zlacker

>>capabl+(OP)
"...whether the site’s original tech-intellectual culture can be responsibly scaled up to make space for a more inclusive, wider-ranging vision of technology."

I don't come to Hacker News for "inclusive" technology - which these days appear to be a politically-correct euphemism for forced diversity.

I come to Hacker News for discussions on technology.

Anything that prioritizes the "inclusive" nature of technology, versus the "technology" itself, is irrelevant to me, and has nothing to do with the main interests of the site (hacking and technology) and should be downvoted. Keep politics and social politics out from Hacker News.

>>knight+4G1
The thing is, technology alone without taking care about ethics and politics as well can be extremely dangerous for society itself. Just look at Facebook, with Zuckerberg's infamous "the dumb fucks trust me" quote from its early days and later on the scandals about Cambridge Analytica or its role in getting Trump elected. Or Whatsapp and the series of lynchings resulting from the new feature of forwarding messages, leading to fake news spreading faster than the old "chain letters".

[1] https://www.theregister.com/2010/05/14/facebook_trust_dumb/

>>mschus+kL1
You make a strong point, but it's not clear to me that it addresses the concern of GP. That is to say, I find myself generally in agreement with your post and theirs and don't see a conflict, the clear harms you mention don't seem to me to result from insufficient "diversity" (in this particular sense).

>>Y_Y+WM1
> the clear harms you mention don't seem to me to result from insufficient "diversity"

Of course they do. Simply put: a bunch of young, rich white Western men - they never experience the insane danger that are part of the daily life of women: men stalking them using every way they can, raping them, killing them, or doxxing them just because they can "for the lulz". Both do not experience the racism and discrimination Black people go through, and neither of these have the experience of people in the Balkans, India or other countries with ethnic and religious tensions. And that's just the tip of the iceberg - discrimination runs rampant across all our societies, with technology lessening the effects of some of it (e.g. AI-generated descriptions of images for the blind), and making others exponentially worse (especially online harassment).

More diversity in anything tech automatically means more eyeballs on how a new (or existing) technology can be used by malicious actors to cause harm. For me the worst case in the last few years where this was clearly not done were AirTags - they are immensely useful, but it took over two years and uncountable reports of AirTags being used to facilitate crime of all kind to get a detection feature in Android [1].

[1] https://blog.google/products/android/unknown-tracker-alert-g...

>>mschus+ZO1
Doesn't this conflate diversity of identity with diversity of perspective?

You don't have to be raped and killed daily to have an valuable opinion. Indians, Serbians, Black Americans, rich western whites, these are all just humans who, a priori, are just as worthwhile as one another.

I get that you have in mind particular kind of harm that you want to prevent, and that this is a priority for you, but reasonable people can and do differ in their opinions on what's harmful and what they'd like to talk about.

>>Y_Y+0R1
What is desired is broad diversity of experience and perspective. Statistically, if that goal is achieved, it will also result in diversity of identity, because many experiences and perspective are highly correlated with different identities, not universally, but statistically. This is pretty clear if you talk to a number of people across differences in both perspective and identity.