What is the concern with "surveillance" if you are writing for the public?

Dredging up common and mostly uncontroversial things that were said in 2010, but are now apparently very controversial, is somewhat of a sport for some people nowadays. There are some out there who would love fans of Ruby on Rails to suffer because of its association with DHH. It's not always entirely rational, so how could I ever predict what unhinged individuals in 2035 will take issue with on my blog? Everything online is preserved, so it's easier and safer to just not to participate at all.

> There are some out there who would love fans of Ruby on Rails to suffer because of its association with DHH. It's not always entirely rational, so how could I ever predict what unhinged individuals in 2035 will take issue with on my blog? Everything online is preserved, so it's easier and safer to just not to participate at all.

What a weird justification for cowardice.

It is your life, but if you have the principles of your convictions you should probably be willing to stand by the things you say, or why say them?

DHH is presumably proud of his racism, hence why he publishes it, and therefor he's willing to enjoy any consequences that come from that.

The alternative is that you're only willing to have opinions unless someone disagrees with you, which just seems sad.

>you should probably be willing to stand by the things you say, or why say them?

Don't confuse the online world with the real one.

If you don't think real people use the internet, I dunno man, welcome to the 21st century, there's a lot to catch up on.

woosh

Read GP again.

> There are some out there who would love fans of Ruby on Rails to suffer because of its association with DHH.

This isn’t about DHH spouting whatever he is spouting.

It’s about people trying to convince others to not associate with Rails because of DHH.

It's worse than that. It's people generating a moral panic so they can retroactively declare something to be crimethink and then use that as a weapon against anyone who disagrees with them by trawling through their history. In which case it's not a matter of standing by it because mobs aren't interested in context or nuance.

Society's defense against this should be that we don't use mobs to punish people for saying things we disagree with and anybody who attempts to do that gets laughed off the stage. Because as soon as that's not what happens, the public discourse gets marred by self-censorship until enough time passes with it not happening that people stop expecting it to and thereby stop worrying that they can't know what's going to be declared an offense tomorrow.

But now that it has happened recently, the only way to get it back in the short term is to have people posting under pseudonyms.

This idea that people are too... what, fragile, to be criticized continues to puzzle me.

Dhh said some stupid stuff and now people are calling him out. Why should dhh be allowed to say whatever wants but no one is allowed to criticize him?

The problem is not people criticizing ideas. The problem is people attacking other people for saying things they don't like, trying to get them fired, etc.

Attack their arguments, not their family, employer, etc.

I mean, you keep repeating the idea that "some people" shouldn't be allowed to use their speech but DHH can use his speech.

You can't have it both ways, either DHH is free to speak his mind on any subject he chooses, and so is everyone else, or nobody is actually free to speak.

No, that's a lie, or at least close enough to one.

People are asking ruby on rails to stop associating with dhh because of his remarks.

That's it.

Or is this one those "free speech but not like that" moments?

I'm pretty open (check out my HN handle, if you don't believe me), but I'm also retired, and there's not many ways folks can get a handle on me. I have an ... eclectic ... life story, and it has supplied me with a healthy dose of cynicism and hardness, that makes me a not-so-easy mark.

I'm also very much a person who enjoys other people; especially the ones that are hard to get along with.

I've learned that being open, on my end, can encourage others to be more open to me. I don't have any nefarious motives, and am quite trustworthy, so I like to think I'm a "low-risk" person. I'm quite aware that the same can't be said for many others, and understand it, when that is cast onto me.

Eventually I hope to get to that point! For now, I'm still quite worried about what others think or being attacked or "cancelled" (as is quite common nowadays) for any reason. I hope to be like you someday.