Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

In my dayjob I often run the tech for events, nearly once a week. In my experience known recording/publication tend to make discussions worse and not better than closed room discussions — especially if the topic is controversial. I'd love it if that wasn't the case, but that is not what I observed.

That is because with published recordings it often becomes purely performative, where people aren't actually interested in honestly engaging with each others thoughts, but instead (ab)using the recording as a stage to make a public statement. It essentially becomes a thinly veiled PR battle with multiple actors trying to control the narrative and the ones that prepared well (so not the general audience) tend to dominate the discussion. In my experience that is the opposite of a good discourse.

In the latter case the audience is only the audience that is already present and they are part of the discussion, if everything goes well a feeling of "we need to resolve this issue" is established, with a collective feeling emerging in the room. There is no guarantee that this happens and that there is a result, but in my experience (with well over 400 events) the tendency speaks for the closed room, especially with touchy subjects.



"the tendency speaks for the closed room, especially with touchy subjects."

I do agree to that

I just would have prefered a closed room debate with him invited to adress those issues, not the cancel mentality and then speaking in a close room about him.


Ah okay, maybe I don't know enough a out how it went down




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: