Hacker News Reader

Comment by khawkins | Hacker News Reader

It is a colossal misstep for the MIT Media Lab to move into social activism, and that is what this award is doing. If you'd like to be perceived as scientists, you lose your credibility to do impartial investigation of social trends. It's hard to trust a paper you've published on the impact of #MeToo when your department is literally rewarding the founders.

If you'd like to be perceived as engineers, you demonstrate a serious lack of focus. The Media Lab has historically been focused on innovative human-computer interfaces. When most people have spent significant time and several years interacting with social media, the Media Lab is no more qualified to speak on social media movements enabled by technology than the average person. They're borrowing the reputation of the lab to promote a political position, but its reputation is harmed by doing so.

View on HN

Huh. I'd say work on "human-computer interfaces" is one of the pinnacles of social activism and always a highly politicised endeavour. The Media Lab has always had (in my fairly long memory) a reputation for empowering individuals in the face of authority. Disobedience is a perfect fit.

If being an "engineer" means not being involved in social activism, why would anyone want to be called or perceived as one?

Disagree. I think this is like saying Einstein shouldn't have been vocal about the Bomb. I think scientists (and scientific institutions) should use their visibility to make a social point, and that shouldn't at all undermine their scientific credibility.

The integrity of a hard science like physics is rarely compromised by political persuasions. I have little idea how his positions on the bomb would have affected his ability to produce unbiased scientific results. The conclusions of those papers have little ramification on the ethics of nuclear weapons.

But if you're trying to do research which investigates the social ramifications of a movement like #MeToo, then a biased researcher will seek out methods which highlight how positive and powerful the movement is, while ignoring metrics which make it look weak, unpopular, or causing negative impacts. Getting the title "Doctor" doesn't magically remove one's bias, especially when there is a systemic bias promoted by the institution at large.

I agree with you. What I would find interesting is if you applied the exact same argument to climate change would you agree with yourself? Because it would amass many attempts to hide it here on HN.

Medical Doctors are biased against diseases like cancer that kill people, and hospitals have systematic institutional biases against cancer, too -- is that so wrong?

Sexually assaulting people and institutionally supporting the perpetrators and covering up their crimes is simply wrong. There isn't another valid side to that argument. The #MeToo movement is on the right side of that argument, and anyone who opposes it or denies it's a problem, like Trump or the Catholic Church, is simply wrong, and likely motivated by their desire to cover up and excuse their own crimes.

You can't fault medical doctors for being biased against cancer, or researchers for being biased against rape and sexual assault.

I disagree. I believe the most difficult engineering problem in the world is changing human behavior and decision making at scale. Not behavior in terms of "tap the screen more often", but actually changing how we treat each other, how we treat the planet, consumption and consumerism versus preservation and reuse. To that end, this is engineering, and they are on the right side of history.

Further, social activism as engineering is important. It's engineering behavior so we're more inclusive. Inclusivity is important because we need lots of perspectives on how to solve problems. The more perspectives we have, the better our solutions will be.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com