Aren't upvotes a measure of interest? I would argue that the lack of upvotes on sexism-related posts indicates a lack of interest in discussing these issues on the part of the general population of HN.
What you get is a small group of vocal people eager to discuss the topic while everyone else simply avoids the post. This is similar behavior to what is seen in a flamewar, but could we agree that there might possibly be a better way to rank posts that is able to differentiate between an important discussion that not many people want to have, versus a petty internet argument?
I don't have a strong opinion on (the lack of) women in tech. I don't feel strongly either way, so I'd be more moved to change the status quo if I could be presented with a good case that women are being held back.
Sorry for being insensitive, but complaints about presentation slides mentioning porn stars (unnecessarily edgy IMO, but not misogynistic unless you stretch the definitions of freedom/dignity/exploitation to mean that all porn is exploitative), late night invitations to drink coffee and dongle/forking jokes haven't made me more sympathetic to having a debate about sexism in tech; if anything, they've made me avoid reading or commenting on anything related to sexism. I don't want to keep women who feel wronged by some event from retelling the experience, but most of the stories about sexism in tech I've read have made me form a pattern of avoiding sexism stories altogether.
I fear I might be missing insightful essays from women about their experiences (good, bad, and anything in between) in tech.
I don't mean any of the following as flame-war type criticism, so I hope you are able to find a way not to take it that way.
Stories by women* about their perceptions of the hostile sexualization of many work and conference environments are themselves part of the case being made that women are being held back.
(You would perhaps be shocked how many men share many of the same concerns, and not just out of solidarity with women.)
Ambivalence of the sort you claim and the concomitant disinclination to engage and try to understand things like the late night coffee invitation incident is part of what is holding women back.
I'm not* saying that you're actively choosing to make the world a worse place. Further, as beings of finite attention and lifespan it's quite true that we can't possibly pay attention to everything.
In your writing I do hear a bit of something that makes me thing you might want to understand what the big deal is, but it just hasn't "clicked" for you. Perhaps this is because you find the existing discussions off-putting, or perhaps because the things you read about are about situations that wouldn't be a big deal for you personally.
If you're interested in understanding more, I'm wiling to continue the conversation here or elsewhere.
Even if not, I'd encourage you to keep dipping your toes in the conversation from time to time.
> Aren't upvotes a measure of interest? I would argue that the lack of upvotes on sexism-related posts indicates a lack of interest in discussing these issues on the part of the general population of HN.
The sexism-related posts have a large number of upvotes, yet they are penalized anyway by the controversial algorithm under discussion.
That was my understanding as well. Every single "sexism in tech" thread on HN devolves into some combination of the following:
* The Tumblr SJW PC brigade flinging poo
* The people who wish the first group would FOAD, flinging poo
* The people who have something interesting to say lamenting the existence of
the first two groups, who wish they'd both FOAD.
* The people who make meta posts about the whole thing.
I.e. boring, predictable, bile-filled, and more suited to certain Reddit and Tumblr communities who shall remain nameless. Every time this comes up, especially this high up on the page, my reaction is "Oh god, not this shit again..."
I would have flagged it myself, but somehow I don't think flagging a PG article is conducive to my further ability to use the feature...
What you get is a small group of vocal people eager to discuss the topic while everyone else simply avoids the post. This is similar behavior to what is seen in a flamewar, but could we agree that there might possibly be a better way to rank posts that is able to differentiate between an important discussion that not many people want to have, versus a petty internet argument?