[Lawtonfogle]

>How is someone who was more likely to be harassed by LEO's going to have a different outlook on the engineering/programming of an internet-based social media service?

One potential example would be that someone who has unfairly been targeted by the police may have higher privacy concerns and also be more aware of possibilities for the government to abuse information and even violate rights; things that can happen with regards to social media profiles.

For a more concrete example, a gay individual who grew up somewhere where being gay was punished (either codified in law or where the law turns a blind eye to the discrimination) is likely to be far more concerned about systems that can leak sexual orientation, for example an eye tracker/pupil measurer that makes an attempt to determine who a subject finds attractive or not. The average heterosexual may understand that leaking this information could be embarrassing for some, but they may not be as aware it could be life threatening.

Yes, an aware individual not of that background could develop the same concerns after thinking long enough, but they will not have the same immediate concern about any system that interrupts a person's ability to 'pass'.

[Nadya]

I'd like to take the time to thank you for answering in good faith - rather than assuming I had asked in bad faith. So, thank you.

Unfortunately I'm not able, in good faith, to take a stand for or against your argument. Consider this conceding the argument, but not being entirely convinced (allow me to explain).

Initially, I would like to reject it. Because as a libertarian-leaning trans, I fall under both examples you cited. Concern over potential abuse of PII, government overreach, and sexual identity (the concern over gender identity is similar in that regards). But I also fall under the "white, male" label.

However, I do understand the argument that a more targeted individual may be more capable of identifying potential issues. I feel this is contextual and often results in too many "maybes", "potentials", and "possibilities" to be entirely convincing.

"They maybe might have the potential to maybe see a possibility for something that might have the potential to maybe have the possibility of being abused." is not something I find convincing. Though it is technically correct and I have to concede that.

[Lawtonfogle]

The key thing is that I'm on neither side of the debate. I see merits to both sides and look for a way to work out both. Also, I like to work on arguments for any side even if I don't agree with that side (I have sometimes devil advocated for positions just because no one else would touch them).

Personally, at the current time, I see too many problems with quotas for them to be useful. Namely is the perception problem, where people (including the one hired) will think that their race/gender/etc. had more to do with them getting hired than their skill, causing all sorts of problems. At the same time, I do see merit in fighting against known biases and issues that push out minorities.

I dislike both the over PC nature that leads to Donglegate and the bro-culture that leads to common inappropriate comments and behavior.

[Nadya]

So you're essentially where I stand then. :P

I consider myself the "Milo" of transexuals and have a large disconnect with most people who consider themselves part of the "LGBT Movement". Many of which are right up there with PC culture (e.g telling me I can't use the word "tranny", even when referring to myself? Fuck off.)

While I do see the problem and in many places agree - I do not agree with the proposed methods of solving it. That especially includes "quotas" - unofficial or official. Nobody wants to be the "token black guy" (even if there are "40 token black guys") just to improve a diversity number. Which unfortunately is how many tech companies seem to be trying to resolve the "wow that company isn't diverse" criticisms being flung at them.

"If I weren't homosexual, I'd be the largest homophobe." - Milo Yiannopoulos

[incrediblebob]

Please keep in mind, Milo's writing is tongue in cheek. It's generally agreed upon that Milo's writing is parody (ref: https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=twosc... ) . He's parodying Men's rights activists. He is like the Onion but harder to distinguish.

[Nadya]

That was him during an interview, not writing. Furthermore it's important to distinguish his satire from his viewpoints.

Of course the comment is a tad tongue-in-cheek. It is speaking more that he is against much of the LGBT movement in which he should be a part of. Falling under the "G" and by not conforming to the widely held beliefs he is homophobic. I fall under the "T" but I'm disgusted with half of what the LGBT movement pushes for and have on many occasions been called a transphobe. Especially in regards to my usage of "tranny", as I stated.

A bit tongue-in-cheek myself: If I weren't a transexual I'd be one of the largest transphobes I know. Largely because I refuse to let people police my speech.