[tptacek]

I think the author doesn't realize how gatekeepy this sentiment is; that they earned their love of "the computer", that it was formative to them, that they put all this uncomfortable effort into learning how to program, and thus (subtextually) they should have a say in how other people use "the computer".

[ryan_n]

What gate is being kept by a guy writing an article about something they are passionate about? This is such a "hackernews type comment" and it's so weird. If someone reads this article about a dude who talks about how growing up with computers formed his personality and how he was into computers before they were cool and decides "welp, guess I can't do computers now", they probably weren't going to get very far with computers regardless.

There's no gate being kept here. It's just someone talking about something they are passionate about and then expressing their opinion about current technology. They're not stopping anyone from also loving the computer. If anything, I could see someone reading this and being MORE excited to get into computing.

[overgard]

You know what? Gate keeping can be a good thing. Some gates exist for a good reason. I think "are you actually interested in doing this?" is a very reasonable gate. I'm not saying all coding needs to be a passion project, obviously, but I think it's very hard to be good at a thing if you don't care about it. Software continues to get worse and worse, and software developers know less and less about the machines they're working with, and I don't think those things are unrelated.

[calvinmorrison]

You know what's a good gate? employement. Like great comedians of old who could make actually funny jokes, lets pull up the ladder like dave chappel and cut the kids out. I want a job and i want to stay employed in IT. I don't know what's coming but the best interest for myself is to reduce the amount of technical people and increase my rarity.

[dosisking]

Old Dave Chappelle is not nearly as funny as Young Dave Chappelle, but survives because of momentum.

[kridsdale1]

Long time fans of a thing are allowed to be upset when assholes come in a drastically change it, whether it be Star Wars, your sports team, or programming.

[protocolture]

Arguably its worse. Star Wars fans can still watch the stuff they like without being weird smelly nerds on the internet about the bits they dont like.

You cant really have 90's computing again very easily. Its not as simple as putting a DVD on play. It was a zeitgeist, a vibe.

[godelski]

  > Long time fans of a thing are

the ones who created the community and drove the direction of the thing. I agree, it is only natural to be angry/confused/frustrated when there is a large and quick influx of new people who are pulling the community into many different directions at once. Especially when those new members don't have the understanding of why certain decisions were made. Especially when new members are highly confident and dismissive of old members. The people that are upset are trying to protect their community, the thing that they have grown to love. I don't think it is that anyone wants to keep new people out, but the concern is of losing the thing that they already have and love. A fast influx of new members does take that away.

I definitely think we should be welcoming to new members in any community, but I also think new members should recognize that they're coming into an established space. Not everyone is exactly equal. Not all gatekeeping is bad. Or rather, maybe it is better that we have people that help newbies get involved.

I'm not saying the protection can't get toxic. It definitely can. I was part of the Arch forums awhile ago when there was the push to kill the noob guide (I was pro-noob guide and was a frequent editor). We lost that battle, but hey, it was likely part of the reason we got a bunch more Arch forks like Endeavour and Cachy.

I always want more people to enjoy the things I love. It's great to share and life is so much better with friends. But it is also only natural to get emotional when you're losing that part of your life too. One big problem with big communities is that they become anonymous. Take HN for example. There's a handful of users I recognize, but it is for the most part effectively anonymous. And we're relatively small. The thing I miss the most is small communities, since that's where you get to know people. I think from a broader perspective we've done a great job at destroying those. There's got to be a better balance than what we have now.

[tptacek]

As long as we're clear that the sentiment here is analogous to people being protective of Star Wars, like you said, I'm good.

[overgard]

I think a better analogy should be: should you take a job writing a Star Wars movie if you're not a fan of Star Wars? (or sub in: Star Trek, or Dr. Who, or any other recent nerd property that's been kind of ruined by people who don't understand the source material screwing it up by thinking they know better than the fans). In that context at least, the proof is in the pudding: Star Wars is a mess because it's been written by people that mostly don't care about Star Wars, same with Star Trek. I think coding is kind of like that. People that don't care are going to make a mediocre-to-bad product.

[kevinmchugh]

JJ Abrams, Rian Johnson, Dave Filoni, Jon Favreau: all big Star Wars fans.

Tony Gilroy is not!

[fl4regun]

I think we do get to have a say when a large amount of the way people use computers has basically just turned into companies trying to get people addicted to their social media platforms so they can sell them ads.

[tedious-coder]

Where does the author claim that they should “have a say in how other people use the computer”?

[matheusmoreira]

Can't say I disagree with the author.

People with impure motives are running the show now, and they're the number one reason why technology sucks now. Everything is dumbed down, enshittified, growth hacked, attention grabbing, surveillance capitalism, information brokerage, advertising. It was never about the computers, it was always about money. The computers are not only unloved, they are actively being hidden from the user. The computer does not matter, only the "user experience" matters. Users are not meant to use computers anymore, they are meant to interact with the scripted flows created by corporations, and nothing more. Computers are the enemy in this world, they are too powerful, leave them unchecked and they can wipe out the business models of corporations.

I definitely think someone who genuinely loves computers should have a say in how computers are used. That's the exact sort of person I'd elect as a regulator or lawmaker. There is no substitute for giving a shit. Someone who cares about computers more than money wouldn't have let things degenerate to this point.

Even if it is gatekeeping, what does it matter? It's not a problem. Computers are world changing technology, and they don't deserve to be reduced to vehicles for corporate advertising. They could be more, and should be more. And if gatekeeping is necessary, then so be it.

[acedTrex]

Gatekeeping is good, we need more of it in the llm age lest we be overridden with slop.

[simoncion]

> I think the author [believes that] they earned their love of "the computer" ... thus (subtextually) they should have a say in how other people use "the computer".

N... no? The guy's pretty clearly anti "attention economy bullshit", anti plagiarism-machine, and of the opinion that it is a very good thing that it is easier than it was when he was young for people to learn to love 'the computer'.

From the end of the "The Smell of Ink on Cheap Paper" section:

> It would be easy to say that it’s just nostalgia that makes me lament what was lost in the transition to the Internet, and it’s not like print was spared the rot of capitalism that has made online geek spaces into ad-ridden, engagement-maximising cesspools. But I am glad that I was able to do my initial discovery in a world devoid of pop-ups, auto-playing ads, click-bait, and incessant pleas to “like and subscribe”. ...

From the final section, entitled "A Life Well Lived?":

> I can relate to what Chris Person said when he expressed his frustrations about how these slick conmen are using the technology I adore as tools for exploitation and disempowerment. The Internet, built by idealists on a foundation of openness and community, has become a mire of dark patterns and gardens with ever thicker walls, desperate to keep people within an ecosystem where their attention is the prized commodity. I’ve witnessed a nerdy space full of nerds be invaded by marketers, callous capitalists, and “brogrammers”—exaggerating the worst, most toxic, aspects of geek culture in their pursuit of money and power. I’ve poured hundreds of hours of work into open source projects only to have it all be scraped into a plagiarism machine and then aggressively sold back to me. It feels that the hope I had for the future technology could give us, the naïve and starry-eyed fantasies I fostered in my youth, has been eroded when faced with a reality where the thing I love can make a lot of money for people who don’t care for any of it.

> Then again, it’s not all bad. We’ve come a long way from the time when computers were seen as expensive and exclusive tools, and the unwelcoming domain of elitist men. Programming—with the empowerment that it brings—is more accessible than ever and there seems to be a strong cultural shift in the techie spaces away from centralised services and onto federated, self-hosted, and in many other ways more free alternatives. The Internet seems to becoming more and more locked down, but us weirdos will just stay in our weird corners and will find means to circumvent any restrictions put on us. My affection towards technology made me an ostracised outsider when I was younger, then it condescendingly made me into a “rockstar”, and now it’s looking like my peers are ushering in the end of civilised society. So I’m ready to go back into being just some strange guy with strange interests, doing silly things people don’t understand and don’t care to.

Perhaps Sir should go back and re-read the article without looking for hidden meaning?

[nosioptar]

Especially seeing how fucked the styling is on mobile. Can't read it because the text is white on white.

If someone's gonna gatekeep, their shit needs to smell like roses.