Ending My Relationship with "Hey"

For the past four years, I have been a dedicated user of Hey, the email service developed by the industry veteran DHH. My loyalty came with a price tag of $99/year, totaling a lifetime investment of:

$\text{Cost} = 99 \times 4 = \$396$

However, I have decided to cancel my subscription. The catalyst for this decision was a piece DHH published titled Wolves, sheep, and gypsies.

The Core Conflict

In his writing, DHH posits a harsh reality regarding societal stability:

Whether it's wolves or gypsies, you can't just let the problems get out of hand. Standing idly by while your livestock is devoured by predators or your neighborhood is taken over by migrants is a pathetic abdication of any functioning society's most basic duty to its citizens.

My reaction to this isn't based on a desire to "cancel" people through public shaming or shouting matches. Instead, my perspective is shaped by how I view political disagreement.

Two Theories of Disagreement

I distinguish between two primary ways of interpreting conflict:

I subscribe to Mistake Theory. If someone is simply wrong about the facts, cutting them off is counterproductive because it removes the opportunity to help them see the truth. As Paul Graham once noted:

If a statement is false, that's the worst thing you can say about it.

While I agree that focusing on truth is the only way to fix mistakes, I believe Graham's statement is absolutely correct slightly flawed. A statement being false isn't always the "worst" thing; the real issue is the impact.

My modified thesis: $\text{Harm} = \text{Falsehood} \times \text{Belief}$

In other words, a false statement only causes damage if people actually believe it. Therefore, the remedy is to prove the statement false.

The Wolf Analogy vs. Human Reality

DHH argues that when wolves are out of control, the solution is to shoot them, because from the sheep's perspective, there are no "good wolves." He applies this logic to migration.

I find this analogy fundamentally broken. Unlike wolves, human ethnicities are not monolithic. Every group contains both benevolent and malevolent individuals.

A Better Approach: Individuated Enforcement

Instead of collective punishment, we should utilize a system that identifies and penalizes specific "bad actors."

Why this is the superior path:

• Fairness: It is unjust to punish an entire group for the crimes of a few.
• Legality: Since most of the people in question are EU citizens, mass deportation is legally nearly impossible.
• Feasibility: Enforcing existing laws against specific individuals requires no new legislation; it only requires executive will.

DHH might argue that the "will" to enforce laws is gone, but he is advocating for a massive legal shift toward mass deportation—which is far harder than simply enforcing current laws.

The Concept of "The Missing Mood"

To further analyze this, I look to Bryan Caplan's theory on The Missing Moods. Caplan suggests that we can judge a position by comparing the mood its proponents should have versus the mood they actually exhibit.

Example: The War Hawk

• The Reasonable Mood: Sorrow. A feeling of "This is a tragedy, but we have no other choice to avoid a greater evil."
• The Actual Mood: Glee or aggression. (e.g., Ted Cruz joking about whether "sand can glow in the dark").

If you are happy about a necessary evil, it suggests your reasoning may be flawed.

Applying this to DHH

A "reasonable" version of DHH's argument would sound like this: "The Roma are causing more problems than our current police force can handle. We've tried everything, and sadly, the only remaining option is to stop new migration and gradually deport those here. It is a tragedy that innocent people will be caught in the crossfire, but there is no alternative."

However, that sentiment contains a factual error: there is an alternative. That alternative is the individuated enforcement mentioned above.

Final Decision

• Evaluate DHH's statements.
• Compare against Mistake Theory.
• Analyze the "Missing Mood."
• Cancel Hey subscription.

It is possible to seek the same outcomes DHH wants while still treating individuals with dignity and acknowledging the factual alternatives to collective punishment. Because he chooses the "wolf" mentality over the "human" one, I can no longer fund his venture.