?

<comment><USER31> If what is stated in the title ('YC S12') is true, then definitely yes. 9Gag has been around for close to four years. But that begs another question? Why did they choose to join YC then? They already had their product out and had a pretty large user base - what does YC have to offer them?

<comment><USER16> A rubber stamp for funding?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Why did YC fund a content theft website?

</comment><comment><USER33> I kind of see 9gag as the new College Humor, maybe bigger and more inclusive. Congrats to the team!

<comment><USER34> The big difference was that College Humor was/is a content creator, not just a content aggregator.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> 9GAG in YC. What the fuck.

<comment><USER36> That was my initial reaction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> What makes 9Gag different? Why did they succeed? How do they make money (right now, not tomorrow)?

<comment><USER38> They put links to blast content to all your friends on Facebook right at your fingertips. Easy for an image to go viral. Not really sure about a revenue stream but it's probably something shady about getting access to lots of people's Facebook profiles.</comment></comment>