Add option to hide total receiving from others

[juliepagano]

Is it possible to add the option to hide the total you receive from others, similar to the option for hiding what you give?

This came up with some folks I was trying to encourage to sign up for gittip today and they voiced some valid concerns around it. For some, there can can be negative consequences from having that information being so public.

It would be nice to add this option to encourage more people to feel safe using gittip. :)

The $15 bounty on this issue has been claimed at Bountysource.

[juliepagano]

Thanks for adding the additional info @whit537. Sorry for being misleading with the "on the fence comment."

I agree with the idea of limiting this to users that are actual humans (as opposed to organizations, businesses, etc.) if that's feasible.

[zwn]

You have mine :+1: too.

[bruceadams]

Thanks for the nice write up @whit537.

[anildash]

@whit537 very well stated. As you mentioned, I'm able to be very public about things like my contact information and even how much money my company has raised through crowdfunding. But that's because I do have the privilege of a great deal of stability and security already.

Even as someone with that privilege, I've seen the support of my community be used against me, both in saying I don't deserve any additional support, and in seeing bullying or harassment of those who support the work I do. Though I don't presently use Gittip, this will get increasingly common as Gittip is used for things that are less "neutral" than the typical tech focus of current Gittip projects tend to be.

Those who are saying this hasn't been seen as a major issue for current Gittip users: First, be mindful of sampling bias -- your experience may not be representative. Two, keep in mind that the people who would be vulnerable to these issues are already strongly disincented to use Gittip due to the lack of ability to hide donation totals, so of course you won't see them using the platform or mentioning their bad experiences. And finally, even those who do have examples to point out might be put off or frustrated by the vehemence of the objections here.

All of which is to say, if bringing in new kinds of users to Gittip is a goal, listening to those who have had different experiences is a great way to start.

:thumbsup:

[tshepang]

@anildash vehemence you say :)

[sigmavirus24]

Sorry I never returned to answer you @tshepang but @rummik answered your question for me. Thank you @rummik

[seanlinsley]

How could we possibly enforce the privacy differences in "we" vs "I"? All it would take is a "we" to re-identify as an "I" for them to hide their giving and receiving.

[seanlinsley]

Also, note that this warrants a UI notification telling the singular user that if they change to plural, they can no longer hide their giving and receiving. Otherwise you're bound to get confused & angry support requests.

[tshepang]

Yeah, I see doing anything different between "plurals" and "singular" as needless complication. As @seanlinsley mentions, all it will take is a switch.

[tshepang]

@whit537 are you still hoping that this feature will be seldom-used? If so, what if it will be more the norm? At that point, it will be too late to revert the change. I still feel this feature is not worth it.

[juliepagano]

If you want current examples of people looking at gittip to target women for how much they receive on the front page, look at 4chan today. Some of the women who are in the top receivers are being targeted and screenshots of their receiving amounts are being posted. It's being used as an excuse to harass them. This is probably a case where the option to be anonymous would be useful.

[duckinator]

@tshepang assuming I've not misinterpreted what you've said previously, it seems your reasons for being against this are solely related to the idea of Gittip's transparency being affected (which has been addressed multiple times, both by myself and by others). Is that the case, or is there something else to it? While I'm very strongly in favor of this feature being added, I'd also like to have any concerns related to it addressed, and you seem to be the most outspoken person who's not in favor of it.

[chadwhitacre]

I'm not sure what @juliepagano is seeing, though I've found a couple archived posts (one, two) that are probably at least similar.

I think this gets into a deep discussion on the best way to respond to 4chanish behavior. Personally, I think that responding to trolls by hiding information and "showing fear" is a terrible idea. That's what trolls feed on! Why would I give them more of what they want? I'm only perpetuating the cycle. And besides, maybe there's a grain of truth in what they're saying, and if I approach them as a human truly interested in learning from their point of view, maybe, just maybe, we can redeem an otherwise shitty situation. (One significant background experience for me here is when trolls would crash our Google Hangouts, and I would try to get them to join Gittip. One of them did! :D)

That's my point of view, and it's a big part of why Gittip is the way it is. I would love it if people didn't hide the amount they're giving. I would love it if people didn't want to hide the amount they're receiving, especially to hide from bullying and harassment, because I think that's a counterproductive strategy. I believe that the way to a society characterized by trust and love is more intentional transparency and vulnerability, not less. More human engagement, not less. Heng Sure took an 800-mile pilgrimage up the coast of California in the late 70s, pausing every third step for a full prostration. It lasted two years. He and his black-belt companion were harassed and bullied much of the way:

People threw stones, punches, insults, threats. Walking through some of the toughest parts of town, they encountered dope-pushers, alcoholics, hardened street gangs -- troublemakers at large -- aching for an excuse, any excuse to fight. Looking down the barrel of a gun and meeting it with the Four Hearts, that takes a certain sort of strength, an integrity of spirit and unwavering conviction. That is what Heng Sure and Heng Ch'au took with them. They say that is what kept them alive.

I love that. I am inspired and challenged by that. And to that extent, I agree with @tshepang that allowing giving and receiving totals to be hidden on Gittip compromises my ideals.

The question I'm personally challenged with on this thread is whether this is an acceptable compromise for me. Women are harassed more than men. I am a man. I want a world in which neither women nor men are harassed. I believe that the way we get there is by following Heng Sure's example: confident, patient, vulnerable, nonviolent action out of a strong personal center. That's my view. That's not everyone's view. Am I going to make it Gittip's view?

It seems unwise and untrue to say to those 23% that they have violated the ideals of Gittip. I haven't felt that way to date, at least.

Part of why I haven't felt that way to date is that I haven't known that the number was that high. Per https://github.com/gittip/www.gittip.com/issues/1683#issuecomment-29961128 and based on my anecdotal experience with the top givers lists and with Twitter, my assumption was that the percentage of anonymous givers was in the 2-3% range.

It seems "unwise," because deciding to reverse course (no longer allowing users to hide giving, and saying no to hiding receiving) would cause some measure of immediate disruption, and would be a check on Gittip's future growth. I'm not averse to disruption, generally speaking. On the other hand, I do want Gittip to grow really big. I want Gittip to be a top-20 tech company. I really feel like that's where we can take this, but of course I haven't done this before so I'm not confident in adjudicating the trade-offs that need to be made.

There's the advice that you can't be all things to all people, and you should "make the durian stinkier." That seems to speak to what's quirky about a product. Google's sparse homepage. Twitter's 140-character limit. On the other hand there's something about respectfully listening to the market, relentlessly refining a product until it's directly addressing a focused, deep-rooted human need. This is such a subjective art!

My decision is to stay +1 on this. To answer your question, @tshepang: even if only 2% of Gittip-at-scale is operating openly and transparently, I'm okay with that. I would rather have a Gittip with 100 million users, 2% of whom are practicing intentional openness, than a Gittip with 100,000 users with 100% openness.

In fact, I'm almost inclined to propose that the default should be to hide total amounts, because I want Gittip's open users to be open out of conviction, not, as on Facebook, out of coercion and confusion.

[chadwhitacre]

P.S. This is similar to a discussion over on #1659 about the balance between ideology and "winning."

[chadwhitacre]

See especially this comment from that thread:

I'd love to use gittip. I support what you're trying to do with the economy, and I support how open you are about business communication and finances. I want you to win. [...] The question is, am I going to be using my project's voice when I write my profile, or the voice you've chosen?

[zwn]

Personally, I think that responding to trolls by hiding information and "showing fear" is a terrible idea. That's what trolls feed on! Why would I give them more of what they want? I'm only perpetuating the cycle.

:+1: OTOH we should not force it so :+1: on this issue as well. I would consider adjusting the UI by adding some explanation to the checkboxes, clearly stating our motivations behind them, asking users why they choose to be anonymous etc. Opting out of the leaderboards #1733 could also go a long way to decrease the number of anonymousness. Not everyone wants to be in a competition about who gives or receives more money. We could add it to #1693.

[tshepang]

In response to https://github.com/gittip/www.gittip.com/issues/1683#issuecomment-30389149 (by @duckinator), why shouldn't Gittip promote transparency amongst its users as well? Without users, Gittip is nothing. Imagine a transparent Gittip, but not-transparent users. What would be the point? You are not going to redeem the economy if you do not strongly encourage your users to take part in that movement, Gittip being the tool towards that goal. Many users are not going to care about that movement (nor will they be opposed), but being forced to be transparent would be win for the movement regardless.

[duckinator]

If they never have to think about it, they won't. I'd say offering the option would probably make them think about it more. What the end result of that thinking would be is rather unpredictable, however.

[tshepang]

The popularity vs. idealism argument is a challenging one. Part of the reason is that it's not possible to predict what the future holds, and it doesn't help when we don't have data. Taking the example of this feature request, Gittip has been growing well even with this forced transparency, yet @whit537 is concerned that we might lose users. Would it really grow faster? By how much? We can't predict that. We can take a chance though, and I think if we don't have data, the ideal should be preferred. What if we'd gain, say 10% more active users (by enabling this feature), but slowing progress of a more open economy by 20%? We can only speculate here.

This reminds of the Free Software movement, where adherents would work hard to ensure their software works on closed platforms (e.g. Windows). I think a common reason is that these people feel that popularity trumps idealism, at least in the (selfish) case regarding their creations. It's an understandable thing, given that creators want their work to be experienced by as many people as possible, but it's opposed to the idea of killer (platform-specific) apps, which would encourage people to move off the closed platforms. There are pros/cons, and there is no easy way to tell which is greater than the other. It's just speculation really, even in the case of superstars like Firefox (or so I think).

[tshepang]

@whit537 if you decide to enable this feature, please keep transparency as a default option. That will help in cases where users don't care either way.

[zwn]

To see the power of defaults (most people do not care to change them) witness the post from Dan Ariely about consent with organ donations: http://danariely.com/2008/05/05/3-main-lessons-of-psychology/. Also the growth of flickr is being attributed to the default option to share all pictures (I can't find the link right now).

[chadwhitacre]

@tshepang

You are not going to redeem the economy if you do not strongly encourage your users to take part in that movement, Gittip being the tool towards that goal. Many users are not going to care about that movement (nor will they be opposed), [...]

Yes!

[...] but being forced to be transparent would be win for the movement regardless.

Well, ...

Would it really grow faster? By how much? We can't predict that. [...] There are pros/cons, and there is no easy way to tell which is greater than the other. It's just speculation really, even in the case of superstars like Firefox (or so I think).

Yes! Well said. I've decided to +1 this feature, but ultimately for me that's a decision based on speculation (or as I phrased it, "a subjective art").

[chadwhitacre]

[P]lease keep transparency as a default option. That will help in cases where users don't care either way. To see the power of defaults (most people do not care to change them) [...]

Accepted. I just want to be careful not to do what Facebook comes across as doing: using confusion regarding privacy settings as a tactic to increase sharing. Hopefully we're helped by a parallel commitment to corporate transparency.

[chadwhitacre]

What the end result of that thinking would be is rather unpredictable, however.

Yes! This is the fun part, in my view. Let's demonstrate that economic trust and openness is possible by practicing it ourselves. As @/rtomayko has said, "Lead by example as loud as possible." Let's make Gittip easy for everyone to join, and also let's make it plain what the heart of Gittip is. Not as a bait-and-switch, mind you—no coercion! Anyway, we can't coerce people to trust, we have to draw trust out of people by creating a community and a culture worth trusting.

[chadwhitacre]

Okay! Let's land #1721 and move on with life. :-)

[seanlinsley]

@whit537 how do you see the UI working, especially if plural users aren't allowed this feature? What happens when an account goes back-and-forth between singular and plural?

[chadwhitacre]

@seanlinsley Sorry, forgot to mention it: You're right, distinguishing between singular and plural users here is a bad idea. The question of transparency for larger givers/receivers is still on the table, but I don't see that we need to solve that as part of this ticket.

[jslegers]

IMO a good reason not to show how much you're earning on Gittip, is being EITHER among those who receive little to no tips or those who receive most tips.

If you're among those who receive little to no tips, many people are likely to conclude that they shouldn't tip you either... because surely others would have already beaten them to it if your efforts were worth tipping.

If you're among those who receive far more tips than most, many people are likely to concluse that that they shouldn't give you any more tips... because others need them more than you do.

The end result is that not being able to hide the amount of tips you receive is likely to have a negative impact on both extremes of the Gauss curve... with mean and median members probably benefiting most from NOT hiding their amount. Or am I missing something?

[zwn]

Deployed :dancer:

[juliepagano]

Thanks so much for implementing this! I really appreciate it. :heart:

[seanlinsley]

Why is the user description style different for those who hide both?

[timothyfcook]

Awesome! Stoked to pay out my first bounty on Bountysource.

[clone1018]

@seanlinsley https://github.com/gittip/www.gittip.com/pull/1847#discussion_r8760913