Our Sincerest Apologies(openstandard.mozilla.org)
openstandard.mozilla.org
Our Sincerest Apologies
https://openstandard.mozilla.org/our-sincerest-apologies/
6 comments
The article it is referencing is this one:
https://openstandard.mozilla.org/yes-gamergate-is-a-ed-tech-...
Why he didn't link directly to it in the apologies is a bit weird.
Also I do not completely understand what the apology is about, for this article? For other formal responses to it? (Where are they btw?) For the contents of the comment sections on these articles?
https://openstandard.mozilla.org/yes-gamergate-is-a-ed-tech-...
Why he didn't link directly to it in the apologies is a bit weird.
Also I do not completely understand what the apology is about, for this article? For other formal responses to it? (Where are they btw?) For the contents of the comment sections on these articles?
That article was not the one that made everyone upset. https://openstandard.mozilla.org/yes-gamergate-is-everyones-... Was the article that made everyone upset.
Well, also, @firefox tweeting the story you linked to with the #gamergate hashtag brought a whole world of bullshit down on Audrey, so there's that.
This is why the 'apology' talks about 'starting a conversation,' because it was two articles _and_ a number of other tweets by @firefox, positioning #gamergate as a 'conversation' and 'controversy' between two equal sides, rather than a weirdly obsessive harassment campaign with a cover story.
Well, also, @firefox tweeting the story you linked to with the #gamergate hashtag brought a whole world of bullshit down on Audrey, so there's that.
This is why the 'apology' talks about 'starting a conversation,' because it was two articles _and_ a number of other tweets by @firefox, positioning #gamergate as a 'conversation' and 'controversy' between two equal sides, rather than a weirdly obsessive harassment campaign with a cover story.
Wait, I don't get it... The apology mentions an article by "Audrey Watters", which is the article mentioned by your parent [1]. However, you mention another article [2], which was apparently "more upsetting" (personally, I see both articles as basically saying people should not be getting death threats), written by "Georgina Young". So which one is it? Or maybe both, or the mention of a controversial topic itself?
Well, and there you have exactly why this topic is so toxic. Everyone is so convinced they're right that they're more interested in digging in and painting caricatures of each other than actually having a discussion.
At this point, there's no way for anything constructive to happen with the valid concerns either side of this has because all the focus is on the worst elements of all involved.
At this point, there's no way for anything constructive to happen with the valid concerns either side of this has because all the focus is on the worst elements of all involved.
They touched something that is highly toxic and it was a mistake.This is something which HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TECH.
That's why apologies are justified,I'm glad Mozilla is setting the record straight.
I dont want to hear about that gamergate stuff.If people want to fight,let them go on twitter,youtube or on msnbc to make a fool out of themself.
That's why apologies are justified,I'm glad Mozilla is setting the record straight.
I dont want to hear about that gamergate stuff.If people want to fight,let them go on twitter,youtube or on msnbc to make a fool out of themself.
1) Mozilla's stated mission is an Open Web. Any society has culture, and technology certainly does. Deciding not to talk about culture is a cultural choice.
2) Ignoring GamerGate is basically tacit approval. It's a banner used to harass people over the flimsiest and stupidest of reasons.
You can stick your fingers in your ears and ignore it if you want. That's kind of a shitty move but ultimately your prerogative. But to say that nobody should talk about it because you don't want to hear about it? Who says that's your decision to make?
Edit for replies:
Ignoring harassment of others doesn't make it go away. In fact all it does is allow harassment to go unchallenged.
I don't expect people to go actively confront people on whether they think gamergate is dumb or not, but if your position is "i don't want to talk about it" or "i don't know, maybe both sides have good points" then you need to reexamine what you think living together what other human beings means.
Gamergate is a fucking stupid reason to harass anybody. Anybody who is neutral or pro-gamergate needs to contend with that fact.
2) Ignoring GamerGate is basically tacit approval. It's a banner used to harass people over the flimsiest and stupidest of reasons.
You can stick your fingers in your ears and ignore it if you want. That's kind of a shitty move but ultimately your prerogative. But to say that nobody should talk about it because you don't want to hear about it? Who says that's your decision to make?
Edit for replies:
Ignoring harassment of others doesn't make it go away. In fact all it does is allow harassment to go unchallenged.
I don't expect people to go actively confront people on whether they think gamergate is dumb or not, but if your position is "i don't want to talk about it" or "i don't know, maybe both sides have good points" then you need to reexamine what you think living together what other human beings means.
Gamergate is a fucking stupid reason to harass anybody. Anybody who is neutral or pro-gamergate needs to contend with that fact.
> Ignoring GamerGate is basically tacit approval.
You know guys,that's exactly why some people dont want to hear about that stuff,because of people like you saying insane things like that.
You know guys,that's exactly why some people dont want to hear about that stuff,because of people like you saying insane things like that.
> Ignoring GamerGate is basically tacit approval
What utter twaddle.
What utter twaddle.
> This is something which HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TECH.
THIS. You get my upvote.
This is what is wrong with Mozilla and it was exposed for all to see when they forced Brendan Eich out over a political donation he made years ago.
Too many people at Mozilla are spending their time as social activists instead of working on technology. They are bringing their own personal beliefs to work and in the process ruining Mozilla.
Perhaps the first line of the employee handbook should read: "Open Web" != "Social Justice".
THIS. You get my upvote.
This is what is wrong with Mozilla and it was exposed for all to see when they forced Brendan Eich out over a political donation he made years ago.
Too many people at Mozilla are spending their time as social activists instead of working on technology. They are bringing their own personal beliefs to work and in the process ruining Mozilla.
Perhaps the first line of the employee handbook should read: "Open Web" != "Social Justice".
When it reaches the point where death threats are being issued against people, I personally do want to hear about Gamergate stuff.
[deleted]
[deleted](1)
I sincerely can't understand what are they apologizing for.
After reading both articles I have the feeling they were expecting an self serving circle jerk and when instead they got called out, sometimes with pretty good fair points they panicked.
Now they apologize for something to someone.
I really wonder the true power that some people might have behind the scenes, but i'm sure this whole thing stinks.
After reading both articles I have the feeling they were expecting an self serving circle jerk and when instead they got called out, sometimes with pretty good fair points they panicked.
Now they apologize for something to someone.
I really wonder the true power that some people might have behind the scenes, but i'm sure this whole thing stinks.
>The Open Standard does not support shouting down people that we don’t agree with; we believe you attack the argument, not the person.
Ah, that explains why they chased out Brendan Eich.
Ah, that explains why they chased out Brendan Eich.
I'm totally lost, are they apologizing for the article, or the comments it attracted, or something else?
OT: Is there some way to scan referenced links for keywords and remove them from list? Perhaps some Firefox extension or GreaseMonkey script?
I go here for hardware/software related news and this is just OT.
I go here for hardware/software related news and this is just OT.
Although I agree with your desire to filter out Hacker News based on your interests, I personally think this is On Topic here.
Quoting guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html):
On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
This story is related to an ongoing event related to genre bias on technology industry. As so, most people think it is on topic here (based on the number of upvotes needed to land on first page).
Quoting guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html):
On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
This story is related to an ongoing event related to genre bias on technology industry. As so, most people think it is on topic here (based on the number of upvotes needed to land on first page).
I agree. Almost every time I refresh the page, I see something political, and that kind of stuff is really better suited to Twitter/YouTube/Slashdot/Reddit.
There are a couple of filters / blocklists. Using the site search should find them.
Obviously it's a tricky problem if you want nuanced filtering.
Obviously it's a tricky problem if you want nuanced filtering.
Now please - for the love of all that is good - Can you please stop emailing us? Can you please stop tweeting us? Can you please leave us out of your petty ridiculous argument. Even though we agree with that argument. The right one. The one we agree on.