The vanishing civility: The game of jerks, bozos and assholes - <AUTHOR> https://stactivist.com/2016/08/01/the-vanishing-civility/ <comment><USER2> When I was the editor of Dr. Dobb's, we were very concerned about how to create a lively discussion forum that was free from jerks and unpleasant people. Ultimately, we settled on two components: treat everyone respectfully even those who seemed to be trolling, and delete all insulting posts. This largely worked. Similar elements seem to work here on HN too. That the efficacy of this approach is repeatable suggests that the problem exists primarily b/c sites are willing to put up with bad behavior.

<comment><USER3> I'm glad to hear that an experienced editor sees HN that way, and also that you see evidence of a repeatable approach. Those are good signs.

As I'm sure you know, it's a more complex problem than just being willing or unwilling to put up with bad behavior. There are costs to addressing it—quite a few, it turns out, no matter what approach one takes.

Our plan is to move HN toward more community self-regulation. Each step we've taken that way—e.g. when we added vouching for dead comments—has worked well. I doubt the community can become completely autonomous (though a mod can dream), but we're pretty sure it can go further in that direction, especially if we do a good job of specifying what kind of site HN is, and isn't, supposed to be.

<comment><USER4> IMO the biggest challenge of self-moderating communities is avoiding the echo chamber effect: ideas surviving and spreading due to their popularity, rather than their merit.

I'm curious if you agree that this is a problem, and what your plans are to address it, if you do.

<comment><USER5> You need to moderate based only on civility. And emphatically NOT content (which slashdot does).

Say something completely wrong, but you are polite about it? No problem, it stays up.

Say something right, but insult those who disagree? Take it down, even if it's right and the others wrong.

<comment><USER3> That's a fundamental point and one we can do more to clarify. It's in everyone's interest not to discredit their own argument by going about it uncivilly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "Vanishing" implies that there was some Golden Age of civility that has now gone by. This is not really true.

I would argue that this impression comes from the fact that media options were much more limited in the recent past, and therefore had to appeal to and not offend a wider range of audiences than current sources. Watching TV programs from the 50s/60s, for example, they do seem quite polite and civil. Now though, options abound. Why should I watch a whitewashed and generic news program when I can listen to vitriolic talk radio or scroll through my website of choice and see exactly what I want to see? Not to mention that every "jerk/bozo/asshole" can pour his heart out online.

The downfall of the previously-more-mainstream Mainstream Media has simply enabled more impolite and "uncivil" voices to stand out from the crowd (for better or worse).

As far as personal and professional interaction, the responsibility for maintaining civility in such environments falls on the individuals taking part. Don't tolerate bullshit from employees. Be respectful to your friends/family, and expect the same in return.

<comment><USER7> Yes! This is the inevitable outcome of the world of connectedness and giving a voice to the voiceless that we all wanted isn't it?

It comes off as overly cynical, but this seems to me to merely be the removal of a veil of ignorance about what people actually think and how they actually want to behave when they are either anonymous or not present physically (with the possibility of having their mirror neurons engaged, physical assault, in person shaming, etc).

If it wasn't obvious beforehand, then it must be obvious in retrospect that a culture war was the inevitable result right?

While I agree that the responsibility falls on the individuals taking part ... pragmatically isn't the outrage economy going to work for a long time? And the physiological tools for encouraging uncivil behaviour just going to keep getting better for a long time? I have my doubts that any significant percentage of people will be able to follow that path of individual responsibility when so many smart people are constantly trying to nudge them off of it using subtle methods the targets don't even understand.

Calls of "can't we all just get along", whether directed against physical violence or uncivil discourse, however correct, never seem to do much when the problem is occurring in a system that benefits from the opposite.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> A little meta-civility goes a long way, too. If one is inclined to call people jerks, bozos and assholes, perhaps one is not understanding people very well.

It's much more effective to work learn about people, their predilections, biases and experiences. No one is a "checkbox" asshole. Much better to focus on specific behaviors, instead of writing off a person as a type.

When I see a company describe its "no assholes" rule, I see a company inclined toward calling people assholes.

<comment><USER9> > _A little meta-civility goes a long way, too._

Yes, but you can easily blow up the stack with all this recursion, since the real world doesn't have TCO.

> _If one is inclined to call people jerks, bozos and assholes, perhaps one is > not understanding people very well._

Well, some people legitimately and truly are "jerks, bozos and assholes" though, some even embrace the jerk ethos openly. If you're addressing them, it's fair game to call them that.

Except if your worry is that calling them that wont help them change but alienate them -- but maybe changing them is not the author's goal, but rather routing around them.

> _When I see a company describe its "no assholes" rule, I see a company > inclined toward calling people assholes._

That's not the bad thing though is it? The bad thing would be being an asshole, not calling out one. So, as long as the company doesn't do it to people undeserving the title...

<comment><USER10> The point is more one of framing, not of tolerance to assholes. If you restate the 'no assholes' policy as a set of positive traits that are to be encouraged then the framing effect is to cause people to look for those desirable traits and emulate them. A 'no assholes' policy frames things in a way that makes people look for assholes, and causes them to think negatively about personality traits, in terms of not being something undesirable. Instead of 'calling out' people for being jerks, bozos and so on, the idea would be to talk instead about how they could become better at teamwork, interaction with others and so on. So rather than pigeonholing them as something undesirable, you show them they are on the start of a path that leads to improvement.

I think the impact of these subtle semantic changes can be surprisingly effective, especially because it is all happening at an almost unconscious level. I also think some of it can certainly come across as a little cringe- worthy and perhaps rather strained. Sort of like the trend of looking for _something_ to praise about everyone, and awarding certificates for merely showing up when that is the only positive thing that can be found. But, everything can be taken too far I suppose...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This sentence jumped out at me:

>You also have those individuals who are "not rude" but keep telling people to "suck it up", to get "their act together" or to believe that disrespect is just a question of interpretation.

Sounds like the author has a lot of conflicts. Sounds like he often receives unwanted advice to cool his jets. Talking about "assholes" is somewhat pointless because conflict is a fact of life, and in most conflicts both parties consider the counterparty an asshole.

This author doesn't show any philosophy, self-insight or humility; rather he is surrounded by "assholes" with "inappropriate" behavior. (He keeps using that word "inappropriate" \- but if people agreed on what was appropriate, would we still have conflict?)

Here's something I've learned over decades of working with other people: fix yourself first. Become tactful, adroit and thick-skinned. Recognize that absorbing the bumps and jolts of social interaction is part of the job, whether your are a salesman or an engineer. Recognize that the "asshole" is right in his own mind and may in fact be be right, period.

<comment><USER12> > >You also have those individuals who are "not rude" but keep telling people > to "suck it up", to get "their act together"

> fix yourself first. Become tactful, adroit and thick-skinned

Aren't you just demonstrating exactly what the author was complaining about?

<comment><USER11> Two answers:

1\. Yes. It is not easy to take the advice of "suck it up." But if you are getting that advice regularly, there's a reason.

2\. Paradoxically, telling people on the internet to fix themselves is the opposite of fixing myself. Advising tact is not tactful. If I knew this author in real life, I would probably commiserate with him, give him sympathy and understanding. Only if he's a close friend or shows signs of receptiveness would I offer the advice he really needs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The biggest asshole I ever worked for had a "No Assholes Allowed" rule.

I came to learn that it meant if you ever say or do or criticize anything this guy did not like he would label you an asshole and then your career path was over there if he did not fire you.

It created a culture of the ass-kissers vs the assholes lol.

<comment><USER9> > _The biggest asshole I ever worked for had a "No Assholes Allowed" rule._

Well, he probably meant "there's only room for one in this company".

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Recommended reading: "Assholes, a Theory", by Aaron James. This is a serious analysis of asshole behavior and why society rewards it. The latter is the key point. There are benefits to being an asshole in some organizations.

<comment><USER15> I am from India. The a part of transgender community often known as Hijras come to public places and demand money. Often they touch you while demanding money else they will simply lift their clothes to expose their genitals. Often to avoid that touch you end up giving them money.

The technique was further refined by beggar community who will deliberately be filthy and to avoid their touch you will end up paying the money.

I think assholes benefit from the fear of rest of the people to be civil.

<comment><USER16> >I think assholes benefit from the fear of rest of the people to be civil.

Just see the Europe.

<comment><USER15> Such comments are heavily downvoted here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I would add one thing to the author's list of admirable behavior: _always seek out the truth, no matter where it lies._

IMO a component of the growing toxic atmosphere in public discourse is the "win at all costs" mindset, that fosters the belief that a little white lie here and there is justified by the end goal.

<comment><USER18> Not all truths are the same size, though. If someone is ugly, telling them so in conversation is both completely truthful and completely unhelpful.

Just because something is true doesn't mean it's necessary to say it out loud, or constructive to building a civil, respectful space.

<comment><USER17> Useless but brutally honest truths aren't something we have abundance of in our society.

We are, however, _drowning_ in possibly-actionable nuggets of data that range from the somewhat-truthy to the probably-bullshit area of the honesty spectrum.

That people fabricate -- and worse, _repeat_ without fact-checking -- such information contributes to the problem I refer to.

<comment><USER19> The principle of "fact-checking" has a fatal flaw - it gives power to those who have time and resources to fact-check, and even more to those that can _control_ the availability of facts.

Consider information regarding the Iraq war before wiki-leaks - only facts beneficial to the image of the US military were released.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I see an exploit of human interactions favoring employers, let me extend, for example below comment:

      __derek__ 5
      I attended npm Camp on Saturday, and the tl;dr version
      of their policy may fit the bill:
      > be actively kind

now imagine you are paired with 5 other "junior" programmers on trying to get some project to x state that requires 5 senior programmers.

      -saying that you require 5 senior, not juniors can be seen
       as non polite.
      -not helping them is not polite
      -go above and beyond to help them while you go the extra
       mile to deliver on time is both polite and altruistic...
       and of course you do on free your extra mile time and
       help the company avoid paying the senior devs...

<comment><USER21> > saying that you require 5 senior, not juniors can be seen as non polite.

Depends on how you define politeness.

To me, _not_ saying that you require 5 senior programmers, or more time, is a form of grinfucking your manager and producers. It is intentionally keeping them out of the loop, which is rude. It is disrespecting their ability to take well intentioned, reasonable, important, and professional feedback _as_ fellow professionals and adults, and ultimately undermining their ability to perform their jobs. Worse, not properly trying to manage expectations may leave your coworkers on the hook for crunch and overtime to try and meet said expectations - which I certainly don't consider "polite"!

This is not to say there aren't rude ways to go about the task of informing your manager that you're understaffed, over-committed, and dealing with a unrealistic schedule. You can beat a dead horse, enumerate individual's faults (perceived or real) instead of focusing on what strengths the team needs (that it lacks), or whine about your boss's inability to estimate instead of trying to collaborate to figure out the discrepancy in your estimations, among a million other possible mistakes.

The trick is to thoroughly internalize and stick to this definition of politeness.

> not helping them is not polite

Junior programmers can help me get the project done. The trick is to manage your time wisely. "Let me swing by after I finish up X" \- either they'll figure it out, or they could really use the extra help. "I forget, does it say on the wiki?". I _am_ assuming they're trying and have some basic competency though.

> and of course you do on free your extra mile time and help the company avoid > paying the senior devs...

Crunching - or otherwise overworking - and burning out would decrease my overall productivity. It would be both rude and irresponsible of me to allow myself to be so mismanaged.

<comment><USER20> Nice response but it's just a game of words just like mine.

>To me, not saying that you require 5 senior programmers, or more time, is a form of grinfucking your manager and producers. It is intentionally keeping them out of the loop

This means they in first place took the decision without asking you or without having metrics, not polite of them.

>The trick is to manage your time wisely

First law of thermo dynamics.. energy cannot be created or destroyed. Politely I ask you to please complete the work with the assigned resources.

>It would be both rude and irresponsible of me to allow myself to be so mismanaged.

People who care first about them are called egoistical... on the other hand they said the first person you should care about it's you.

It's up to you, always.

This is just a point of view, take informed decisions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> It's not actually "vanishing" civility. Life has always been that way among those who live above subsistence levels. Court life in the middle ages is rife with examples. It's important to realize that these "jerks", "bozos", and "assholes" are all engaged in political maneuvering. They're playing an entirely different game than you, and the only way to stop them is to remove possible political reward for such actions, or at least raise the risks so high as to not be worth the effort to begin with.

HN has largely been successful in this endeavor through a mix of technology and culture. You can't get rid of it entirely, but you can certainly subdue it.

</comment><comment><USER23> _Straight to the point. My colleague clearly and succinctly explained why an inappropriate behavior occurred and what motivated him to respond._

If this happens visibly to the team it is likely that the person behind the behavior will take this as an attack, especially if he/she is a _true_ asshole. Not good for long-term working climate. Also, it has a flavor of "white-knighting" oneself if it's done in front of the team.

A more diplomatic and expedient approach would be

a) Approaching the person behind the behavior in private and letting him/her know that such behavior isn't tolerated. And

b) approaching the targeted person in private and assuring him/her of your support in case it happens again.

<comment><USER24> Note that as a general adage, this is "praise in public and criticize in private" (which doesn't just go for managers/higher ups).

But it's not bullet-proof. When the criticism is private, there is no signal to the rest of the group that the behavior in question is not appropriate. The person being criticized certainly isn't going to say anything. This can lead to the situation where the behavior by one person is stopped, but as a whole it continues due to the fact that there is no social signal to the rest of the group to stop.

So, as with many things, there is no clear cut approach that works all of the time. Knowing when to signal something publicly or privately is a skill like any other.

<comment><USER25> Once in a while, when I am in particularly good form and the stars align and so forth, I can deftly help the offending party out with explaining why their behavior is problematic, why it isn't getting the results they want, and some alternate approaches that would work better for them. I do so with witnesses. They do not feel attacked and everyone gets the memo that there are better ways to do things.

However, this can also go very badly. But I am mentioning it to note that there are alternatives to the two scenarios posited of either criticizing privately in order to protect the offending individual's ego or criticizing publicly so everyone gets the memo that the behavior is not a good idea. If you are careful and acting with good intent, sometimes you can protect the person's ego while publicly commenting on the fact that the behavior in question is not desirable.

There are other ways to give push back as well that actually moves the needle and doesn't just change who gets crapped on.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I'm a true believer of monkey see and monkey do. Unfortunately much of our entertainment deals with the ugly side of human nature. The most popular comedies deal with insults and getting back at people. You can say the same for other forms of entertainment. This includes what goes by as news. Yes, NEWS. I understand that it's make believe and it happens to others but lines are crossed that where there for a reason.

You might say that all of this does not effect you but if you see it enough it becomes ok to do.

We need to think about what's civil and live by that. There's a reason why codes of conduct are created. Mostly, they don't appear because some person wants to impose rules. They happen because enough people feel that too many crossed the line and it's best to let people know what's acceptable.

<comment><USER27> I tend to agree. For example, I know some parents who could always tell when their son and daughter had watched The Disney Channel at a friend's house. For days afterward their kids would be sarcastic and obnoxious—imitating every tween show on that channel. They weren't allowed to watch the channel in their own house for that reason, because it had such a negative effect on their behavior.

<comment><USER28> I thought it was just me being a horrible father. I have noticed this in my own children too. They come back as different people from the neighbor's house where they watch TV they aren't allowed to watch at home. Using vocabulary, including in the past some swear words that I know they did not learn at home (bi-lingual household, I never swear in the local language). I just ask them, "why are talking that way? Where did you learn to say that?" and then tell them "Civilized people don't speak that way".

I really cannot stand the Cartoon Network and most TV aimed at children. The standards are very low. And quite a lot of seems to be adults testing to see how much adult humor they can slip into a "Kid's" show.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> "People like bullies." \-- Daniel Kahneman

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/05/british- voter...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/05/british-voters- succumbing-to-impulse-irritation-and-anger---and/)

</comment><comment><USER30> I think this is great. People need to be aware of toxic behavior.

That said, though, I am often bugged at work because I am both an introvert and need to isolate my environment by wearing headphones. My team and others make assumptions that I'm unfriendly. It's frustrating and I've just started to go along with it and agree, "Yes, I'm wearing headphones because I am trying to shut you all out." The truth is, I am not mean, but I enjoy my alone time and need quiet to be productive.

Also, a lot of times, I've gotten frustrated with the leadership in the companies I've worked for over the years. Not every company- about half. And a lot of times in the past, I would vent to co-workers about this. I'd also be honest in reviews and surveys describing in detail what had been done incorrectly.

I don't think of myself as toxic, but because I've been so persistent at times talking about someone else failing to do their job correctly as a leader, people see me that way and as a pessimist.

I'm aware of this and have made attempts to be more optimistic. It has really helped out, but it's still tough. I often realize too late that I'm being down on something, even as I try to imagine a future where everything gets better.

I don't think I'm a jerk, bozo, or asshole, and I don't want to be any of those things. But, I also just want to be allowed to be who I am. I'm not always going to be sunshine.

</comment><comment><USER31> The problem with calling out 'jerks, bozos and assholes' is contextual -- social norms/what works in NYC is quite different from small-town Indiana for example.

Two ways to handle someone you think is being a 'jerk/bozo/asshole': 1) what percentage of their behavior is 'bad behavior'? 2) what is my threshold percentage for what _I personally_ consider bad behavior?

After I got married and witnessed PMS in action, the proportion good/proportion bad became essential.

The same is true at work.

And there _is_ no OBJECTIVELY jerk/bozo/asshole behavior. What you think is jerk/bozo/asshole may not even CHART with what your boss, friend, family member think is jerk/bozo/asshole behavior.

If I hire a sales guy who blows away the next 10 sales guys but 25% of the time he is reported to be a jerk/bozo/asshole I'm NOT firing him/her.

This is life and people have different psychological makeups and histories.

If you're going to set your "tolerance level" for bad behavior to, say -- 5%? 10%? at home, or in the workplace -- you'll meet highly effective people who add value to relationships and businesses who will make you unhappy.

They're out there.

"For better or worse." "Take the good with the bad." "Lighten up Francis."

<comment><USER32> > you'll meet highly effective people who add value to relationships and > businesses who will make you unhappy.

Sure.

> "For better or worse." "Take the good with the bad." "Lighten up Francis."

That depends on what you want out of life. Leaving money on the table for the sake of happiness is perfectly reasonable too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I want to inline a linked reference and provide a summary as a form of protecting the reference against link-rot.

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

Their unpleasant behaviours were catalogued by Sutton as The Dirty Dozen: (Robert Cipriano (2011), "No Jerks Allowed in This Department", Facilitating a Collegial Department in Higher Education, John Wiley and Sons, ISBN 978-1-118-10764-5)

Insults

Violation of personal space

Unsolicited touching

Threats

Sarcasm

Flames

Humiliation

Shaming

Interruption

Backbiting

Glaring

Snubbing

<comment><USER34> The problem with this list is that there are vastly more refined ways of being an asshole, which no list can catch.

So these coarse lists are often suggested by the refined assholes so that no one can call them out.

Civility is a very powerful weapon of keeping power structures in place.

<comment><USER35> Civility can also be a powerful weapon in dismantling corrupt power structures. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Is there really less civility today, or have people redrawn the boundaries of civility such that other people's opinions are more likely to fall outside its bounds?

<comment><USER9> I think today we are much more casual. In the past it was more common to be much more professional and civil, at least in certain white collar occupations.

Now a lot more "personal expression", including assholery, is allowed and tolerated even.

Consider propellerhead programmers in the 60s with pocket protectors and all, and modern brogrammers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I used to work with this guy that was a prick to almost epic levels. We'll call him "Richard", because he was a Dick. (Not his real name of course)

Most assholes are subtle, but somehow this guy kept his job despite being, basically, a monster.

A few of the things he did:

\- Once, he kicked over a trashcan and stormed out for the rest of the day because I checked in a visual effect he didn't like (.. even though he approved the code review and it was trivial to disable).

\- Another time, he very authoritatively started inventing policy around branching. (Keep in mind, he was nobodies boss). When one of the senior engineers politely asked him if that was from our boss, or just something he wanted us to do, he incoherently started shouting and, once again, stormed out.

\- Every scrum, he would pounce on even the smallest misstatement to "correct" people (even if they weren't wrong). When it came to be his turn to give an update, he would condescendingly give the most terse eye-roll of an answer he possibly could, as if the entire thing was beneath him.

\- At a certain point, he just stopped showing up regularly. He'd maybe appear two out of five days of the week. Which meant three-out-of-five workdays were great! Despite this, he would get upset about not being consulted on decisions by people that actually did work daily... even though he wasn't there.

\- When he did show up, for the last six months or so he was employed there, instead of working on our product, he would take his laptop, co-opt the empty front-desk, and work on his own startup. (Luckily, he would still take the time to tell us the work the rest of us were doing was not to his liking).

\- One time, when me and my boss were bouncing some light-hearted banter back in forth, he immediately jumped in and started attacking my boss, which turned into a shouting match between them and he ended up storming out early... again. (notice a pattern here?)

\- Once, we had to pack our desks and move around some office furniture for some office construction. Being that Richard was a Dick, he decided not to show up for this, so his colleagues had to pack his desk for him. After three hours of heavy lifting, our boss decided to take us out for lunch. ... And suddenly, Dick shows up. Team player.

That's actually the tip of the iceberg with this guy. I never thought much of the no-assholes-rule before (though I was familiar with it), but now I'm pretty much adamant that I won't work with people who think being an asshole is ok, even if it just comes to tolerating misbehaviour.

<comment><USER38> Why was he kept on board for so long? With that much abuse I'd make it clear to my superiors that someone like him needs to have his future with the company reevaluated.

<comment><USER37> In a weird way, I think it was just a quirk of circumstances. We were a small team in a satellite office of a much larger company, which generally meant we were financially stable but otherwise disconnected from the rest of the company (no HR present or anything like that). So when someone misbehaved, it was sort of a "what happens in vegas stays in vegas" kind of thing, IE, as long as your shenanigans don't have ramifications outside of the group we'd keep things in the family.

I think because it was such a tight knit group, there was more tolerance than there would be in a more detached professional setting. I think this guy also got a lot more slack than he deserved because he was young and talented, so people chalked it up to immaturity.

That might be overcomplicating things though. I think when it came down to it, our boss was basically a nice person who didn't really _want_ to fire anyone, and there was no pressure to, so he'd procrastinate it, and the rest of us didn't really _want_ to see him fired, at least to the extent of outright advocating for it, and so it just sort of kept going until he finally left to do something else.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Wow hard to avoid negative people in the workplace and public. Jerks et all usually get what they want because agressive people are rewarded by management as getting stuff done through other people. Sometimes they become managers and supervisors.

Sort of like in high school the bullies and popular kids get what they want and the school does nothing about them being jerks to other students.

</comment><comment><USER40> Moderators just need a 1 click button that bans the account and deletes all their posts. 1 moderator could get rid of hundreds of accounts an hour. I am a huge fan of the banhammer with no warnings. Rules should be posted and those not following get banned. No one has time for that nonsense IMO.

<comment><USER41> Plenty of imageboards have that feature. It doesn't tend to lead to higher quality content or a better community, though, it just leads to sockpuppet accounts, shitposting (because no one has any reason to invest themselves beyond the most superficial level) and mods with Napoleon complexes.

<comment><USER40> Do you think part of the "mods with Nepolean complexes" often happen because they are not paid ?

I think mods need to get reviewed and logs looked at as to why they deleted accounts etc. To me a mod deleting things that shouldnt be is a rogue employee. Personally I am part of some very heavily moderated forums and I really enjoy them. I find people invest because they appreciate it being looked after and not a childish troll fest that muddles finding good posts.

<comment><USER41> I think it's less the lack of pay as a lack of maturity, although getting paid might help them take their jobs a bit more seriously (assuming there's enough money to make that worthwhile.) A lot of fault lies with the administrators or whomever selects the moderators, who themselves may not be willing or able to act impartially or reasonably.

A lack of transparency in the moderation process can protect moderators from the social consequences of. Having known moderator accounts (not necessarily linked to user accounts) and a public mod log might make it more difficult for moderators to feel their position puts them outside the community.

And I think reversibility is important as well - nothing a moderator does should be destructive, as far as the database is concerned. At best, they should be able to flag posts and users for review later. I would even go so far as to suggest that mod actions which aren't approved get automatically reversed after a certain amount of time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Is the irony in the title intentional?

</comment><comment><USER43> This is so badly written I'm having trouble finding a way to explain it without resorting to nitpicking. The essay starts with respect, decorum, and civility, but only discusses civility. Almost every special term is stuck between scare quotes instead of being explained. It's so bad.

Nitpicking Time

 _Respect, decorum and civility are not only disappearing from the political discourse._

Why mention respect and decorum if the essay is only about civility?

 _It is also about the public and private interactions among workers of the so-called "knowledge economies", which include scientists and entrepreneurs (or their wannabes)._

Interactions are between people, not among them. Saying interactions are among people makes them sound like the aliens from They Live. It isn't important to specify private and public. Nobody would have assumed this was only for public interactions or only for private interactions. The phrase "knowledge economies" shouldn't be quoted; it should be explained.

 _Robert Sutton's The No Asshole Rule defines the..._

There are more scare quotes instead of explanations for terms and there's another unnecessary distinction in parentheses. Nobody would have assumed only non-verbal or only verbal.

 _This type of behavior is not only inappropriate and unfortunate. It can have negative consequences on individuals, organizations and societies._

Saying it can have negative consequences is not the same as saying it does have negative consequences. The gap between the two is so big I could ship oil between it.

 _This "way of life" can be witnessed in physical and more virtual settings, including emails, discussion forums and social media._

More pointless scare quotes. The phrase "more virtual settings" is terrible. Just say online. Even better, don't say talk about physical and online settings. Here's an example, "These attitudes can be seen in person as well as in emails, discussion forums, and social media." That's much clearer.

 _I have encountered a good number of "polite" and smiling fools, who have mastered an astounding capacity for incivility._

There's another scare quote. This one is used correctly, but scare quotes are awful anyway. This is another clunky sentence that's hard to follow. This is my attempt, "I have met many polite people that are still very uncivil."

 _Civility means bringing discussion of problems to a ground where people emphasize arguments and the evidence to support or refute the arguments..._

 _Civility also requires (and benefits from) conversations that are based on facts or reproducible observations..._

These next two paragraphs start with a different version of the same sentence. This sentence defines civility and could replace both paragraphs, because neither paragraph helps clarify the sentence. The rest of these paragraphs is confusing. The other sentences give civility several different meanings instead of one specific meaning.

 _This is actually too important to let a few noxious people to hijack public or more circumscribed interactions for their selfish gains._

I didn't realize I had something to gain from being rude.

Hopefully, everyone here didn't need any of this pointed out.

<comment><USER9> > _Why mention respect and decorum if the essay is only about civility?_

Because respect and decorum are part of the total package of civility, even if we can nominally separate them.

> _I didn 't realize I had something to gain from being rude._

Ethically maybe not, but being rude etc can (and has traditionally been) used to one's advantage. E.g. it can fence off people from one's territory, it can intimidate people into giving one what he/she wants, it can make you accepted into a higher echelon that pisses on subordinates, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Well, bless your heart!

</comment><comment><USER45> Actually I see the present problem as exactly the opposite.

More and more we live in a culture where people think it's their right to feel offended and for anyone saying anything that makes them fell that way to just be shut up by someone (some faculty department for instance).

It is becoming basically a Politically Correct culture of censorship and we keep seeing opinion texts (just like this one) that appeal to that censorship like if it was a good thing.

I don't see it as more and more people becoming jerks, I see it as more and more people becoming thin skinned.

<comment><USER46> > More and more we live in a culture where people think it's their right to > feel offended for anyone saying anything that makes them fell that way to > just be shut up by someone (some faculty department for instance).

Um, it is someone's right to feel offended, you can't control how anyone else feels. Now others can determine whether someone taking offense at something is reasonable in the situation, but people have the right to feel whatever they feel.

Now sometimes it becomes problematic when people who feel offended attempt to shut down discourse, that much is true.

> It is becoming basically a Politically Correct culture of censorship and we > keep seeing opinion texts (just like this one) that appeal to that > censorship like if it was a good thing. I don't see it as more and more > people becoming jerks, I see it as more and more people becoming thin > skinned.

Or maybe there are whole groups of people who had to accept unkind behavior in the past in silence, who now are demanding better treatment. Women in the workplace have had to (and still do) put up with all manner of misogynist nonsense and more women and men are saying this is no longer acceptable. To that, some will complain that things are becoming too 'PC' but the fact is that poor behavior that was tolerated in the past is no longer tolerated.

Same deal with race. A few decades ago it was ok to refer to a grown black man as, "boy" in any context. It was okay to disparage other races openly at home, at work, in public, now it largely isn't. Some will cry 'Censorship!' or whatever but the fact is that social norms of decency are relegating those attitudes to history. The people complaining are the ones who refuse to accept that those attitudes belong in the past.

<comment><USER47>
        > Um, it is someone's right to feel offended

Well, doesn't that mean then other people have the right to say whatever they want even if others feel offended?

Which means we don't need to have this discussion and just accept both the offended and the assholes.

This argument seems to me to lead nowhere, unless you say being offended is okay, offending is not. Which I would find quite disturbing, not just because Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (Turkey) would vehemently agree but because it seems wrong to me.

<comment><USER46> No, it just means that you can't control how something will be received and that sometimes people are going to have an negative emotional response to something benign or well-intended.

Now, whether someone should change their behavior to suit the sensibilities of the offended is the question. The answer to that question is basically what social norms are. It's a moving target that evolves over time and across segments of society, so there's no foolproof way to always know where the line is.

But as long as someone cares to understand, learn from, and empathize with other people more often than not they'll have an idea of what is appropriate and inappropriate. The asshole is the person who either doesn't care, or chooses not to understand or take stock of the reactions of others, and as such is waaayyy over the line for decency.

> This argument seems to me to lead nowhere, unless you say being offended is > okay, offending is not. Which I would find quite disturbing, not just > because Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (Turkey) would vehemently agree but because it > seems wrong to me.

In the case of Turkey and some other parts of the world, we're getting into the territory of the government punishing people with dissenting opinions or criticisms. My take would be that someone has the right to feel offended, but the government should not be in the business of punishing the offender when it comes to speech, political views, etc.

So someone can express utter disgust with the AKP and call Erdoğan a dictator in waiting, which would offend many of his supporters, but that shouldn't result in punishment/imprisonment.

<comment><USER47> Since you feel you had to reply with

        > Um, it is someone's right to feel offended,...

it certainly shows that you dispute the right of the person to say what he had to say - so my point stands. If you accepted his right as well you would not have felt it necessary to make that statement. As I said,

        > Which means we don't need to have this discussion and just accept both the
        > offended and the assholes.
        > This argument seems to me to lead nowhere...

I see you arguing for _one_ side's right to speak their mind only.

Either you see their right as more important, or your post is completely unnecessary and you could just have let everybody say whatever they felt like.

<comment><USER46> > it certainly shows that you dispute the right of the person to say what he > had to say - so my point stands.

You're reading stuff that simply is not there. Nowhere did I say that someone did not have the right to free speech, and I spoke to exactly that point RE: Erdogan/Turkey. Not arguing against free speech, just saying that whatever someone says, one cannot dictate how that speech will be received.

The parent post seemed to be arguing that the problem is that too many people are thin-skinned and they don't have the right to be offended by the statements/actions of others. I disagreed with that point.

<comment><USER47>
        > You're reading stuff that simply is not there.

Well, so are you? Please read what I wrote. You are missing my point.

        > The parent post.... I disagreed with that point.

Exactly. How about the right of OP to say whatever he feels like? Your support for "free speech" (the one in quotes) is selective.

        >  Nowhere did I say that someone did not have the right to free speech

Except you don't want OP to say what he did.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> That's just street/slums/ghetto behavior. Such heavy selection pressure selects the most adaptive and the most lucky (on the contrary to the popular misconception that the strongest and the smartest are selected). One could find a whole countries with this kind of society - Russia and some African states are good example. Highest level of corruption and crime produce such street-gang social norms.

Such practices are plainly stupid and based on misconception and uneducated common sense and primitive memes. Every serious professional athlete will tell you that too much stress and pressure will dramatically diminish one's performance and health instead of making one "stronger". Relaxed self-control, proper habits and just enough of exercises will do.

Any highly such competitive and stressful societies of assholes and jerks characterized by high turnaround, very short lifespan for participants, high injury and mortality rates, and hence adaptations, such as earlier reproductive age, smaller body sized, quicker but lower quality development, etc. It is just biology.</comment>


The UnTernet - <AUTHOR>

There are many systems in the world that it should simply not be possible to connect to via the Internet. Consider for example nuclear control systems. There are many other examples of systems that simply cannot be accessed from the Internet.<p>What is needed is the UnTernet - a set of network technologies designed to be incompatible with Internet technologies. <comment><USER2> So, IPv6?

</comment><comment><USER3> So, WebRTC?

<comment><USER2> I like the cut of your jib.</comment></comment>


Lessons Learned from Our Winter Company Retreat - <AUTHOR> http://blog.groupbuddies.com/posts/48-lessons-learned-from-our-winter-company-retreat

<comment><USER2> Sounds like a good plan. Building something is always fun - and you can't be doing sports all day for long without burning out on that. So may as well alternate with more sedentary activities.</comment>


PayPal has ceased processing MEGA customer payments - <AUTHOR> https://mega.nz/#blog_33 <comment><USER2> Here is the post, for those who don't want or can't load the page:

PayPal has ceased processing MEGA customer payments effective immediately.

MEGA is aware of a report published by NetNames (partially funded from the MPAA supported Digital Citizens Alliance) that incorrectly claims MEGA's business to not be a legitimate cloud storage service. MEGA is aware that Senator Leahy (Vermont, Chair Senate Judiciary Committee) then pressured Visa and MasterCard to cease providing payment services to the companies named in that report.

Visa and MasterCard then pressured PayPal to cease providing payment services to MEGA.

MEGA provided extensive statistics and other evidence showing that MEGA's business is legitimate and legally compliant. After discussions that appeared to satisfy PayPal's queries, MEGA authorised PayPal to share that material with Visa and MasterCard. Eventually PayPal made a non-negotiable decision to immediately terminate services to MEGA. PayPal has apologised for this situation and confirmed that MEGA management are upstanding and acting in good faith. PayPal acknowledged that the business is legitimate, but advised that a key concern was that MEGA has a unique model with its end-to-end encryption which leads to "unknowability of what is on the platform".

MEGA has demonstrated that it is as compliant with its legal obligations as USA cloud storage services operated by Google, Microsoft, Apple, Dropbox, Box, Spideroak etc, but PayPal has advised that MEGA's "unique encryption model" presents an insurmountable difficulty. The encryption models claimed by various USA and other entities apparently do not represent any problem to PayPal or the parties behind PayPal.

MEGA supplies cloud storage services to more than 15 million registered customers in more than 200 countries. MEGA will not compromise its end-to-end user controlled encryption model and is proud to not be part of the USA business network that discriminates against legitimate international businesses.

Until new payment systems are implemented, MEGA will temporarily not enforce its storage limits or suspend any accounts for non-payment and has extended existing subscriptions by 2 months free of charge.

<comment><USER3> For a country which calls itself, non-ironically, the "land of the free" it is quite disappointing how moneyed US politics and the US justice system is.

It is pretty apparent in this case that a cartel of US companies has some powerful people in their pockets (namely Senators) and those individuals can wield their power to shut down legitimate businesses running abroad.

In this case they will likely wind up shutting down a company, but without even going through any kind of court. Since the last time they spent millions on Megaupload going through courts, and still got nowhere (since their whole case was baseless).

<comment><USER4> American justice is blind to everything except money.

Didn't VISA Master Card and Paypal get fined for blocking wikileaks recently?

Isn't this just about the same thing?

<comment><USER5> >Didn't VISA Master Card and Paypal get fined for blocking wikileaks recently?

Yeah, in Iceland. [http://www.wired.com/2012/07/wikileaks-visa- blockade/](http://www.wired.com/2012/07/wikileaks-visa-blockade/)

<comment><USER6> and applauded everywhere else...

<comment><USER7> And also DDoSed at the time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This selective banning should be a concern in general especially with such monopolistic corporations like VISA/Mastercard.

Are there no regulatory requirements to force VISA/master card to accept payments as long as the business is not illegal?

Does anyone remember when donations to Wiki leaks got frozen?

<comment><USER9> Forcing someone to accept payments is the other side of the same coin.

I don't want my government to strongarm credit companies into refusing to process payments for politically troublesome customers. But I also don't want my government to strongarm those same companies into processing those payments.

If anything, this is just a wakeup call that the credit duopoly have more power than we realized.

Kim Dotcom is nothing if not resilient. It is morally and ethically complicated to root for him in every aspect, but I fully expect him to come up with a clever solution to bypass this duopoly in a way that the average user can accept. I don't know if there's any question for which Bitcoin is an unqualified right answer, but this may be as close as I've seen it come.

<comment><USER10> _But I also don 't want my government to strongarm those same companies into processing those payments._

So VISA and Mastercard should be allowed to reject customers at will?

<comment><USER11> No.

If they are allowed, how is the criteria selected? Are you(payment industry) going to stop payments for the following:

Atheist groups? Islamic non-terrorist groups? Foreign countries you don't 'like'? Libertarians/Greens/Socialists/Communists? Non profits you don't like? Church of Satan donations?

They have a monopoly over the bulk of commerce, as does PayPal. And they act as a cartel, de-facto banning whatever they disapprove of. In other words, having them strongarm businesses is killing their connection to the market.

<comment><USER12> With the exception of discriminating against certain protected classes, American companies are generally free to decide who they want as a customer and who they don't. You don't have a right to credit card processing any more than you have a right to eat at a fancy restaurant or hire a developer -- imagine if contract developers weren't allowed to turn down clients.

<comment><USER13> There is the concept of legal tender, which creditors are required to accept as payment of debts (it's printed on US currency). We need some kind of electronic payment equivalent.

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

<comment><USER14> How would this help? Visa, Mastercard and Paypal aren't the creditors here.

<comment><USER13> Obviously the rules and parties involved would be different for an electronic equivalent to the concept. I'm sure you can figure out the rest.

<comment><USER14> It has nothing to do with electronic. Visa isn't the creditor, so legal tender laws wouldn't apply even if they were carrying physical bills.

<comment><USER13> You are thinking too literally. An electronic legal tender must necessarily have an electronic means of conveying it. That may not be Visa, but the means of payment would be just as essential to the concept as acceptance of payment.

<comment><USER11> I wouldn't put too much credence on the US government to figure this out in any sort of timely manner. There's plenty of areas in our country which are years behind in terms of governance, policy and societal effects.

They're still playing the game "if it's an internet technology, the Constitution doesn't really apply".. So to see if they could wrap their heads around an internet based currency is pretty much a joke.

And then I think, how did the FCC decision pass? Bureaucracy. It's not the Legislative/Executive/Judicial.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Man, why does Kim insist on all the special effects? I've never seen a blog post take so long to load.

<comment><USER16> 6.8MB page load. More than half of the 168 requests were for javascript files. The largest file was a 620kB (23k line) stylesheet.

Those are some pretty wild numbers.

<comment><USER10> For a whopping 2.6kb of text.

Someone really ought to fire their webdesigner...

<comment><USER17> I wouldn't be surprised if Kimble made it himself. He's 31337.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This is why I desperately hope bitcoin would one day get adopted by the masses.

</comment><comment><USER19> Here's where coinbase could make an interesting feature.

Coinbase QuickPay

A dropdown of popular companies. Select the one you want then enter the amount you want to pay this company in USD. A confirmation screen comes up asking you _" Do you really want to pay $X dollars to $COMPANY ?"_ You select "yes", and from there coinbase does whatever it takes to transfer that value to that company. Completely hiding any concept of bitcoin. Of course, you'd have a QuickPay transaction history screen where you could select "Technical Nerd Details" on a transaction and see all that bitcoin stuff; but initially the transaction history will look just like your bank's transaction history. Showing just the companies, dates, USD amounts. I guess there needs to be some kinda one time email-verification between the merchant, coinbase and costumer at the beginning to prove which payments are coming from who. Coinbase would have to put metadata on the transaction; like maybe a hash of the email address or something that $COMPANY could verify on their side.

Then I guess USgov gets banks to cease processing ACH from coinbase.....

<comment><USER20> Even if Visa and others would allow this approach, it would still really limit Mega's ability to get funds to the point where its not a viable business I would think.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> for those who dont want to download >5 megs of assets, I took the content and put it on pastebin. [http://pastebin.com/FBEjGTqV](http://pastebin.com/FBEjGTqV)

<comment><USER22> Chrome's developer tools says "1.9 MB transferred" when loading the MEGA page with cache disabled. On the other hand, it says "7.1 MB transferred" when loading your Pastebin link.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> What other, user-friendly payment providers are there for MEGA to use?

Edit: Ask HN: Paypal alternatives for vendors outside the US? [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9123336](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9123336)

</comment><comment><USER24> So what's next? The banning of payments to VPNs?

<comment><USER25> Given the following quote:

> a key concern was that MEGA has a unique model with its end-to-end > encryption which leads to "unknowability of what is on the platform

It's not outside the realm of possibility.

<comment><USER26> Everyone seems to be taking Mega's statements as truth without question at all. Banning payment to VPNs would severely cripple lots of businesses in the U.S. and around the world. I don't believe it's a possibility, _at all._

<comment><USER27> I don't know the current levels of VPN usage, but I'd seriously doubt that there are any industries at all that rely upon people using someone else's IP. Using a VPN to get around content blackouts / licensing agreements in your country is not legal, so I'm sure you don't mean that.

<comment><USER28> > but I'd seriously doubt that there are any industries at all that rely upon > people using someone else's IP.

A VPN is not a proxy.

Plenty of businesses rely on VPNs to keep their staff communications safe when those staff are working away from the office. This is not an unusual or weird requirement only used by the security paranoics -- it is everyday standard practice.

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

> A virtual private network (VPN) extends a private network across a public > network, such as the Internet. It enables a computer or network-enabled > device to send and receive data across shared or public networks as if it > were directly connected to the private network, while benefiting from the > functionality, security and management policies of the private network.[1] A > VPN is created by establishing a virtual point-to-point connection through > the use of dedicated connections, virtual tunneling protocols, or traffic > encryptions. Major implementations of VPNs include OpenVPN and IPsec.

<comment><USER29> That's an internal VPN though, not a service with customers.

<comment><USER28> There are plenty of services with customers that cater to small businesses who don't have the staff to set up and run their own software.

A websearch for business VPN returns dozens of providers for businesses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I think bitcoin sucks for a number of important technological and philosophical reasons, but when people ask what its killer features sure: this is one of them. And it's hugely important and hugely needed.

<comment><USER31> plz enlighten on these tech and philosophy reasons?

<comment><USER32> An offhand tech+philosophical reason would be the environmental impact of bitcoin mining.

<comment><USER33> Do you have any reason to assume that the infrastructure of banks is frendlier to the environment than Bitcoin mining is? The required logistics for thousands of buildings to be safely supplied with new fiat, the manual labour, enforcing security etc are probably way more demanding already.

Now add the whole high frequency trading thing and all the efforts that surround it on top of that and we are probably good for another few years before Bitcoin mining is even worthy of being mentioned. Until then, I don't see we wouldn't have worked out a better proof of work system that's more friendly to the environment, should this really become a concern.

<comment><USER34> The air conditioning footprint of bank branches alone is going to be several magnitudes greater in terms of energy consumption than bitcoin mining, add in commuting hours for every bank employee and it isn't even a contest, people just parrot whatever news source they like without thinking, even people on HN, it is really very sad.

<comment><USER32> Banks serve function far beyond mere transfer and holding of currency. Last I checked, the blockchain infrastructure doesn't e.g., issue mortgages.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> VISA, Mastercard and SWIFT have damaged their own brands by showing themselves not be neutral but controlled politically. By not being neutral, it shows they cannot be trusted and dependable for all users.

Other entities will arise that _are_ neutral around the world and will replace VISA, mastercard and SWIFT.

<comment><USER36> > VISA, MasterCard and SWIFT have damaged their own brands...

Do you honestly think anyone outside HN and other very tech heavy crowds knows about this? Do you think they'd care?

If this has done anything (and I kind of doubt it) I would say it's helped them politicaly a little tiny bit.

<comment><USER7> Indeed. The only other political action by VISA and MasterCard I remember is them blocking payments to Wikileaks, for which they were rightfully subjected to a global DDoS attack.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> "unknowability of what is on the platform". What's PayPal got to do with that anyway, considering that they admit the business is legitimate?

<comment><USER38> It doesn't matter that the business is legitimate.

The US Treasury has almost unlimited power to fine or imprison people who move money on the flimsiest of pretexts - and they use it. Look up "Operation Chokehold" for an example but there are many more.

PayPal is attempting to insulate itself from political pressure that can be brought to bear on them in future if they continue to serve Dotcom (and/or their banking partners). Nothing more complex than that. Rule of law does not apply in the banking world.

<comment><USER37> I'm not sure what's Mega's involvement in moving money here, or maybe I don't get it. It seems more of not-being-able-to-bypass-encryption issue which is probably more alarming, since I'd infer that, if the US Treasury is the entity putting pressure on PayPal, then who's putting pressure on the US Treasury?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Interesting they call out other services the USA is okay with that also provide encryption. I believe all the other services the provider can access the data.

Except maybe SpiderOak.

<comment> ryan-c Crashplan also has client side encryption, though the security of it is a little questionable (I cannot elaborate for legal reasons).

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> PayPal continues to show how shitty they are. Stop using them!

To people who work there, why? How can you continue to work for an organization that does things like this?

<comment><USER41> > PayPal continues to show how shitty they are. Stop using them!

I really wish I could...

When I created my SaaS a few years back, I went all out with payment providers.

I registered and implemented every single form of online payment I could find. PayPal, AlertPay, PayPay, MoneyBookers, LibertyReserve, Bitcoin. You name it, I made that form of payment available. I even accepted money orders via snail mail.

In the ~2 years I gave all of the "other guys" a chance, 99.9% of my payments came via PayPal.

I received 1 money order. Perhaps 3 people paid via LibertyReserve. 0 payments from all of the other providers mentioned. And over 5,000 payments via PayPal.

Unfortunately, there is no other option if you want to sell stuff online.

And this is coming from one of Bitcoins biggest proponents.

<comment><USER42> Stripe?

<comment><USER41> They weren't available in my country when I started up.

They're probably somewhat of an option today, sure. But I suspect they'd still only garner 10-20% of sales at best. First mover advantage and all that...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Can't we classify banks as Title II utilities? They use a lot of telecommunication services.

<comment><USER44> There is something funny about considering banks to be dumb pipes through which money travels.

<comment><USER43> Well banks are too smart for the good of the society right now. I would like some form of Glass Steigl updated for the modern age that splits the banks in two parts - the utility - facilitating movement of money and the commercial part. The utility will be common carrier.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> PayPal, Visa and MasterCard are slowly piping custom to altcoins though. I guess that is a good thing.

</comment><comment><USER46> America on the wrong side of history....again. Yawn.

</comment><comment><USER47> It's time for plan B :)

</comment><comment><USER48> Smells like bullshit to me...

</comment><comment><USER49> As someone was saying on Twitter, you can legally buy guns in US, but end-to- end encryption is a big no no, because end-to-end encryption is umm...dangerous? It reminds me of another stupid law meant to ban body armor.

<comment><USER50> Not with Paypal you can't, they'll shutdown your account for anything firearm related.</comment></comment>


White House, Silicon Valley to hold summit on militants' social media use - <AUTHOR> http://in.reuters.com/article/usa-security-tech-idINKBN0UL2GZ20160107 <comment><USER2> So time to build McCarthy-era-esque censorship systems?

History tells us it will go something like this at the beginning:

"We promise it will only be used against evil terrorists and not be used for shutting down any future political dissent we may arbitrarily determine undesirable."

Fortunately we now have secret courts that McCarthy could only have dreamed of. So the latter won't be a pesky public political issue that citizens need bother themselves with.

<comment><USER3> That's already happening, but they don't need legislation to do it because Social media companies agree to do it on their own.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> When it's a "summit", you know the tech companies have already agreed to it. It's what happened at last year's "Cybersecurity Summit", which was basically most of the major companies agreeing to CISA-like legislation, before the legislation was even up for a vote.

</comment><comment><USER5> Will there also be a "summit" with auto manufacturers to discuss the prevalence of the Toyota pickup trucks they drive?

<comment><USER6> When will there be a summit with auto dealerships over how criminals can buy getaway cars?

<comment><USER7> We also need a media summit, with a keynote from Adobe on how they will stop terrorists from using Premier Pro to create propaganda videos.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I just got onto Twitter to post this article along with a tweet saying something like:

"Authorities will use terrorism as excuse to censor social media, but then actually they'll use it to censor ordinary Germans talking about New Year's Eve."

I WAS UNABLE TO TWEET IT!

Whenever I started typing "New Year's Eve" the character limit would turn red, even though I was within the limit.

Then I realized: my VPN was in Europe! They were already censoring my tweet!

I had to switch my VPN out of Europe, AND clear my cookies, before I was able to tweet about it.

This is no joke -- it was a really creepy feeling. And the White House is moving now to impose the same censorship in the USA?

It's torch-and-pitchfork time. We need P2P social media immediately.

</comment><comment><USER9> There were no terrorism like there is now. arming violent rebels were done by both usa and ussr (I don't know who did it first, but both have done this) for doing their bidding/proxy war. Look where things are now. There wouldn't be any "terrorism" in the first place if usa didn't mess in every countries affairs. What about the normal lives/dreams lost as a result of invasions by u.s.a? That is what is fueling terrorism.

Take the case with what happened after 9/11\. Iraq was attacked for false reasons and now the region is destabilized and there are more terrorists in the region than there ever was. Afghanistan is a mess. So is Syria. US is also responsible for the situation in Palestine too. They are humans and they don't deserve to be blockaded. People should stop going to war in the name of belief and learn to treat other humans with respect and dignity.

</comment><comment><USER10> I wonder if they'll include militia groups (i.e., Y'all Queda) as their targets.

And here's the relevant text "...how to make it easier for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to identify militant operatives" translating to "allow us to decrypt your users' private messages"

</comment><comment><USER11> Summits used to be meetings between heads of state. I guess this means that corporations have now risen to that level of power - at least in the eyes of the media.</comment>


Airbnb Backyard will sell houses in 2019 - <AUTHOR> https://www.fastcompany.com/90271599/exclusive-airbnb-will-start-designing-houses-in-2019 <comment><USER3> Attempting a summary since this article was dripping with SV BS. As far as I can tell, they plan to launch some kind of modular prefab home that could scale from adding a backyard cottage to your home, all the way to a multi- family dwelling. There's an indirect hint that they may be considering including some level of space saving furnishing or some other kind of batteries included prefab home.

<comment><USER4> Thanks for posting this if nothing else as an counterpoint to the vitriol in other comments... perhaps the best example of their current work is a joint effort with a small city in Western Japan [0] which, from having visited this region of Japan, seems like a great benefit to the local community - <USER2> and social. I hope this is the direction Joe Gebbia and team are heading.

[0]: [https://www.airbnb.com/rooms/14378543?s=51](https://www.airbnb.com/rooms/14378543?s=51)

<comment><USER3> I usually try to be a bit more constructive than an article summary, but the discussion here was seriously off the rails. Whatever their failings as a company, prefab homes at AirBnB scale could be very interesting, especially since there're ongoing housing crises all over the USA.

<comment><USER5> With existing zoning regs, I'm not sure pre-fab at scale will help.

<comment><USER6> Recent state legislation in California has legalized backyard cottages in many places they used to be illegal, including some places where the housing crisis is worst. I know a homeowner who is making use of that new law to build a backyard unit. This is a long, difficult, and expensive process. Hiring an architect, finding a contractor to build it, etc. There are not nearly enough construction workers locally, they can't afford to live here.

Prefab backyard homes could be part of the solution - and at scale could make a big difference.

<comment><USER5> While that's a step in the right direction, it would likely be better to allow mixed zoning, so we could mix more multi-family into existing urban and semi- urban areas.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is cool, but selfishly speaking, the area I'd really like to see Airbnb sink their teeth into is the apartment rental market. I've rented a few long- term (~3 month) sublets on Airbnb, and the process was _light years_ better than dealing with landlords.

For example--I've avoided credit cards and loans in the past because I've been lucky enough to have sufficient savings and wanted to keep things simple. This means I have a sparse credit history. I've always had a steady income though, and have rented for many years without ever being so much as a single day late on a payment. Despite this, I get treated like I'm from outer space just because I haven't needed to put myself into debt.

It's just such an utterly stupid evaluation criteria. I'm provably a great tenant, but can easily get passed over in favor of someone who has a much worse record, but keeps their credit score high. With Airbnb, I am judged by my actual relevant track record--a lessor can see that again and again I fulfill my obligations and make a good impression. And of course, there's more accountability on the other side too since tenants can leave reviews.

There's just so much inefficiency they could clean up here.

<comment><USER8> Society operates on credit and you're only hurting yourself by not engaging in the benefits of having a credit card. Use it like a debit card and you'll earn cash back and you will build your credit.

<comment><USER9> Eh, maybe in the US. I've never owned one and likely never will.

Live within your means.

<comment><USER10> > Live within your means.

Most people don't use credit cards to _borrow_. The point of the credit is just to hold until the end of the next month and then pay off in one go. The point of doing that is to allow a period of time to resolve any disputes for example.

Credit cards give you extra consumer power - actual extra laws backing you up (at least where I am).

I can't understand people who don't like credit cards if they say it's not living within your means.

<comment><USER9> Because a lot of people don't seem to follow that. You get paid X on the 1st, as long as you spend X-1 within the month you have no need for a credit card.

Other than showing some opaque credit agency that your ok for more credit.

<comment><USER10> What about the consumer protection aspects? You don't get that with a debit card. I suppose you don't _need_ it in the same way you don't need lots of things, but it's ignoring legal protection you could have for free? Plus every single time you buy on credit you are subsidising my credit card rewards.

<comment><USER9> > What about the consumer protection aspects?

Which ones specifically? If they are truly for free then I don't need to pay for them by virtue of having a credit card.

<comment><USER11> >Which ones specifically? If they are truly for free then I don't need to pay for them by virtue of having a credit card.

Chargebacks, protection against a stolen card, no real money being tied up during a dispute, etc.

>If they are truly for free then I don't need to pay for them by virtue of having a credit card.

Every consumer is already paying for them because business price in the credit card fees into their retail prices. If you don't get a discount for using cash/debit, you are already paying for this protection.

In the US, by not using a card, you are still paying for the benefits without getting them.

<comment><USER9> > Chargebacks, protection against a stolen card, no real money being tied up > during a dispute, etc.

I have all of this already.

And they price the risk of a card being fraudulent, which isn't specific to credit cards.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> For Airbnb this is a very smart move. Airbnb knows demand and supply extremely well and is poised to be able to offer some very highly leveraged financial products to fund the buildout.

This is in my opinion the most significant initiative being done by any SV or YC company. By significant I mean that it promises to end a lot of market failures and disrupt a lot of big players.

At the risk of making this comment too long for casual readers, I'll elaborate:

Consider the incentives for developers. They buy and develop plots of land or existing distressed properties with the goal of bundling as many profitable sales into the same heavily subsidized financing event.

When the developer sells a property for $500K there may be $250K in the land, $100K in the structure, and another $150K in things like appliances, furnishing, HVAC, etc.

The sale is largely emotional and is driven by the way it is legal to bundle all those add-ons into the subsidized financing. This fact alone explains much about the housing bubble. The $150K worth of bundled items are worth $75K after they have been used for a week.

The buyer consents to this because it's the cheapest way to finance a luxurious lifestyle, even though it's marked up significantly. As long as the market keeps going up, the buyer doesn't get bitten by it.

Airbnb knows which parts of the financing bundle make sense for long term value and which can be most profitably leveraged when the unit is used as an Airbnb listing.

If you think of a rental property simply as an asset, you want the kitchen renovated periodically to maximize the market value of the listing. Landlords with 12 month leases, mortgage companies with 30 year mortgages, and most notably real estate brokers with <30 day commissions have no incentive to maximize any of those elements, and have plenty of incentive simply to maximize the amount financed.

Airbnb's interests align perfectly with home buyers on this, in a way that the incumbents' do not.

If this takes off at scale it will reduce profits for realtors, builders, developers, and interior decorators/furniture sellers. It's a pretty amazing opportunity that uniquely maximizes the value of Airbnb's data. Wow.

</comment><comment><USER13> I guess they need to pivot a bit. Since they jacked up fees to booking.com levels they are just a booking.com equivalent in my eyes, the prices are not cheaper anymore.

<comment><USER14> I like paying hotel level prices on airbnb yet, at the same time, be expected to put up with stuff as if I'm staying over at a friend's house for free. And, if I don't give a 5 star review, I'm a jerk?

<comment><USER15> If you don't like it, don't use it. If enough people don't like it, they will change or go out of business. My experiences have been awesome, personally.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> At some point does Airbnb just turn into the Hyatt, except with hotels in the shape of a gated community instead of in the shape of a big boxy hotel?

<comment><USER17> Tbh that still constitutes a significant ahift in societal norms primarily executed by a single company; if they accomplish just that much, they've accomplished quite a bit (ofc, it's also a naturally goes hand-in-hand with things like uber).

In a hundred years, architects/urban planners will easily point to this decade as the age of... something (particularly because with any change in societal values will come changes elsewhere; if this sticks, we'll inevitably start seeing changes in house design and city planning to support it)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> There's a startup called Cover that's already making homes and ADUs exactly as Airbnb says they hope to make them. Their vision is to build homes like Tesla builds cars. If you live in the LA area, you can order one online and get it delivered in 6 months.

[https://www.cover.build](https://www.cover.build)

<comment><USER19> Thanks for sharing. These look pretty nice but I just can't get over the price of a lot of these prefab and tiny homes.

From Cover's FAQ page ([https://www.cover.build/faq](https://www.cover.build/faq)):

      How much do Cover structures cost?
      Most of our structures cost between $300-400 per square foot, all inclusive.

Seems expensive to me. Isn't part of the promise of prefab lower costs?

<comment><USER20> Huh that is really expensive. According to Fixr, average cost per square foot is $117 [0], so Cover is ~3x as expensive. The benefits of going prefab would have to be pretty extreme to be willing to do that

[0]: [https://www.fixr.com/costs/build-single-family- house](https://www.fixr.com/costs/build-single-family-house)

<comment><USER21> While $117/sq.ft. is the average cost nationwide, the average in Los Angeles City – where Cover operates – is a lot higher. In addition to that, Cover offers backyard homes, which means they're smaller than a full size home. They're typically between 300-900sq.ft. A lot of the costs of a home are the mechanical systems, kitchens, bathrooms – which you still need in a small space. So the smaller you go, the higher the cost/sq.ft. When you look at the numbers – you can build a 900sq.ft. Cover backyard home in Los Angeles for $300K. It's hard to even find a good apartment at that price in LA. Full disclosure - I'm the cofounder & CEO of Cover.

<comment><USER22> Alexis, have you guys worked directly with the city to fast track your ADUs from a permitting standpoint? We're now converting a garage in LA after a brutal time with historic review (mostly) and planning/dbs (less so).

Also to confirm what Alexis is saying about LA... We're in the middle of our project and though we're doing it on the cheap it's mid 200's per foot. Can easily see how it could be double that.

<comment><USER21> Harmmonica, Because we build in a factory, we do almost all the inspections and building safety checks with the State, which is a custom process we've developed with the state specific to our building system. This means that our process is faster and more certain than building traditionally. If you're interested in learning more, email us at email@example.com - our team would be happy to see how we can help!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> It's interesting to note that California has some incentives in place to help increase housing and Accessory Dwellings are one that frequently are easy to get permission to build. I know here in Berkeley we have new laws in place making this process way easier.

[https://www.berkeleyside.com/2017/03/20/new-laws-make- even-e...](https://www.berkeleyside.com/2017/03/20/new-laws-make-even-easier- build-backyard-cottages-berkeley)

<comment><USER24> While the state of California and some cities have been making it legal to construct accessory dwelling units, cities commonly prohibit short-term rentals in these accessory dwelling units. (Reference: Berkeley's BMC 23C.22.020.D [1], and San Francisco's Planning Code 207(c)(4)(D) [2]). In such cities, it seems that the law discourages you from adding an ADU with kitchen if you want to rent it out on Airbnb (or if you want to rent it out long-term, for that matter, if rent control would apply). It's less restrictive to add bedrooms without the kitchen. I don't think Airbnb will be able to build test homes in these restrictive cities either.

[1]: [https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Berkeley/html/Berkeley23C/...](https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Berkeley/html/Berkeley23C/Berkeley23C22/Berkeley23C22020.html#23C.22.020)

[2]: [http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/planni...](http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/planning/article2usedistricts?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:sanfrancisco_ca$anc=JD_207)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Well, guess this is a way to add small units to extra space people have which could then be served as Airbnb's.

Overall, Airbnb experience is not the same. The prices are equivalent or in certain cases more than what Hotels charge. And in most cases, you don't get the same kind of privacy/facilities that hotels provide. I stopped even looking for Airbnb unless it's a really nice place which offers some kind of experience which hotels doesn't.

<comment><USER26> "The prices are equivalent or in certain cases more than what Hotels charge"

You conveniently ignore the huge number of cases where its cheaper than a hotel (especially a suite for a family) and the fact that it contains a kitchen and many other time/money saving amenities

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I'm pretty sick of celebrating AirBnB. They create so many classic externalities problems and are doing basically nothing to address them despite simple solutions being available, like allowing people to look up addresses and file complaints without being a customer (ie: neighbors of AirBnB owners that are adversely affected). It's obvious why they don't do this: they know there are tons of illegal listings that would immediately be identified and pulled down, and they know that's a significant amount of their business.

This doesn't even begin to address the legalities of subleasing, the negative real estate market effects for residents, etc. all of which AirBnB chooses to paper over with ads about how they are helping poor people get additional sources of income.

We should be careful trusting them in having a significant role in our real estate system. As a company they behave irrationally and their values, outside of growth at all costs, are shallow, and as a country real estate provides a huge amount of our economic backbone. We're all still really mad at the bankers about the last economic recession, do we want to blame the next one on the tech companies?

AirBnB: fix your existing marketplace and show that you can run a proper, legal business before expanding.

<comment><USER28> Celebrating? HN is extremely anti-Airbnb.

<comment><USER29> Not really clear on your tone, but HN exists as a tech forum because it is developed and hosted by Y Combinator, which funded Airbnb in a seed round (which I believe they still have, and assume is substantially valuable). So there is the probably more of a complicated community dynamic than "HN is extremely anti-Airbnb"

<comment><USER30> To that same point, Airbnb investors include pretty much everyone who have also invested in other startup darlings: Sequoia, A16Z, Crunchfund, Google, Founders Fund, Greylock, SV Angel, General Catalyst, KPCB

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Such an ADU would already be banned by Vancouver's recent Airbnb regulations.

</comment><comment><USER32> Airbnb is getting people to buy houses, a high priced asset for most, while they run an asset-light business that devalues physical assets. Crazy

</comment><comment><USER33> My humble opinion on what this means for AirBnB and the market: [https://medium.com/@simon/airbnb-wants-to-reinvent-the- city-...](https://medium.com/@simon/airbnb-wants-to-reinvent-the-city-one- house-at-the-time-4f9a9312bd9c)

</comment><comment><USER34> How does AirBnB plan to ensure compliance with local construction regulations? That seems like it could be rather expensive for this endeavor.

<comment><USER35> Just disrupt compliance with local construction regulations! it worked with illegal hotels before...

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I'm not entirely clear what they are proposing. They want to reimagine housing, and something about more energy efficient.

</comment><comment><USER37> Will they also tell me if the property will cashflow on AirBnb at that price?

</comment><comment><USER38> Website does not display on Firefox mobile.

</comment><comment><USER39> They are planning on getting growth from that?!?! They should have IPO'd a long time ago to get their exit.

</comment><comment><USER40> I'm banned from AirBnB, not that I would buy a house from them, but I wonder if I would be banned from buying a house from them too :P

<comment><USER41> Story time

<comment><USER40> When I was out of the room, there was apparently a gas leak in it, and the fire department kicked in the door. The replacement door cost $1300.

I didn't use the stove/gas, and the power didn't work at all the night before this happened, it was a poor experience.

The host was great, and told me it was fine, they'd get an insurance pay out.

I was asked to provide evidence I didn't do anything, and wasn't given any information about the price of the replacement door, the extent of the damage, or why the apartment supervisor couldn't just unlock the door.

Anyways. The host sent me an image of her insurance payout from AirBnb and AirBnb asked me to pay them for the damages, so I refused, and was banned.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> It'll be a lot of fun if they charge the kind of outrageous fee they collect for their regular service.

</comment><comment><USER43> I wonder what regulations they'll skirt to further extract money out of our communities like they have been doing so far.

</comment><comment><USER44> "Sell Houses" does not mean "A Service to Put your house on the market" in this case. Title on HN is a bit misleading.

</comment><comment><USER45> Well at least they're more likely to have to follow local housing/zoning laws if they're going to be outright constructing new buildings, right? Right??

<comment><USER46> Just like Uber does right?</comment></comment>


The Internet Archive, ALA, and SAA Brief Filed in TV News Fair Use Case - <AUTHOR> https://blog.archive.org/2016/04/05/the-internet-archive-ala-and-saa-brief-filed-in-tv-news-fair-use-case/ <comment><USER2> TL;DNR Archives and library organizations file an amicus brief in support of a service that records TV and radio news and turns it into a searchable database. Stuff like this is part of preserving our cultural memory, and important for holding politicians and others accountable. And for seeing what commercials in 2016 used to look like.

</comment><comment><USER3> The Internet Archive is the real thing, a not-for-profit community resource doing good works, trying to make a better world. It is worthy of your financial support. You can donate from their website, [http://archive.org](http://archive.org).

</comment><comment><USER4> I have no trust that the ALA (American Library Association) with anything copyright. They always were cowering or helping out the Corporations to over enforce US Copyright Laws.

Former System's Librarian who was always shocked at how anti- Open Source and Fair Use librarians and the ALA was till I left in 2007.

<comment><USER5> So what's your analysis of this amicus brief? More of the same, or different?

<comment><USER4> I think that they think that it is politically positive to go in on this lawsuit.

I think the Snowden effect has greatly impacted the mindset of Librarians and when it was found out that the Government was seeking user library activity documents they all started to freak out.

Makes me wish I stayed in the field just to see the tide change.</comment></comment></comment>


Fiat Crowdsourcing Car Design - <AUTHOR> http://blog.crowdspring.com/2010/05/fiat-crowdsourcing-car-design/

<comment><USER2> <http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/%22The_Homer%22>

</comment><comment><USER3> Cars are evil. the less are produced the better. Ride buses guys. And probably try to crowdsource new public transportation.

<comment><USER4> Cars, trunks, and personal vehicles, in general, serve the public that exists outside of a city. Yes, there is life outside the city.

<comment><USER5> Also, it serves the public that lives in cities with shitty public transportation.

Example: Dallas. I'm about to borrow my girlfriend's car to go see a band. Without her car, I'd have to catch a bus there - a bus that stops running in an hour - and take the rail back to the nearest point to our apartment, which is six miles away.</comment></comment></comment>


Thanks to jOOQ, I have lost over ten pounds - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/breandan/status/432778883083952128 <comment><USER2> I read it as £10.

<comment><USER3> I read it as "jQuery".</comment></comment>


How Software Engineers and Designers Can Increase Their Focus - <AUTHOR> http://twurl.nl/p2w83j

<comment><USER2> If we all did this I'm not sure how much hacker news would get read. I especially value the point about inspirational books becoming means for vicarious success. The true litmus test of something intending to be motivational would be whether or not it can change behavior.

<comment><AUTHOR> Great point, Josh. I wrote in my recent chapter about ditching my cell phone that there's different "tools for different fools."

All one can really do is try and help people with things that have helped them</comment></comment>


Show HN: Dumblr – tumblr for devs - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/devty1023/dumblr

<comment><USER2> Could you explain a bit more about how it works.

<comment><AUTHOR> hi!

the basic idea is that you can load/create 'text' posts from your tumblr blog, make changes in your favorite text editor, and push the changes upto tumblr again.

is there particular area you find it unclear? i would be interested in knowing and improving the readme</comment></comment>


I work in tech and quit the perfect job - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@megamindbrian/your-ideas-are-stupid-and-your-goals-are-meaningless-3fca37d07cb9 <comment><USER2> I read the whole thing too. There's so much reading between the lines to do. The author is obviously unaware of the real issues getting them fired, but I could never quite write them off as a bad employee or unhinged either. I mean, someone who prides themselves on being a porcupine and asks for a raise by passive aggressively complaining about contract terms is bad news, but they're also so passionate.

<comment><AUTHOR> Would it have been better to leave the space blank, give the manager the opportunity to ignore me, or say "I was hoping this review happened a year ago, is there any chance I could get a raise with this review?" Would that be polite and up-front enough?

<comment><USER2> That is the approach that worked for me -- like "I was expecting this raise to be like $10,000, not $1,400, because things have worked out so well."

Ideally you would just schedule a meeting on your own and say "I want to discuss something that was in the contract I signed. Look here..." Seems easier than it is, but when you have a clear business case like that, direct communication is really effective.

It works because it says to your boss, "I think of you as someone who keeps his promises, so I'm reminding you of this one." The note on the review starts off on the wrong foot. By accusing them of not honoring terms in contracts, you trigger a defensive reaction -- part "I'm not a bad person", part "Am I going to get sued?" No need to be adversarial when you could be partners.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Long read, but interesting. I recently quit a job 2.5 years in... I've learnt if you're unhappy at work then it's not the perfect job.

<comment><AUTHOR> :) I started reading the "12 rules for life". I like it, it's well articulated. I might have acted differently if I read the book before quitting. We all suffer from the human condition but some bosses recognize it differently.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> i love this article

<comment><AUTHOR> It was therapeutic to write. Maybe more people should write about their weird work related issues? Uber and sexism was hyped up for a month, there must be more out there.</comment></comment>