De-Escalation Keeps Protesters and Police Safer - <AUTHOR> https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/de-escalation-keeps-protesters-and-police-safer-heres-why-departments-respond-with-force-anyway/ <comment><USER4> We should expect police to us less use violence and improve their crowd management and deescalation skills. The increasing militarization of police is a trend that must be reversed. However, we should not neglect the other side of the equation either. This article is, in large part, about just that.

The article points out that many protests in the U.S. went smoothly through the practice of police and protest organizers meeting and jointly managing protests, but that this practice fell into disuse after the 1999 Seattle WTO meeting in which protesters violated the negotiated terms and police responded with violence.

While some recent (and ongoing) protests have turned violent, many didn't. In the coming months we'll have time to do a postmortem. I strongly suspect spontaneous protests without organization will be found to have the most potential for violence, while those with organizers committed to self-policing and, ideally, cooperating with police will be found to have fared much better.

Individual people may be intelligent and responsible, but crowds have their own rules of behaviour and need to be managed. Protests are more dangerous when unplanned or when their organizers give no thought to self-policing.

There will always be organizers who _want_ violence because it reliably brings press coverage and attention to their protests, but social media is also creating new problems. Coordinating a large number of people to show up at the same time and place used to take considerable planning and effort. When you have to work _hard_ just to get the even to happen, why wouldn't you plan how it will unfold as well? Now a couple of tweets or posts on the right reddit subs will suffice. How can police meet with the organizer of a protest when it's really just some dude who had a lot of social media followers and might not even bother showing up himself?

<comment><USER5> I've been on a few demos that turned violent. Among them the famous one when George Bush decided to pay a visit. In _all cases_ , the organizers wanted to cooperate with the police. They knew who were in the "autonomous bloc" (troublemakers) and would have gladly helped the police zone in on them. In _all cases_ the police didn't care and charged peaceful and violent demonstrators alike.

I find it very odd that the police still cannot after all these years and with all development in surveillance tech distinguish between peaceful demonstrators and rioters. One could almost believe that they have no interest in making that distinction.

<comment><USER6> > I find it very odd that the police still cannot after all these years and > with all development in surveillance tech distinguish between peaceful > demonstrators and rioters. One could almost believe that they have no > interest in making that distinction.

I have been in the middle of protests when I worked for Reuters and the difference between peaceful and violent is very tiny. I was in the no-man's land between the KKK and the New Black Panthers in the wake of the James Byrd Jr. lynching and it went from frenetic but peaceful to riot in 8.3 seconds. Actual combat is a a lot less ambiguous and disorienting. Not defending police or condemning them, but when an airborne brick heads your way, it's a pretty tall order to expect immediate and accurate identification of friend or foe.

It is fascinating to me how left wing protests seem to frequently degrade into violence. Recent case in point was the reopen protesters. I don't think a single shot was fired by the crowd, nor were any buildings burned or looted. The Charlottesville, VA protest by the extreme right wing however is a counterexample — but it's an exception that proves the rule. The Tea Party protests were never violent. In almost every large-scale protest that has left and extreme left wing elements, looting, fires, and violence is a foregone conclusion. It's historical record.

It's really tragic because pretty much all Americans were outraged about Floyd's death, but as soon as looting, fires, and violence starts, then a large portion of the population now starts discussing and being angry about that rather than the core issue.

<comment><USER5> > I have been in the middle of protests when I worked for Reuters and the > difference between peaceful and violent is very tiny.

Can you spot the difference between an African and European swallow? I bet you can't. But a professional bird watcher could tell them apart in a second.

Same thing with protestors. When I was active I could easily tell the difference between someone potentially violent and someone peaceful. Woman with a stroller - probably peaceful. Person in all black with a large backpack - potentially violent. Admittedly, this was many years ago but I don't think rioters are any harder to spot these days.

Thing is, most riots are planned and not spontaneous events. Troublemakers infiltrate the crowds and try to cause confrontations with the police. The police reacts with heavy handedness causing those who are peaceful to sympathize with the troublemakers. More of them join the troublemakers side causing more confrontations and eventually it spirals out of control.

The simple solution to this problem is for the police to target the troublemakers and to let the peaceful protestors be. It actually is that easy because organizers almost always knows who the troublemakers are and would share that info with the police. But the police isn't interested. I suspect that is because by and large they love riots just as much as the rioters.

<comment><USER7> > When I was active I could easily tell the difference between someone > potentially violent and someone peaceful. Woman with a stroller - <USER2> > peaceful. Person in all black with a large backpack - potentially violent.

Wait for it...

> The simple solution to this problem is for the police to target the > troublemakers and to let the peaceful protestors be.

You are suggesting that the police should profile individuals based on their appearance?

<comment><USER8> I think you are purposefully misreading the comment. There are ways to differentiate, mom with kid, old man vs. young guy in black clothes with a backpack.

I think I know what you want to imply, but did you note the complete absence of race or colour in OPs comment? And alos the completely different circumstances, crowd control vs. standard law enforcement?

<comment><USER7> I am not purposefully misreading. I am reading. I was gobsmacked by how ironic the proposal was and felt compelled to point it out. To show that this stuff is hard even when folks are entirely well-meaning.

I did notice the absence of race or color and you will note my comment does not include any notion of race. You added race. I did note judging by appearance. You added age, out of nowhere.

Using appearance to treat people differently is profiling, though not always racial profiling. Should non-racial profiling be okay? To your inclusion of age, should we treat gatherings of youth differently than gatherings of the elderly?

The GP says "...for the police to target...". No distinction is made between crowd control and standard law enforcement.

<comment><USER9> It reads to be that you're being purposely obtuse. Any security is going to take into account the appearance of a person. Undoubtedly you understand what that means in practice in America—-that appearance has been boiled down to just race: "be on the lookout for a black man." It's lazy and should be called out so that police are forced to do work and learn the difference between a non-violent angry person and a violent angry person in a crowd.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "Of course, as Gillham pointed out, negotiating and managing a protest can't really work if the protest wasn't organized ahead of time. That goes double, he said, if the topic of the protest is police brutality. It's hard to negotiate with someone about the best way to demand they be fired."

This point is important. The police can't police themselves, and for a lasting solution to this problem to emerge there'll have to be major structural changes to the way police oversight and review is carried out.

I hope these protests are a turning point that'll lead to such reforms, but I suspect no significant changes will occur. Hopefully I'll be proven wrong.

<comment><USER11> > wasn't organized ahead of time

Protests might have been unorganized, but riots most certainly are organized. Torching a police car carries a minimum 5 year sentence. It's not the protesters who are doing that.

Moreover, it is still being "organized". Someone keeps dropping off pallets with bricks. There are agitator leaflets all over twitter. People have been recorded on video handing out cash to "protesters" from a thick wad of bills. Someone is organizing and funding the riots.

<comment><USER12> We had a peaceful protest in Kansas City on Friday where some police joined in, listened to protestors, took a knee with the protestors, and the mayor joined the protest as well. It was peaceful and all over the news.

The very next day we had several trucks unloading beds of bricks and large rocks throughout the Plaza (where protests were and would be again that night) throughout the day and people were snapping videos of at least two buses full of protesters in the full black getup unloading on the edge of the Plaza a few hours before sundown. That night we had 85 arrests, multiple cars set on fire, multiple officers put in the hospital, and plenty of CS gas in the streets.

After seeing the peaceful protest on Friday, I find it a little bit suspicious that the crowds grew so quickly and things escalated so quickly (and intentionally, by the looks of people dropping of brick caches) just 24 hours later.

<comment><USER13> We had a peaceful protest in Cap Hill in Seattle, where the police knelt in solidarity earlier today. There was no violence, no looting, no broken glass, and everyone was being peaceful.

After the photo op was done, the police started macing and tear-gassing the crowd. The news then ran this video [1], but with the first 20 seconds cut out, and blamed the protesters on initiating violence.

[1] [https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/gv0ru3/this_is_the...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/gv0ru3/this_is_the_moment_it_all_happened/?utm_medium=usertext&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=Seattle&utm_content=t1_fsm1kep)

<comment><USER11> Were you actually there and see it in person, though, or did you hear it from someone else? Because if it's the latter, it smells like horseshit from a mile away. That's why in a conflict you need to hear _both_ versions of what actually happened and try to be impartial.

<comment><USER13> 1\. If I was there, on the front line, you'd just dismiss me as either biased, or unable to see what was going on in other parts of the line. This video has the widest field of view of _anyone_ present.

2\. Which particular part of this smells like horseshit to you? The news cutting the clip before airing it? The SPD twitter claiming that the police retaliated to an attack by rocks and bottles? Do you see any rocks or bottles thrown in the first 20 seconds of this video? Who are you going to believe - <USER3> cop trying to defend his violent outburst, or _your own two eyes_? In what universe is what you are observing a defense to an attack? Did you even look at the video?

3\. Do you deny the neighbourhood being in good shape prior to this? I can confirm this one in person, by the way. Nothing was looted, windows weren't broken, no cars were burning.

4\. Here's a first person video account of that, too. [https://twitter.com/izaacmellow/status/1267679820600668161?s...](https://twitter.com/izaacmellow/status/1267679820600668161?s=21)

<comment><USER11> > Which particular part of this smells like horseshit to you?

That the police would tear gas people unprovoked. That just doesn't happen in the United States in my experience, although if provoked, they do not hesitate.

<comment><USER13> > That the police would tear gas people unprovoked.

Did you look at either of the videos? Do you believe your anecdotal experience, or your eyes? What kind of evidence do you need at this point, to convince you that yes, the police do, in fact, gas people unprovoked?

Would you like another one from Seattle?

[https://old.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/gu3qq1/cop_just_ca...](https://old.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/gu3qq1/cop_just_casually_tosses_tear_gas_at_my_feet_like/)

Did that sheriff look like was being attacked? Like anyone was throwing rocks or bottles at him? Like anyone was setting police cars on fire?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Of course it does. But politicians who ramp up the rhetoric and threaten to have people killed does not. Flint and Camden and other cities where the police sat down or walked with the protestors have no issues. People connecting to people with understanding rarely results in violence.

I think places where the police still walk a beat (or other regular outreach over a wide area) and get to know the locals rarely have issues with regular people. But cities don't want to spend that kind of money on these things as they would rather not tax people to pay for it. Yet it's an investment in cities' future; otherwise you wind up with this.

<comment><USER15> There were reports of planned riots in rural Polk County. Knowing they didn't have the resources to cover wide spread area, the sheriff instructed citizens to shoot anyone who broke into their home. I support this. Telling citizens you can't help them, and they must protect themselves is very different than threatening that the state itself will kill you.

[https://twitter.com/FOX13News/status/1267539936401592320](https://twitter.com/FOX13News/status/1267539936401592320)

<comment><USER16> You can shoot a home intruder during and outside of riot conditions. I'm not sure why he posted this.

<comment><USER15> I think it's clearly a message to people watching the looting in the cities thinking they can get away with that in a rural area. He says it plain and simple, rural people have guns and they will kill you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> You should not underestimate the extent of undercover/false flag instigators of violence at protests. At least here in Belgium this is a practice that is uncovered nearly every time when some violence erupts at demonstrations. The individuals that start the aggression are later photographed to be chilling and changing attire behind police lines.

Usually people at large anti-establishment rallies know very well there is litle to be gained by violence. Those in power otoh know very well how they can turn media coverage spotlights away from the issues and towards any disruptions to discredit or mute the actual grievances.

<comment><USER18> That's fascinating, do you have any references that discuss this? (preferably in English to avoid Google Translate)

<comment><USER19> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I highly recommend checking out Trevor Noah's recent video on the protests - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb4Bg8mu2aM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb4Bg8mu2aM)

He mentions how society is at its core a contract on how to engage with one another. Everything we do is in some form conforming to that contract and when this contract is violated (like the stores being looted and vandalized), it angers you.

However, to the people who're really affected by this issue at the very bottom of the society - they feel they're being ripped off in the contract and are being cheated every single day. After a breaking point they can feel like they don't really have to adhere to the contract anymore themselves when no one else sticks to it in their oppressed world.

PS - Please note, he's obviously not justifying the lootings, mainly tries to make sense of it and how we got to where we are right now.

<comment><USER21> The sense I get of it is that he is making excuses for looting behavior.

<comment><USER22> if that's the case, then why is that bad and the fact that the most wealthy, corporations, and our politicians get away with their excuses from looting people? their looting is stealing data, not paying their share of taxes, abusing power, etc., and just because they aren't physical acts doesn't excuse them.

but it's because they are the status quo, and they define what's looting or not. i'm not in favor of stealing and violence, particularly because the ones getting stolen from are at the bottom as well, but it sure seems those at the top sure live in a different society and under different rules that conveniently favor their form of "looting".

<comment><USER23> One is legal (whether you like it or not) the other is illegal. If you don't like that, vote to have the law changed. No one gets to be a vigilante/looter without legal/social consequences.

<comment><USER24> I don't think anyone is looking for no consequences, they really don't care anymore.

For example, your idea of voting in the minds of the protestors is laughable. They believe (and I tend to agree) that money controls policy in this nation and the ultra-wealthy have control over policy, therefor their vote doesn't matter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I was observing the BLM protest in DT Renton today.

The Renton PD seemed to employ a "out of plain sight" approach.

Patrol vehicles strategically placed, a few uniform officers were near occassionally chatting with protestors, and patrol vehicles driving by the scene.

At one point a team of bicycle cops appeared out of no where rode through along side the protestors.

Each "side" seemed to be respectful of each other.

The approach of the Renton Police Department not antagonizing the protestors had it's intended effect--the protestors protested peacefully. In fact, when police vehicles flashed lights, or chirped sirens in support of the protestors, the protestors cheered in support back.

<comment><USER26> It seems to me that almost every violent protest/riot started peaceful but then police make it violent.

I have seen this so many times where police stay out of the way and everything goes smoothly. I think US police actually want a riot. They want to create violence.

<comment><USER27> Seems to you based on what? Reddit posts?

More realistically, I think it is rarely this simple, on either side. I'm sure that usually there is a feedback loop of escalating responses.

<comment><USER25> > More realistically, I think it is rarely this simple, on either side. I'm > sure that usually there is a feedback loop of escalating responses.

The premise of the article is Police showing escalating force, increases escalation of protestors.

While likely it's a feedback loop, the police are expected to keep the peace; so there exists a higher standard for their behavior.

Yet, an oft criticism is that LE agencies don't always get the de-escalation training they need.

<comment><USER28> It's interesting, because I've taken a personal firearms course that involved concealed carry in the US and they talk about de-escalation there (I'm pretty sure they have to). I would at least expect the same from police (obviously their training would be much more in depth with all the tools cops get).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> From afar, it seems to me like the big problem in US policing is a lack of calm professionalism. The de-escalation approach in the article would to me but just one aspect of taking a professional approach where safety and following rules and best practices is paramount (and prioritised over 'winning' against criminals).

<comment><USER30> I have always suspected that US police are shunted into sub-optimal patterns because there are so many guns here that the odds a simple interaction will involve a firearm are much higher than they are in less-well-armed societies. Does anybody know if I'm right about that?

That doesn't mean that they can't do more de-escalation or take other steps, but the high prevalence of guns does seem like it would be a contributing factor.

(I realize this touches a hot topic (guns) but it's an honest question, and sympathetic to law enforcement.)

<comment><USER31> White protestors were allowed to occupy a state building with guns without a single bit of teargas.

<comment><USER32> Not to mention the Malheur Refuge standoff where heavily armed protestors were handled with kid gloves.

Maybe it's to do with having guns?

<comment><USER27> A few of those protestors were chased through a road block and shot at, and one was killed. It is ironic that you are calling the police killing someone handling with "kid gloves" in a thread about deescalation between protestors and police.

(Don't get me wrong, what those protestors did was senseless and the epitome of entitlement.)

<comment><USER33> > A few of those protestors were chased through a road block and shot at, and > one was killed.

This is a highly misleading way of describing the situation.

The police set up a traffic stop to arrest them. They fled the stop. Finicum told the police he wasn't going to surrender and that they'd have to shoot him. He reached for his gun in his pocket, and then he was shot.

If black men were only being killed by police after fleeing arrest, refusing to surrender, challenging the police to shoot them, and then reaching for a gun...then we wouldn't have much of a police violence problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Unpopular opinion: The newfound delusion that peaceful protests have ever engendered any real change as opposed to their violent cousin is perhaps the nail in the coffin of freedom and democracy.

<comment><USER35> Very unpopular opinion: wait til the military steps in, then you'll see how much more ineffective the violent cousin is.

<comment><USER34> When the military starts shooting civilians, those that are shot become martyrs and the movement becomes explosive. The military will not shoot civilians without extremely good reason - they aren't cops, after all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Imagine being a cop and having to deal with stuff like this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8k4L97igDjY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8k4L97igDjY) They literally save this man's life and he kills the guy who saved his life. Cops don't work in a safe space. Years of working in a violent and hateful environment must take a serious toll on them.

<comment><USER37> While there's a kernel of validity to what you're saying, cops in every state and every nation have to deal with a violent and hateful environment. The variation in outcomes suggests _something else is at play_.

<comment><USER38> Variation of outcome in other countries can be easily explained by low availability of weapons (that the case of most places): policemen are less susceptible to make use of their weapons when people they arrest as low probability of holding one.

<comment><USER39> Also, the general trend of militarizing US police forces is a systemic act against de-escalation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> > That, experts say, speaks to a cultural attitude that is endemic to the > profession, and is hard to change with new chiefs or rules. Thomson > encountered this when he tried to make change in Camden. The police > department was so dysfunctional that the city took the unprecedented step of > disbanding the force and reconstituting a whole new agency from scratch.

This American Life did a story about a new chief trying to reform the Firehouse culture in Amsterdam in order to combat discrimination:

[https://www.thisamericanlife.org/684/transcript](https://www.thisamericanlife.org/684/transcript)

Spoiler alert: he failed. It's hard to turn an organization around.

<comment><USER41> I didn't know that any city had reconstituted their police department. But Camden did, in 2012.[1] They fired _all_ their cops and started over with new ones.

[1] [http://archive.is/BfQIx](http://archive.is/BfQIx)

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I lived in Mexico City downtown for 15 years. If you don't know if there is a problem anywhere in the country, people would come to Mexico City main plaza to protest. Many peaceful protests never really achieve anything, others utterly violent neither. I witnessed farmers being beat up by the police, women and kids fighting riot police and building destruction. One common element is that certain police officers are aggressive by nature and suddenly get a free card to hurt people. I agree with the article, communication is key. In many protests I believe there is a lack of miscommunication in all parties, and others are not well planned or are infiltrated to diminish the reason of the protest. Some groups advocate for violence as the only way to be heard (which in some cases is a valid reason, e.g. fascism) but destroying normal people business vs government Infrastructure I don't think should be permitted

</comment><comment><USER43> Here is what absolutely boggles my mind: this information is so well know the USA Department Of The Army Field Manual on Counterinsurgency contains:

> Security force abuses and the social upheaval caused by collateral damage > from combat can be major escalating factors for insurgencies.

[https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=468442](https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=468442)

<comment><USER39> Unfortunately, the theory does not translate into practice or hiring. The military and militarized US police force seem to actively recruit agents who fundamentally misunderstand principles of de-escalation. Whether that be riot police antagonizing civilians or armed forces provoking people abroad.

The standards for these positions _must_ be higher, especially domestically (police).

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> I remember being in Grand Central Station, NYC, not long after 9/11, and noticed a student sitting on a step — right next to their head was the barrel of a casually dangled rifle, hanging off the shoulder of a cop who happened to be standing next to them.

We've become pretty normalized to it, but a militarized police force wasn't always a thing in America.

The scenes of the WTO protests in Seattle two decades ago, of cops in riot gear shooting tear gas and rubber bullets into crowds of people — those images were pretty shocking at the time. Now it's a familiar scene, one that is currently playing out in cities around the country and beyond.

</comment><comment><USER45> It's not entirely surprising, but it has been rather shocking to see the groups, some more organized than others, that have been coming in and inciting these confrontations between police and the rest of the public present at the location.

From what I've seen of videos posted of the vandals and looters in my own and other cities it seems a certain, very small, percentage of bad actors are provoking escalations to the detriment of everybody else. Some of these parties seem to be doing that as a primary goal, others are simply causing the escalations as a side-effect of their actions.

Certainly this doesn't account for everything we have witnessed, such as the NG shooting rubber bullets at people on their porches(srs WTF?), but it has contributed substantially to the escalation IMO.

</comment><comment><USER46> Police escalating a peaceful protest to a violent one is part of the plan. It's a feature not a bug for police.

They do this to scare regular folks from not participating in protests. Because good and honest people will stay home if they worry about getting hurt.

The goal of the police is to make protests undesirable and that's what they do.

Undercover cops, for example have been video taped in many instances of breaking store windows abd starting fires. The goal being to give ab excuse for police to disperse crowds.

I know many don't believe me but veteran protesters under this. Go to a protest and find out for yourself.

</comment><comment><USER47> I'm no fan of the police, but I think it's a lot easier to say something should be deescalated when you are miles away in your home and not on the ground with some people throwing objects at you, some of which have in the past included molotovs. Mob mentality is a very dangerous thing, that goes both ways.

</comment><comment><USER48> At some point society will realize that this "de-escalation" would be better served by social workers without guns.

<comment><USER28> I don't know my brother showed me a very uncivil and awful video of a black man trying to defend his business by telling looters to go away and being beaten and at least knocked unconcious with a pool of blood around his head. There were many other videos I saw where people stood outside their businesses with guns and their businesses didn't seem to get looted at least. (I know it's all anecdotal, but at least it says there are cases of the opposite being true.)

<comment><USER48> Sorry, what's the connection to replacing police de-escalating with social workers de-escalating? You've lost me.

<comment><USER28> Sorry, I should do a better job at explaining why I said what I said. I'll try to do better at that next time. What I meant to imply is that non-violent forces like the social worker or the man defending his business (using pleading and non-violent force) can very easily be met with violent force. Whereas sometimes even the fear of violence is enough to stop the escalation of force. I honestly don't even know if that black man that defended his business lived. I can agree with you police need to be better at de-escalating they and their departments should be striving for that. Maybe training could help? Also at the same time I feel, and I'm not saying this is something that always happens but it's a thing that always happens under the given circumstances, when something isn't de-escalated without force (such as a failed de-escalation by a social worker or non-violent de-escalation by police) it by nature will escalate, so to prevent loss of life sometimes force can be necessary (such as what the police can do). So, leaving the police completely out of it in the first place could be dangerous to the social worker and other parties involved.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> One suggestion that has been made is to not call the cops at all for certain kinds of emergencies:

* Mental health (otherwise nonviolent)

* Animal problems

This alone could reduce deaths dramatically. I witnessed an incident where the cops were called about a stray dog. They shot it. When you have a gun, every problem looks like a target.

I think it should also be made clear who has priority at a 'scene' firefighters, paramedics, or police?

Personally I think it's implicitly assumed that it is police that have that authority. I believe this should be flipped so that medical and fire officials have authority at the scene of an incident, not police.

In the case of George Floyd, then the paramedics would have had the authority to get those three cops off the guys back possibly in time to save him.

</comment><comment><USER50> The buck stops at the mayor's office.

We need to hold these officials accountable.

Blaming the police is like blaming the soldiers in a war.

It's the regional ELECTED leaders responsible for the budgets and operations of the police departments who are the problem.

<comment><USER51> The police (particularly police unions) are very politically powerful with their endorsements and contributions to politicians. Many mayors across the country are afraid to discipline their police departments.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I'm going to copy/paste the experience of a local state senator from Facebook because, well, I found it insightful and relevant to this article. This is from NC State Senator Jeff Jackson. He represents a district in Charlotte.

\----

Last night I went into uptown at around 7:00 p.m. to do my part to help keep the peace.

Our city had already had a peaceful and powerful protest earlier that afternoon with a message of love and justice and it was important that the evening protest stayed safe and civil.

At the beginning there were roughly 1,500 people. That's about half the number who were at the afternoon protest. The evening group was also much younger. I'd put the average age at about 24.

That meant the tone was audibly different. The conversations I had were different. It was a more personal perspective from people who weren't just marching for others - they were also marching for themselves. There were more people in this crowd who felt that this issue directly concerned them and their friends, and you could hear that in their voices.

The leaders of the protest had met earlier that day with CMPD to discuss how to ensure the event was safe. As a result, the leaders placed experienced activists at the front of the march, in the middle, and in the rear. They kept the march moving, occasionally stopping for a few minutes to let people re- group, but not letting too much heat build in any one spot.

Alongside real anger and frustration were constant displays of compassion. Lots of people brought water bottles and were handing them out. I saw a woman trip and hurt her leg and the crowd immediately stopped and tended to her.

Law enforcement was present in various ways. There were some officers in regular uniform walking among the crowd, answering questions and chatting. There were also several officers on bicycles and motorcycles. Most of the police presence was blocking certain streets to keep the march from heading certain directions.

By the time the march got to the police station it had been going for over two hours and it had shrunk to maybe 300 people. About 10 officers stood outside the front door, motionless. The protesters got as close as they could to the police without making contact. One officer raised his fist in solidarity and was greeted with loud applause and cheering from the crowd. At one point someone threw a water bottle at the police and everyone turned around and yelled at him. There were some very tense moments near the police station, but after about 30 minutes the march headed back uptown.

Now it was about 10:40 p.m. The march had been going for over three hours. It wasn't a coherent group anymore. There were less than 200 people. It had splintered into lots of little groups and there wasn't any organization that I could see. I thought it was basically over so I started to head back to my car.

At 10:50 p.m. I heard the first flashbang. Then I saw the tear gas. I was two blocks away so I couldn't tell what, if anything, precipitated its use (although I later read a CMPD statement that bottles and rocks were being thrown).

But the flashbang had a catalyzing and organizing effect on the remaining protesters, who instantly re-formed.

This marked the point of a clear shift in police tactics. Officers lined up shoulder-to-shoulder and walked block by block, toward the protesters, who similarly lined up shoulder-to-shoulder and waited for the police to move toward them.

Officers would then proceed down one block, wait five minutes, use a loudspeaker to tell the crowd to disperse, and then start walking toward the crowd. Then they would use tear gas and pepper bullets, which would cause the crowd to retreat one block.

This continued for several blocks, until eventually the remaining protesters scattered. Nine arrests were made.

I'm not aware of any injuries. As far as property damage, I heard a few reports of a few broken windows, but nothing extensive.

It's really easy to see one picture or hear a snippet on the news and draw a conclusion about an event like this. What I saw was much more complex, much more human. If it's one thing we all owe each other right now, it's looking past the surface and trying to learn a little more about what's really going on underneath.

What I learned last night is that the tenor of these events can change on a dime. But you can feel it when it happens. I also learned that the vast, vast majority of protesters were there to engage in peaceful, safe protest. Although many of them felt genuine anger, they understood what it meant to channel it productively and what type of conduct would undercut their message.

My thanks to the leadership of this event for working hard to keep everyone as safe as possible.

\- Sen. Jeff Jackson

[https://mbasic.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=13209956114...](https://mbasic.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1320995611436357&id=245711905631405)

[https://www.jeffjacksonnc.com/about- jeff](https://www.jeffjacksonnc.com/about-jeff)

</comment><comment><USER52> Instead of optimizing protesting don't kill black people.

<comment><USER53> As an outsider watching from across the Atlantic, I am astonished at what is being posted in these comments. There are hundreds of videos on social media of wanton police violence towards peaceful protestors. Of course there are non-peaceful protestors (and I do not defend them) but they are responded to in incidents of heavy handed violent escalation. Bellingcat have collected more than 100 reports of protected media representatives being beaten, blinded and brutalized by police action. This is all happening during unrest caused by police brutality.

And Hacker News wants to fix the protestors?!

<comment><USER52> In America there is a culture of rushing to find center ground between two points regardless of what the points are. So now they rush to make false equivalence between large groups of many kinds of people protesting in public and a professional militarized force with government funding.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> I've noticed that many people create a distinction between the police and the rest of society - as though they're separate to and apart from normal people.

Given police officers are in fact a part of the same society as the people protesting against them, it seems likely that the issues with brutality, and racial prejudice, are not endemic to police themselves, but indicative of problems of the overall society at large.

If people are protesting the symptoms of these broader cultural issues, and not the underlying cause, it seems an inescapable conclusion that any change will largely be ineffectual.

I feel that the difficulty with this, is that noone likes to admit that there are systemic issues in the way their society functions. From a sociological perspective, most people don't want to be beating a drum that runs counter to popular opinion.

Similarly, most people are reluctant to engage in confrontation on an individual level, when encountering behaviour that ultimately leads to these type of outcomes.

Just as importantly, most people are awful at taking responsibility for their role in a problem. People prefer to create a false dichotomy, and position their impact on problems as meaningless, and view solutions as outside their locus of control.

This effectively leads to a kind of tragedy of the commons, where responsibility belongs to everyone and is taken by noone - similar to what we see with climate issues.

To effect meaningful change, it's usually required that both individuals and groups make their voice heard and actually do something. Yet most people go about their lives, and only take action when the collective does, in response to some climax of conditions. This is better than the inverse - of individuals taking action while groups do nothing - yet usually results in neglibile change, if any.

I suspect a part of the problem is that a sizable demographic cares, but only insofar as they care to signal their virtues. Yet when it comes to doing something themselves, the it's a much lower priority. I also suspect most people in this situation engage in a cognitive dissonance that's almost automatic too - and probably aren't even aware that they're doing it.

</comment><comment><USER55> I think for demonstrators, yes, de-escalation is the key. However, for the Antifa/domestic terrorist groups that exist only to smash property and cause violence, they should be arrested on sight and prosecuted.

</comment><comment><USER56> Why not make universal laws that apply to anyone that can be proven to injure another human being with economic deterrents?

For example, if you hit a man in the face, cause bruising, lets say that costs $1,000 across the board. $1,000 for any hematoma, $5000 or any broken bone. $25,000 for a GSW, $100,000 for a life-threatening injury, etc.

To take it further, if you discharge a weapon at another human being, the fine is something like $1,000 per bullet, etc.

Additionally, existing laws still apply.

Following the above guidelines, you don't need to prove mens rea. It is just the cost of doing business.

It would be a violence tax at the individual level.

<comment><USER57> The Rich would be allowed to level anyone they see fit with minimal financial loss.

<comment><USER56> The hypothetical policy wouldn't replace existing laws, it would just be an additional tax on violent behaviors that apply to cops, criminals, school children, etc.

Another thought I had around this was to just fire any police officer that fires their weapon at another human. If they truly believe that their life is in danger, they value their life more than their job.

Either of these things would at least add some actual cost to the idea associated with performing an action with extreme consequences on another human being's life.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Police violence and stupidity are a big problem. But why Americans make everything about race? See this white guy suffocated by police while crying out "I cant breathe": [https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/08/01/police- laug...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/08/01/police-laughed- joked-he-lost-consciousness-handcuffs-minutes-later-he-died/)

Why no riots and street violence then?

</comment><comment><USER59> This is an interesting story; however, much of it seems predicated on the idea that the police _want_ things to be safer, which seems false. There seems like a open determination to make things worse - to be confrontational as possible and demonstrate their impunity. All the people making "you'd think they'd manage to not do police brutality at the rally about police brutality" jokes are missing the point - the overtness IS the message.

</comment><comment><USER60> But if the police are trained to use violent force... just how does that work? The fact that police will never really be of service to a suicidal person (who can point a toy gun at them, and then they shoot him/her- granting the individual's wish to end his/her own life) comes to mind. (Oh, yeah, don't commit suicide!)

</comment><comment><USER61> It takes just a few rotten apples on the side of the protestors to make it go violent.

It also takes just a few rotten apples on the side of the police to make it go violent.

Protesting is largely a modern witch hunt. It lets people blow off some steam, rather ineffectively in the modern protest case, because you don't get to burn anyone alive at the end of it. Enough people long for that witch hunt finale, and that's why protests turn violent so often, it's the modern day equivalent of burning a witch.

I don't know if protestors realize that it is up to them to come up with ways of fixing systemic issues they're upset about (people in power are fine with the way things are, by definition) - burning down your local neighbourhood or yelling out in the streets can only lead to the powers that be going 'ok fine, go find some witches to burn to appease this mob'. It's never going to fix actual systemic issues, but perhaps burning witches is good enough, given our history, and going in circles indefinitely is the way of this species.

<comment><USER62> Boston tea party

Haymarket riots

Black Friday suffragette riots

Martin Luther King Jr riots

Stonewall riots

<comment><USER63> You'll want to remove Boston Tea party from that list. Extremely non-violent event. They broke one pad lock, didn't steal any tea, and bought the yard a new padlock the next day.

It wasn't a "protest" in any comparable way to this.

<comment><USER64> "That evening, a group of 30 to 130 men, some dressed in the Mohawk warrior disguises, boarded the three vessels and, over the course of three hours, dumped all 342 chests of tea into the water. ... The property damage amounted to the destruction of 92,000 pounds or 340 chests of tea, reported by the British East India Company worth £9,659 worth, or $1,700,000 dollars in today's money. The owner of the two of the three ships was William Rotch, a Nantucket-born colonist and merchant."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> Just like parenting, police should never resort to violence. Why? It's a short-term fix that causes way more problems down the road.

So what kind of parents/police beat their constituents? Men who are angry and want to assert themselves as macho and in charge. It needs to stop.

</comment><comment><USER66> Police should use the minimum violence necessary. But some people refuse to de-escalate.

</comment><comment><USER67> i wonder if the rioters realize that violence in the streets is exactly how dictators gain power

<comment><USER68> Rioters don't care about the goals of the protestors.

<comment><USER67> i've conversed with a couple of people on HN who seem to think rioting is aligned, and in fact more effective than peaceful protests

they weren't downvoted, whereas my counter comments were

so, it seems this opinion that violence is the way forward is not the minority position

<comment><USER68> If rioters are aligned with protestors in your mind, then aren't cops who murder innocents also aligned with good cops?

<comment><USER67> perhaps if i saw protesters actively stopping violence and looting instead of just spectating and filming and cheering, as well as comments supporting violence getting flagged on hn

otherwise, plenty of people may not be personally willing to risk themselves by being violent, but are happy to stand by as others are violent

anyways, i hope the protesters look forward to trump 2020, because that is the current trajectory they are pushing

<comment><USER68> Protestors actively stopping violence and looting:

[https://facebook.com/fox11la/videos/2620823021579078/](https://facebook.com/fox11la/videos/2620823021579078/)

[https://youtube.com/watch?v=Z9Al_OCpYFk](https://youtube.com/watch?v=Z9Al_OCpYFk)

Consider why you are so unwilling to admit that bad cops who murder innocents are also the problem.

<comment><USER67> consider why you are making assumptions about what I believe?

even if, for sake of argument, bad cops are instigating all the riots and looting, the media optics will make this a slam dunk for trump 2020 and more militarized police

exactly contrary to what we really want

consider this

where do all the people live who are most likely to vote against trump?

the big cities

where are all the riots taking place?

the big cities

if trump stops the riots and saves their livelihood, will this make them more likely or less likely to vote against trump? what do you think?

<comment><USER68> Why do you keep bringing up Trump? Ignore the election for a second.

I'm pointing out two issues: rioting, and the police brutality leading to the rioting are both societal problems. We saw this exact scenario after the Freddie Gray murder. I'm also trying to find out why you're avoiding admitting that _both_ rioting and police brutality are problems.

<comment><USER67> why are you asking loaded questions? it is almost as if you are not interested in having a discussion, but would rather post talking points that i already agree with

hard to understand the point of what you are doing

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> Good thing we have the de-escalator in chief.

</comment><comment><USER70> OR: If the police were more Sheriff in _The Andy Griffith Show_ and less _Captain America_ meets _Commando._

This is what happens when frightened, under-trained, under-experienced, over- militarized, desensitized "police" optimize for the wrong thing and defeat their fundamental mission by becoming an military occupation force of psychopathic a__holes who don't interact with "civilians" except to harass people, rather than a community service of human f__king beings.

</comment><comment><USER71> Folks - don't be obtuse. Police commanders know exactly what will happen when they escalate with tear gas and rubber bullets.

Pro-police forces WANT mayhem. It makes people watching on TV afraid of the protests, and it changes the subject away from the widespread peaceful opposition to racist police violence.

<comment><USER72> Minneapolis Chief of Police: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medaria_Arradondo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medaria_Arradondo)

Seattle Chief of Police: [http://www.seattle.gov/police/about-us/about-the- department/...](http://www.seattle.gov/police/about-us/about-the- department/command-staff)

St Louis Chief of Police: [http://www.slmpd.org/chief_of_police.shtml](http://www.slmpd.org/chief_of_police.shtml)

Atlanta Chief of Police: [https://www.projectq.us/atlanta/atlanta_police_chief_erika_s...](https://www.projectq.us/atlanta/atlanta_police_chief_erika_shields_quietly_comes_out_as_gay)

Chicago Chief of Police: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brown_(police_officer)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brown_\(police_officer\))

Oakland Chief of Police: [https://climaterwc.com/2019/07/17/san-mateo-police- chief-sus...](https://climaterwc.com/2019/07/17/san-mateo-police-chief-susan- manheimer-to-retire-in-december/)

People on HN seem to have a cartoon villain view of police, so I thought I'd share a few faces of police leadership in effected communities.

<comment><USER73> It's crocodile tears. Police chiefs knew all along about the deplorable amount of racism and casual violence on their forces, they just chose to ignore them. Now the political winds are shifting and they have to go along to keep their jobs.

<comment><USER74> Change does not require looting and beatings does it? Wouldn't looting and beatings simply give the police more power, and be counter productive against making police more accountable?

Looters and those who bash people's skulls in are opportunists who don't care about change. The ones that want change see their opportunity slipping away.

<comment><USER68> The problem is that decades of peaceful protesting went ignored. Remmeber how kneeling during the national anthem against police brutality got mocked?

<comment><USER75> The police and police wives in my family were the loudest mockers of the kneeling protests, which were perfectly quiet and peaceful.

      "Blacks commit crimes at higher rates than others."
      "It's not a police problem, it's a crime problem."
      "I don't want to hear this crap when I get home from work."

> Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution > inevitable. -- John F. Kennedy, 1962

The inaction of police to reform themselves and elected officials to reform the laws that govern them is incentive to make it much easier for domestic terrorism to thrive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> Could we please stop calling "protesters" all the people looting jewelry stores, Target, Nike, etc? These are not protesters, these are looters. Police should use any means at their disposal to protect lives and property from looters and rioters.

<comment><USER77> Could we please not waste a second of thought on the relatively minor issue of broken store windows until we sort the issue of cops indiscriminately killing black people?

If you care so much, how about petition your local police force to dump their tear gas at the range and stop firing on peaceful protesters, turning a lot of sitting people into a riot.

<comment><USER78> I care about both. Two wrongs are two wrongs.

<comment><USER79> But hopefully you care about one much, much more than the other. They are not comparable in terms of needing discussion at this moment in history.

(Edit: In the event that you honestly don't know which one is the more important topic, right now or pretty much any other time - police frequently murdering black people or some store windows getting smashed and merch stolen - it's the police murdering black people.)

<comment><USER80> I can't actually tell which one you're trying to say is more important right now. The case for "riots are the bigger problem right now" being that there is a whole lot more rioting and looting happening right now than there usually is, whereas the amount of police violence is currently significantly below the typical level (as a result of the coronavirus and everyone staying inside, but still).

<comment><USER81> 11,000 claims of abuse in the last 3 days just in seattle is low?

<comment><USER80> You can't retroactively justify a riot based on police conflicts with rioters. It violates causality.

<comment><USER82> I'm not so sure you can pin causality here. Anecdotally, the protests I've visited in the past have always been exactly as violent as the police initiates. A peaceful police usually means a peaceful protest in my experience. A violent police—on the other hand—can sometimes cause a violent protest, and even a riot.

Crowd control is a science. And you are sort of ignoring the science by claiming that rioters are the cause of the conflict.

<comment><USER80> > Anecdotally, the protests I've visited in the past have always been exactly > as violent as the police initiates.

Things escalate when someone escalates them. Sometimes that's the police. Sometimes it isn't. And even when it is, you still have to be willing to be provoked. Don't.

We have people in this thread justifying riots as "we tried kneeling at football games" as if there is some kind of reasonable progression from there to looting and burning down churches.

<comment><USER82> Like I said, crowd control is a science. Even if you have violent actors at the protest, it is still a failure of crowd control if the whole protest turns violent.

Reacting when violated is a natural reaction. With a group this big you cannot think in individual terms. If provoked there and there is a non-zero chance you'll see a reaction, you _will_ see a reaction. And now you have a positive feedback loop between the police and protestors that may escalate into riots.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> You Americans need to be way more angry about what has been happening in your country for decades (centuries even). Way more angry.

<comment><USER84> Please don't take HN threads into nationalistic flamewar, such as by preaching self-righteously at some other country. That helps nothing.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER85> What has stood out to me, even above the violence, is the sheer fear and stupidity in the eyes of officers. They have zero control over themselves. They aren't doing a job, they're just fighting people. It's incredible just how bizarrely amateur they all are. Like it was all one violent LARP to them until they met their first riot

</comment><comment><USER86> Why would you de-escalate when the POTUS says stuff like this: [https://soundcloud.com/the-daily-beast-politics/trump- audio](https://soundcloud.com/the-daily-beast-politics/trump-audio)

</comment><comment><USER87> I was watching someone stream the protests near the White House last night. The police were being hit with water bottles and sometimes fireworks, but still they mostly just stood there. The police did not escalate at all until the protestors lit two fires. One completely took over a small building and another was like a bonfire in the middle of the street.

So the question is how many fires should you let them light? After that they became very aggressive and used the year gas and batons and rubber bullets to take over the area and force the protestors to retreat back a few blocks. Later on the looting a few blocks away from the police escalated and it does seem like it could have been partially motivated by the violent tactics from before. But if you look at the amount of arson and destruction in Minnesota recently when there was no real police presence, it seems like the result was worse.

<comment><USER88> No police presence? Oh! You mean where they waited to announce anything and defended the house of the police officer while everything burned? Or do mean where people on their porches were fired upon for filming? Or maybe that cnn crew that was attempting to comply?</comment></comment>


Microsoft Internet Explorer 8 at the height of cynicism - <AUTHOR> http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2009/06/17/microsoft-internet-explorer-8-at-the-height-of-cynicism/

<comment><USER2> Also, turns out one of Microsoft's updates to IE8 actually breaks this contest from working: [http://www.istartedsomething.com/20090617/internet- explorer-...](http://www.istartedsomething.com/20090617/internet- explorer-8-treasure-hunt-microsoft-australia-hides-10000/) I can't reiterate enough how absolutely hilarious that is.

<comment><USER3> Plus, after the update broke IE8, they tried to fix it and failed: "It appears the Compatibility View list cannot be overridden."

If the press does its job, this whole thing will be a net loss for Microsoft.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> So the author is complaining that Microsoft is restricting a contest designed to get users to download IE8 to, uh, users of IE8?

If they _didn't_ do that, why would they run a contest at all? Would having a Firefox user win the contest justify the marketing expense?

I agree that the promo is pretty thoughtless, but I'm not sure there was any thought put into this criticism either.

</comment><comment><USER5> We need someone to win the contest using Firefox (changing their user agent) and just viewing source when appropriate (to avoid IE "compatibility" bugs that hide things).

<comment><USER6> Or better, can someone quickly release an FF extension which can beat this? That would be an interesting counter strike :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> "It's not as stupid as it sounds." - Lol.

IE8 isn't _that_ bad. Sure it's slow, but most everything you'd need is implemented. I don't like the haughty tone of the contest, but meh. Firefox fans have run similar campaigns, e.g. <http://wedontsupportie.com/>

<comment><USER8> That was in reference to IE6 which was a pain in the ass to support and required a site to be written with tons of exceptions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> To be fair they encourage people to upgrade from MSIE 6 and 7 too, and if they can achieve that, I'm willing to consider that a _good_ thing.

<comment><USER2> And to be be fairer, they're not encouraging others to go out and built IE- only sites. They've just designed this site (presumable through a simple JS browser check or UA check on the server side) to only allow entry via IE8.

But still, kind of a dick move. The whole "get lost" message isn't really a good marketing move either.

<comment><USER10> How can they call FireFox 'old'? IE8 may be the best IE, but it's still a year or more behind the other browsers, and FF is very actively being developed. 3.5RC1 just came out in the past 24 hours.

<comment><USER11> I wonder if they are checking the firefox version number. For me on Firefox 3.0, it just says "you'll never find it with that browser".

<comment><USER6> _I wonder if they are checking the firefox version number_

I guess not. I use FF 3.0.x and they said "old Fire Fox". It looks like many people are actually downloading IE8 to participate in this. Hopefully, this actually may not change the market share of IE vis-a-vis its competitors. If you are an FF user, even if you download IE8 and participate in this contest, you are most likely to stick to FF. IOW I'm hoping that the downloads won't actually translate to conversions from other browsers. One good thing that might come out of this is some IE6 upgrades to IE8.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> "First, my memory isn't so short as to have forgotten that it was Microsoft and their browser (Internet Explorer 6) that held back the web for so many years."

That's bullshit. IE6 may have sucked, but it didn't hold anything back. As Firefox proved, anyone could have come along and built a better browser and started sucking up enough market share to make it an industry again.

<comment><USER13> And so comes the totally unbiased voice of an ms fanboy ;)

Seriously. They employed anti competitive practices to grab market share from Netscape. Once they had completely obliterated Netscape, they decided to not update IE6 and leave users suffering.

It's like their aim with IE6 was to kill off the web. Or at least make it suck so much that webapps would be delayed for 10 years - which they pretty much achieved. Obviously that was in ms's favor - their business is desktop apps, not webapps.

<comment><USER12> I haven't used any version of IE (other than for testing, or where sites require it) since the first time I tried out Firefox, which I think was called Phoenix back when I started. But the issue I have with that logic is that nothing ever changed with their so-called "anti-competitive practices", and yet the browser market did drastically when Firefox started picking up steam. IE kept on being bundled with every Windows install. The market worked itself out.

If IE6 were holding it back for so long, why did it miraculously stop, even though nothing changed? The answer, of course, is that it wasn't IE6. It was the lack of a business model, which was inadvertently solved by Google.

Saying IE6 held the browser market back is like saying Yahoo held the search market back by giving it away for free. Just like Yahoo, Microsoft is now feeling the pain of failure to innovate.

Of course, everyone here hates IE6 (understandably) and Microsoft so I'll get downmodded a lot.

<comment><USER14> _The answer, of course, is that it wasn't IE6. It was the lack of a business model..._

As I recall, Netscape had a business model back before Microsoft set out to use monopoly power to deliberately destroy it.

Your argument reminds me of the old joke about the guy who kills his parents and then runs around asking for sympathy because he's an orphan.

Of course, it's quite possible that Netscape's original business model was nonviable. There were plenty of silly business models around in the old days. We'll never really know. But this doesn't let Microsoft off the hook: Shooting someone who has a terminal illness is still murder.

<comment><USER12> From the latest Joel on Software post: "Dave Winer (in 2007): 'Sometimes developers choose a niche that's either directly in the path of the vendor, or even worse, on the roadmap of the vendor. In those cases, they don't really deserve our sympathy.'"

That's Netscape. They had a nonviable business model in charging for something that ended up on the roadmap of every platform they were on. You can hate Microsoft all you want, but Apple bundles a browser with their OS for free too, and would have done the same if they owned the market. And then everyone would be complaining that Safari held us all back.

Firefox found a viable business model and the browser wars began again. That's all there is to it.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


DeepSort: Scalable Sorting with High Efficiency [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://sortbenchmark.org/DeepSort2014.pdf

<comment><USER2> typo in the 4th word. "salable" instead of "scalable"

<comment><USER3> that was the first thing catching my eye too. Oh well it does not make the algorithm any less brilliant because of this typo.</comment></comment>


Apple Is Giving Design A Bad Name (2015) - <AUTHOR> https://www.fastcompany.com/3053406/how-apple-is-giving-design-a-bad-name <comment><USER2> > _It was a champion of the graphical user interface, where it is always > possible to discover what actions are possible..._

People harp on this, but what changed is that phone screens are tiny. It's just not possible to show all commands and still show content. Also, people forget that "gestures" like the double-click were not intuitive _at all_ and that Macs came with _manuals_ which had to _teach_ the basic concepts of computing (double-clicking, folders, windows, etc.). While young children seem to use iPads rather intuitively (and they don't come with manuals).

> _clearly see how to select that action..._

Tapping is just as intuitive as clicking... and select-tap for a context menu is no worse than click-and-hold for a drop-down menu, or right-click for a context menu.

> _receive unambiguous feedback as to the results of that action..._

I see no evidence this is any worse on phones. To the contrary, iOS brought a whole new world of animated feedback that makes feedback even clearer spatially (e.g. an app or folder expanding).

> _and have the power to reverse that action–to undo it–if the result is not > what was intended._

In the most advanced applications, yes. But "undo" was never a universal concept on the desktop -- it was mostly limited to text editing and actions in Office-type applications. E.g. in System 7 you couldn't undo creating a folder or moving a file or an operation in the calculator, you've never been able to undo setting a preference or resizing a window, and you certainly couldn't undo overwriting a file until Time Machine and file versions came along more recently. (And on iOS, things like drawing and text editing apps usually _do_ have undo, same as on desktop.)

I would argue things haven't gotten any worse, because they were never that idyllic to begin with, and that most of what does _seem_ worse is forced by smaller screens, not by suddenly ignoring principles.

(edit: changed "tap-and-hold" above to "select-tap" which I meant to write, e.g. when bringing up the copy/paste menu for text)

<comment><USER3> > _what changed is that phone screens are tiny_

iOS7 and up degraded usability relative to iOS6. See: [https://uxcritique.tumblr.com/](https://uxcritique.tumblr.com/) for comparisons of iOS and MacOS old vs new designs.

With the passing of Steve Jobs Apple has lost its design mojo.

<comment><USER4> I suspect it was related to the loss of Scott Forestall. It's notable that "metaphor" dropped from the top iOS design principle to near the bottom. And the backlash against "skeuomorphic design" was a popular narrative in the tech press around the time of these changes.

<comment><USER5> I'd argue that the gesture interface used in newer iOS devices is proof that modern Apple is fully capable of employing metaphors to make interfaces more intuitive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> My father used to hold the home button to start siri. Siri then says "hello" so my father politely says hello back. On hearing this siri turns itself off so it never hears his question and he stands there wondering why it works for other people but never him.

<comment><USER7> That's a UX oversight that I can so so so imagine myself doing if given the chance.

Excellent reason to test interfaces with people who've never used it before

<comment><USER8> I think for most people this kind of empathy is a skill that can be learned and improved. It is very easy to forget the assumptions you make everyday. Very carefully studying how e.g. your parents use things or remembering how foreign certain parts of a computer felt to you the first times you used them are valuable excercises.

This is a bit like writing novels with main figures that are very much unlike yourself: if you want to paint a convincing picture, you will have to research and figure out how people do things. And if you go deeper you need to understand where their ideas come from.

It is quite sad, that many people in the tech world have a very one- dimensional collection of possible user characters. In the worst case they divide the world into people that are like them and idiots who have no idea.

The only thing worse than this is not thinking about design at all.

<comment><USER9> Especially for a company like Apple, I think it should be less about having empathy and more about having the resources to gather bug reports and track them down.

Large beta pools and other feedback mechanisms could credibly get reports like "Siri doesn't work for me" to come in. Then you have to have people to trace those down. Really? It works for me? What are the recent queries on this account? Ohhh, he's just saying hello back, then the exchange ends and Siri misses his question. How many other people have this pattern? Can we get a fix so, if the user replies with a greeting the conversation stays open?

Having people getting and tracking down reports from customers will cause your organization to develop something that's a lot like empathy. You'll learn what customers have problems with and fix them.

<comment><USER8> Ofc this depends on the size of the project. But you have testers who will need to figure things out. It is not very creative to say "Hallo" to a thing that says "Hallo" to you, people do it every day. This is something that should work from day 1 and could have been avoided by one person testing it with their un-techy dad in mind.

And this as you said depends on the organization, but if your product speaks to people and it doesn't know that greeting back isn't necesarilly the end of the conversation, you skipped conversation 101

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This[0] is one of my favorite websites ever. It's by Apple's first HCI engineer (long before such a title existed). He has some great articles on HCI as well as a bunch of critiques of Apple's missteps after he left.

I find I agree with pretty much everything he says.

[0] [https://www.asktog.com/](https://www.asktog.com/)

<comment><USER11> Honest question: why do so many design/HCI/typography experts have unreadable/unusable websites of their own? I don't doubt what you're saying, but damn.

<comment><USER12> > Honest question: why do so many design/HCI/typography experts have > unreadable/unusable websites of their own?

Because they are not only aware of what is ideal, they are aware of the effort-payoff balance involved in doing it right.

The ones that have a secure brand and are sharing knowledge for free (as opposed to the ones using their website to build/establish a personal brand) don't have a lot of incentive to invest heavily.

<comment><USER13> ...except it actually took effort to make it that bad. Plain HTML without any styling whatsoever would be more readable. Someone _thought this was an improvement_.

<comment><USER12> > ...except it actually took effort to make it that bad. Plain HTML without > any styling whatsoever would be more readable

Handcoding HTML is a lot more effort than picking up one of the many canned tools that you configure some settings and throw text at and it produces a blog.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> What an absurd and tiresome article. IOS is significantly easier and more intuitive than any PC ever was, including the Mac. Most gestures are so intuitive you don't even realise they are gestures, 2-year olds scroll and zoom without being told how. The only people who could possibly find iOS unintuitive are those whose minds have hardened in a PC shaped mold.

<comment><USER15> Tell that to people who have to use a iPad for doing office work. I just switched jobs on April 1 and I want to throw this hunk of hot garbage away. Mouse and Keyboard are so much better for doing most things. iOS will be much friendlier to mouse and keyboard as more people are given iPads.

<comment><USER16> This is your company's fault, they chose the wrong tool for the job.

<comment><USER17> They chose a "computer" just like the ad told them. It all reminds me of the ST:TNG episode where a space faring alien doesn't know how his technology works.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This article is correct, but this the points it brings up about discoverability are somewhat misrepresented. iPhones usually make it easy to do simple things and hard to complicated ones. That's why you can see tech illiterate people being able to use iPhone so well: they just tap on things and scroll, and it usually works. But these people have no need or can get by without accelerators or advanced features, so iOS chooses to hide them. I'm not sure if this is the ideal design, but it does allow for visually pretty products that work a lot of the time. Note that Apple has recently started moving away from the iOS 7 design of "minimalism is the best", so some of the things mentioned in the article are not relevant anymore or significantly less of an issue.

Also,

> The Magic Mouse works differently than the track pad, which is different > than gestures on the iPhone or tablet. Why?

I have never seen this be an issue? On macOS, you scroll with two fingers because you have a cursor, and on iOS you use one. Since Magic Mouse has an alternate way of moving the cursor, you can actually use both methods.

<comment><USER19> "Simple things should be simple, complex things should be possible."

― Alan Kay

Apple used to live by that quote, but maybe they ignore the latter part now.

<comment><USER18> I literally said exactly this: iOS makes simple things easy and difficult things hard-to-find.

<comment><USER20> The person replying to you agrees and was just adding an interesting and relevant quote to the discussion. Not every post on the internet is an argument.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Counterpoint: [https://twitter.com/jiveDurkey/status/1121186334243213314](https://twitter.com/jiveDurkey/status/1121186334243213314)

<comment><USER22> That's instagram. It isn't made by apple, and works the same on any phone.

<comment><USER21> It's Instagram but it's Apple's user interaction design [1].

>and works the same on any phone.

Well yes, that's what Jobs' "thermonuclear war" was about. In fact Google is still at it with Android Q. They've given up and just aped the iPhone X gestures [2]. Apple might be mad about it but they shouldn't be because it just makes switching from Android to iOS easier.

[1] [http://www.iphonehacks.com/2013/09/ios-7-gestures.html](http://www.iphonehacks.com/2013/09/ios-7-gestures.html)

[2] [https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/7/18530599/google- android-q-...](https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/7/18530599/google-android-q- features-hands-on-dark-mode-gestures-accessibility-io-2019)

<comment><USER23> To be a little pedantic - it's not quite the same as Apple's user interaction design... notice how the ape performs swipes to navigate back?

Apple's gesture for this requires starting at the edge of the screen, but Instagram allows you to start swiping anywhere.

I'd hesitate a guess that without this difference, the ape wouldn't have been able to browse Instagram nearly as easily.

<comment><USER22> Yes, instagram's swipe back is much better than apple's.

Though in fairness, I do think the iphone is pretty intuitive. My parents picked it up quite well (mac too).

However, there are a variety of mid-tier functions that are not very discoverable. Not pro features, even simple stuff like screenshots and certain sharing options.

<comment><USER24> To be fair, screenshots aren't intuitive on any OS.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > "Indeed, in Apple's latest release of its mobile Operating System, iOS 9, a > number of the issues we have discussed have been addressed."

This is a strange line to find 90% into the article. It seems like a lead in rather than a late acknowledgement. iOS struggled to find its way back to usability after rejecting "skeuomorphic design" in favor of flat design (see the drop in emphasis on metaphors), but it's doing better now.

> Discoverability

This does continue to be an issue. However, the subtle bars that indicate the availability of the swipe up from the bottom and swipe down from the top right are helping.

> Undo

This is a huge design flaw. I finally enabled shake-to-undo because I've started doing more work on iOS and needed undo, but I feel foolish shaking my phone. Photoshop introduced the history palette years ago and that's a fantastic approach to undo/redo. Now the feature is common on desktop apps. iOS badly needs a "time machine" control as a universal access to undo/redo. The rewind/fast forward 2-finger gesture introduced in the Paper by 53 was a nice solution, but not widely implemented. An icon would be better.

> Feedback

The most satisfying feedback on iOS is the click vibration when the flashlight or camera app snap open after a long press on the lock screen.

<comment><USER25> On iPad, the keyboard has a Undo/Redo buttons. Given the increased screen space reserved for the keyboard on the iPhone X/XS/XR I'm surprised Apple uses it for an emoji shortcut key and dictation button (and a lot of empty space) instead of Undo/Redo.

<comment><USER4> I do notice that on iPad, though it seems inconsistent & I'd forgotten about it.

I also wish the X line of phones had the two-finger touch keyboard cursor control... It seems like iPad is innovating (maybe because the potential universe of pissed off users is less) & hopefully we'll see some of those updates on iPhone in the future.

<comment><USER26> They have 3D Touch for keyboard cursor control. At least the X/XS

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> No doubt this has appeared on HN in the past but now is the first time I've seen it and I suspect there are others like me.

<comment><USER27> Agreed and upvoted. It's been long enough since the previous discussions, and articles like this have repost value in my eyes, since they can generate a good discussion of the content in light of the current state of things.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> 2017: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13849402](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13849402)

2015: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10559387](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10559387)

The day before: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10552932](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10552932)

</comment><comment><USER29> Article argues that Apple UX no longer have affordances and discoverability as it used. I am not sure if I completely agree with this. Even kindergartners very quickly learn and use iOS and for most part Apple's UX primitives are well thought out. I'm more concerned about bad or no design decisions that are accumulating over time such as,

* Power and volume buttons on exactly opposite side means you often press one when you meant another when held in one hand.

* Extremely slippery surfaces means the devices slips away and fall down all the time.

* No easy way to organize app icons. Over time you accumulate 100s of apps and its lot of pain to organize and discover apps.

* Cannot disable click sound when taking photos easily.

* Cannot search and organize photos easily.

* Anything related to iCloud is either mess or dysfunctional.

... and so on.

</comment><comment><USER30> It's simple. Steve Jobs died, and Jony Ive was now free to engage in his self- indulgent narcissistic hack work. It took an extra 4 years for the pipeline of Steve's influence to run dry.

They fired Scott Forstall for not assuming the failure of Maps V1. What do you think the likelihood is that Jony Ive will be fired for the butterfly keyboard fiasco, notched iPhone and other design catastrophes?

</comment><comment><USER31> What I really dislike is designs that sacrifice information density for beauty. I want my apps for the content, not for the whitespace.

</comment><comment><USER32> Apple made the fonts thicker in recent iOS releases.

I don't understand the other complaints. Anecdotally, users are more proficient with iOS than Windows or macOS, for similar usage times.

<comment><USER33> San Francisco is a much better UI font than Helvetica

<comment><USER34> It is, but Lucida Grande was significantly better than both.

<comment><USER35> Lucida Grande looked great on displays for which it was designed (non-Retina) but looked a bit naff and oddly-proportioned on Retina displays. Not unreadable by any means, but the features baked into the font to aid readability on non-Retina displays simply no longer applied once the majority of Apple's products had moved to Retina displays.

<comment><USER34> I agree that San Francisco looks more visually pleasing on Retina displays, but I still find Lucida Grande easier to read. Particularly via peripheral vision, which matters in a UI.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> fast company's website is giving design a bad name

</comment><comment><USER37> So is Google Material Design is a much sexier alternative? No, thanks. LAMOH.

</comment><comment><USER38> Tried to use Apple's email client on a friend's phone to send and email to myself and 1 other person. I entered both emails with a space between them and it didn't handle it considering it a single email address. Tried to go back to add a comma between them and I could no longer select the space. Finially added a comma and the client didn't recognize it as a delimiter. In the end I deleted the addresses and started again finially figuring out what it wanted. Generally I'm confused by Apple's great reputation for design.

The back button being furthest place away from the thumb on the iPhone was another thing that never made sense. I think ppl just get used to it but a lot of the good design is really good marketing.

<comment><USER35> The back button being placed at the top is because it's the clearest place to put an indication of a hierarchy. Remember, iOS has always made it explicit where a back action will take you — the arrow button isn't just an arrow, it also contains text that tells you where it's going.

It makes perfect sense to put such a control at the top of the screen next to the title. The interface is clear: you are here, you can go back where you came from — and these two things are grouped together.

Android has now adopted this which is great, because it's still a crapshoot where the hardware back button will take you on an Android phone — back in the navigation hierarchy? Out of the app entirely and into a different one? Will it just dismiss a popover? In the past moreso than now, the button's behaviour could almost have been described as entirely arbitrary.</comment></comment>