Hacker News Reader

Comment by enriquto | Hacker News Reader

The reaction of the organizer is very sad. Civilization is based on the peaceful collaboration of people who may hate each other. Disallowing such collaboration is, by definition, uncivilized.

Being able to deal with people that make you very uncomfortable without creating a fuss is a fundamental requirement of adulthood. Regardless of the callous reaction of the un-invited person, it was not OK to un-invite them, at least for the reasons exposed in this article.

The organizer says:

> Being accused like that caused me harm.

of course it did. Just like the harm you did by cancelling invitations on behalf of a hypothetical discomfort of other people. It is exactly the same behavior.

View on HN

I watched this unfold on Twitter, and you're misrepresenting the situation.

The people removed from the conference have a history of disruption and harassment in the community. They were removed because of previous behavior that the organizer was not aware beforehand. He relied on the testimony of people he trust.

> Being able to deal with people that make you very uncomfortable without creating a fuss is a fundamental requirement of adulthood

The only people who engaged in "creating a fuss" were the speaker and a third-party related to her. They decided to come forward and "out" themselves. Up to that point, everything had been handled in private. There was no need to involve other people such as the organizer's girlfriend or other speakers.

> It is exactly the same behavior.

The organizer denied a speaking position and did so in private, without incurring any shame or denying participation in general.

The speaker and a third party started a campaign of doxxing, harassment and, as other commented put it: "public shaming using false allegations of stalking and harassment".

There's a world of difference between those two behaviors.

You missed this part:

> Generally, the best scenario is to talk with the involved parties, to cooperate and to seek a solution that doesn’t make the problem bigger. This isn’t always possible. In this case they went public and accused me and I had to explain what happened.

One of the parties involved wasn't interested in civilized collaboration, but making false accusations instead.

He does not explain the whole story, so it is difficult to know. It does not really seem that he tried to talk to the person whose talk was cancelled (and who had probably already bought plane tickets, etc).

I agree that, in the end, it is true that this person was a troublemaker that should not have been invited in the first place. However, it seems from the text that the organizers decided to cancel the invitation before receiving any input whatsoever from the concerned person. I cannot see how this is ok.

Imagine that this person has been bullied in such a way out of a dozen conferences by a concerted effort of a few colleagues that hate her. And for this last conference, she exploded with great and not completely unjustified ire. Whatever, it is a bit absurd to have an opinion on this question without information from both sides.

Why are you trying to create a scenario that justifies the speaker's false accusations and harassment of the organizer?

It's a hypothetical scenario (that turned out to be false), but it was a likely possibility that could be considered before acting to cancel the invitation.

> It does not really seem that he tried to talk to the person whose talk was cancelled (and who had probably already bought plane tickets, etc).

You missed that as well. He and another person of his group reached out to her beforehand. Here's the part in the article that says so:

> Therefore, on April 25, 2019, I, along with an employee of my company, communicated to her our decision in a meeting held in a place of her choice. She took it badly.

The conference will happen next June.

> Whatever, it is a bit absurd to have an opinion on this question without information from both sides.

The people who were denied were the ones who came forward and they never addressed nothing of the sort. They only engaged in doxxing, harassment of other speakers and false accusations.

This is not a proportional response.

All that happened in public. If you need info, just ask instead of assuming.

>Disallowing such collaboration is

There wouldn't be much of a collaboration if people bail or a bad incident happens at the conference.

The fact that multiple people went out of their way to warn the conference organisers suggests this goes well beyond a normal difference of opinion.

In that context it was a difficult but correct call in my opinion.

Plus frankly if staying away from such people is uncivilized, then I'm ok with being uncivilized.

> Just like the harm you did by cancelling invitations on behalf of a hypothetical discomfort of other people.

What she accused him of doing was entirely false while uninviting her was based on something entirely true. You are comparing harm caused by false accusation to one caused by actual grievance.

> What she accused him of doing was entirely false while uninviting her was based on something entirely true.

This is certainly true, looking at the unfolding of the events. Yet, this information is missing in the text, where it seems that the organizers actions were guided solely by the "discomfort" manifested by other participants, that pressured them to reject another invitee. This sounds pretty much "giving in to undue pressure".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com