> 3. Ethics matter. I don't believe there's any life after this one, but I find myself ruminating on what I've done. In 2015, I had a lot of interaction with a startup incubator you know well, and ended up sitting in the discussions and planning around banning and erasing a young programmer we considered a threat to our financial interests, due to his concerns about authoritarianism in technology. In retrospect, he was harmless, but an example had to be made. The decision was made to ban him here, try to get him fired though I don't know if we succeeded, and attack him with sockpuppets on Reddit, and it seems to have worked because you don't hear his name much.
There's something a bit odd about confessing that you were part of an institutional attempt to cancel a specific person, without naming the person or what their specific concerns were, or what specific institution this was; and also claiming that the reason you regret this now is because they were "harmless" rather than "correct".
Someone who in 2015 was concerned about "authoritarianism in technology" possibly came from a cluster of political perspectives that is relatively close to my own; and also possibly came from a cluster of political perspectives that I am relatively opposed to. It's hard to tell which from just that wording and the fact that someone with institutional power in 2015 wanted to cancel them.
I'm certainly curious for more details about exactly what happened here. I imagine it would compromise your anonymity to say more, and depending on the details it might even be bad for that person.
Something disturbingly similar happened to me in 2015. It took me a LONG TIME to build my life back after that. There are STILL certain opportunities that are off limits to me and likely always will be.
I’m pretty sure I know who you are.
I'm sorry to hear about this. The mid-2010s were a dangerous time to be entering Silicon Valley or technology. The important roles were already taken, so there weren't any real opportunities except in crypto (disreputable even by Silicon Valley standards) and the turn toward authoritarianism was subtle but still present enough that, if you left and tried to speak out, you could easily be attacked as not really principled, but simply lashing out because you weren't successful.
This was, and probably still is, the standard anti-whistleblower playbook:
1. He's just lashing out because he was unsuccessful. (That is, claim moral equivalence. He would do the same things if he had won.)
2. He might have a point, but he's being egotistical and making it all about him. (Most whistleblowers are neurodivergent have a history of interpersonal conflict that is usually not damning, but can be dredged up. Now the conversation is all about him, and not in his favor.)
3. Sure, he does have a point, but his tone is shrill and his approach is off-putting. He's actually damaging his own cause by "acting out" and refusing to use official channels. (Never mind that "official channels" are always controlled assets. We are condemning him for not giving us advance notice.)
It's ugly, ugly work. I probably didn't cause any harm to anyone that wasn't already in the works, and maybe I couldn't have prevented any, but I wish I had done it all differently.
By saying he was part of these conversations, the people he talked to almost certainly already know who he is (if necessary, the fact he's undergoing through surgery definitely tells them). Not sharing the details about this sounds more like he doesn't want this individual to be rehabilitated. (Assuming this entire thing is not made up.)> it would compromise your anonymity to say more> There's something a bit odd about confessing that you were part of an institutional attempt to cancel a specific person, without naming the person or what their specific concerns were, or what specific institution this was; and also claiming that the reason you regret this now is because they were "harmless" rather than "correct".
I misspoke. People around me seriously thought this person was a threat to the reputation of Silicon Valley. In reality, he was a mid-tier blogger with serious writing talent but only niche appeal, and Silicon Valley was the biggest threat to the reputation of Silicon Valley.
> I'm certainly curious for more details about exactly what happened here.
Unfortunately, there's as much misinformation about this story and this person as there is truth available online. I will say this: dang did not order the ban here and it was not even his idea. Paul Graham is also not, to my knowledge, the one who ordered it, though he did not reverse it and, in retrospect, he should have.
Imho that cancelling part was about “I still think about it, I don’t have it closed in my mind”. It was not about cancelling a specific person therefore he didn’t mention the name.
I was in the discussions, but I didn't play a major part in the decision. This is closer to "I should have said something" than "I wish I hadn't done that."
It's weird how you don't think of yourself as playing an active role when you are just agreeing with other people because they might be useful, but then find yourself ten years later wondering if you should have done everything differently.
Yup. Exactly. Most people including me have (had) to learn how to not being afraid speak up.
Otherwise unresolved issues catch up with a person until the end of life.
So everytime someone tells that I am too much activist I answer “yes, because I think I need to speak up so I don’t have to have unfinished stuff in my head”. And after ten years when we meet they ask me if I remember …something… And I tell them I don’t as it was finished and I don’t live in the past.
Ram Dass would appreciate it. Be here and now.
I understand. I think many people do. It sounds like this individual was proven right in the retaliation.
It's an obvious troll post.