17 ms·

Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

486 points by Libertatea 11y ago

lowglow 11y ago
The inquiry alone is frightening, although much less so than the implications of a surveillance state. Watching Trumbo and learning more about how the US dealt out the "Red Scare" is crushing to my soul. You want to assume people are inherently good actors, but that's not always the case.
- pmarreck 11y ago
  > You want to assume people are inherently good actors, but that's not always the case. Most people are... But reality is subjective, and the people you call "bad actors" in this case surely thought themselves "good actors." The problem happens when, in your good-actor zeal for righteousness (capturing bad-actors), you inconvenience a large number of good actors in order to more completely capture a small number of bad ones... and thus become a new bad actor. (I believe this would be called "high recall, low precision" if you know stats or have done any machine learning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_and_recall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_and_recall and the goal is to maximize both, not just one- also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F1_score https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F1_score and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthews_correlation_coefficient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthews_correlation_coefficie... ) An example of another (IMHO) "high recall, low precision" practice is AML/KYC laws, which find a very small percentage of bad actors at the cost of inconveniencing a large number of good ones (as well as missing some bad actors).
  - wlesieutre 11y ago
    For reference: AML = anti-money laundering, KYC = know your customer.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >You want to assume people are inherently good actors I wish I could assume such but having studied a bit of psychology, I have found no evidence to support such an assumption.
akerro 11y ago
Mass surveillance was created to work against minorities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/canada-environmental-activism-threat http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/canada-en... https://overland.org.au/2014/07/surveillance-of-activists-is-about-to-get-much-much-worse/ https://overland.org.au/2014/07/surveillance-of-activists-is... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/fbis-suicide-letter-dr-martin-luther-king-jr-and-dangers-unchecked-surveillance https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/fbis-suicide-letter-dr...
- USANEEDSHELP 11y ago
  Mass surveillance is meant to work against anybody and everybody
  - greydius 11y ago
    Everyone except those in power.
    - emodendroket 11y ago
      That seems a little too simplistic; the parent example of McCarthyism was used to drive people out of the government so the "power/no power" binary doesn't seem adequate.
  - jxf 11y ago
    Certainly, but the point here is that it suppresses some opinions much more effectively than others. If your opinion is already popular, you don't have to be brave: you know it's out there. If your opinion is unpopular, knowing someone's watching may silence it altogether.
  - guelo 11y ago
    That makes no sense. Why would mass surveillance be used against people that support the regime?
CapitalistCartr 11y ago
Freedom is the right to be wrong. If I am free only to agree with the popular consensus, I'm not free. If I can't have a quiet chat with friends in public making clear I'm a gay, atheist, muslim, vegan, witch, then I'm not free. If I can't have a private chat with any other member(s) of the populace, I'm not free. Someone will always think I'm living my life wrong.
- kiba 11y ago
  It's also the right to be right. The majority can be wrong in their opinion after all, like being bigots and racists. Freedom of expression shield us from the 'wrong' opinions being surpassed, in the hope that they provide corrective feedback more often than not to the population at large. At least, that's the hope. People provide racist and divisive commentary to the population at large, no matter how unjustified. No doubt it will change some people opinion. People also continue to provide anti-vaccine messages, scaring parents and causing public healthcare crisis. Paradoxically, the lack of political speech is the mark of authoritarians and tyrants in our political life.
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  > If I can't have a quiet chat with friends in public making clear I'm a gay, atheist, muslim, vegan, witch, then I'm not free. Or, for that matter, if you're a fundamentalist Christian, Trump supporter, gay marriage opponent.
pmarreck 11y ago
Sort of the inverse conclusion of "Privacy Protects Bothersome People" by Martin Fowler http://martinfowler.com/articles/bothersome-privacy.html http://martinfowler.com/articles/bothersome-privacy.html
- the_af 11y ago
  Thanks, that's a pretty insightful article. It has some good examples, for example the one about a journalist exposing corruption in high places but who has a secret (like drug abuse in the example). She could be attacked for this secret in order to discredit her exposé on a totally unrelated matter. I think everyone has secrets of some kind, but even if you are not a journalist, you want journalists like this to exist and be free to conduct their investigations. This is why the argument that "you shouldn't be afraid if you have nothing to hide" is bogus.
dkopi 11y ago
Mass surveillance is a really ineffective way to silence minority opinions. Personally I prefer down-votes from people with more karma to get the job done.
ChuckMcM 11y ago
This suggests we should implement mass surveillance of law enforcement personnel. If, as many people assert, the bad behavior of law enforcement is the actions of a minority, then mass surveillance of law enforcement should provide a chilling effect on that minority and result in fewer examples of these abuses. Somehow I don't think that argument would win the day though.
- cowardlydragon 11y ago
  The majority is not an absolute number, but more those with the majority of political power... An important distinction to understand.
  - 123jay7 11y ago
    He asked about his father, not about his "name". What kind of - where is your mother, anyway?
- joshkpeterson 11y ago
  You're literally describing body cams, which people are activists are actively working towards making ubiquitous.
  - ta_donk_gt 11y ago
    Not really, though, right? The body cams video would almost certainly be treated the same as dashcam video, would it not? Generally, dashcam video is extremely difficult to get released if it incriminates or disagrees with the reporting of the police in any way. That's not really surveillance by any meaningful definition.
    - ChuckMcM 11y ago
      That seems to be the case, for example the number of "broken microphones" in the Chicago PD[1]. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/01/29/80-percent-of-chicago-pd-dash-cam-videos-are-missing-audio-due-to-officer-error-or-intentional-destruction/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/01/29/...
cowardlydragon 11y ago
Not a lot of comments here I see...
im_down_w_otp 11y ago
Interesting. I would expect it to also foster radicalism. By creating an environment where only the most-vocal, least-risk-averse adherents to a particular way of thinking are willing to risk making their ideas known. If you make an environment where only those who are willing to face death, imprisonment, or harassment for their ideas are the ones doing the talking, then you make the only voice being heard be one of extreme conviction and cause.
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  Yep, you can see that happening right now in various tech fields. The scope of opinions that one can publicly hold without risking doxxing and mob harassment has been narrowed tremendously, with the result that while many have been bullied into resentful silence the ones still willing to talk have been thoroughly radicalized.
  - tomjen3 11y ago
    And when only the radicals talk, those who have been forced into silence (or feel they are forced into silence) ends up being radicalized too. I think a lot of Trumps support comes from that fact (along with the genuine frustrations of blue collar workers) and also because he can be counted on not to apologize.
- fucking_tragedy 11y ago
  Radicals don't gain majority support, can be demonized, scapegoated and persecuted into being impotent. It is very easy to rally people with moderate or disparate ideas together against a common enemy. See: witches, anarchists, terrorists, etc
  - bediger4000 11y ago
    You missed "communists", "homosexuals", "union agitators" and "jews".
AnkhMorporkian 11y ago
I only had time to briefly skim the study, but I don't think there was any follow-up done. Although it might immediately affect minority opinions to be reminded of that, I would be much more interested to see if the group reminded of surveillance still kept their opinions to themselves a day, a week, a month later.
justsaysmthng 11y ago
HN is the most intelligent and open minded online community of this size that I know online. I have deep respect for you guys and girls and your opinions are always enlightening and thought provoking. I really feel much smarter because I have access to all these very valid points of view that you are surfacing. But even this community suffers from this strange phenomena of "group think" which leads me to go into this spiral of silence. I often find myself self-censoring or abandoning the comment halfway, because I know it will get down voted and it's just a waste of time. And I'm not talking about trolling or being aggressive or flaming.. Some opinions are just not accepted here on HN and the comment will get down voted fast regardless of how politely or respectfully you try to put it. This is my 3rd HN account - I've abandoned the others (with lots of karma on them) specifically as a protest for (what I thought were) valid opinions being down voted and dismissed. For example, mentioning ideas that some tech might be bad or harmful - that people are addicted to devices, that tech is causing widespread pollution - and the likes - are quickly buried, even though in my view these are subjects which we must openly discuss, since they widely affect us all. Which brings me to the thought: If one of the most intelligent and open minded online communities can exhibit censorship or can determine users to self-censor, then what can be said about other communities/platforms ?
- fweespee_ch 11y ago
  > I often find myself self-censoring or abandoning the comment halfway, because I know it will get down voted and it's just a waste of time. Please don't, it is just karma. > Which brings me to the thought: If one of the most intelligent and open minded online communities can exhibit censorship or can determine users to self-censor, then what can be said about other communities/platforms ? I think its an example of a problem that is difficult to solve because you want to surface the content that makes the majority happy which becomes naturally self reinforcing. That said, I'd like to see a platform that surfaces heavily downvoted content that received some upvotes as a hybrid with purely upvoted content. [e.g. +70, -100 is a comment probably worth ranking at +35 because the downvote/upvote split is likely opinion-based rather than purely factual]
  - Grishnakh 11y ago
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Zigurd 11y ago
The surveillance state makes our system more brittle by entrenching a status quo that is creating accelerating income and wealth inequality, and destroying institutions that enable upward social and income mobility. We're headed for a rupture, and the response appears to be more armor, weapons, and security personnel.
nxzero 11y ago
Reminds me of the Hawthorne Effect: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect
cryoshon 11y ago
>“The fact that the 'nothing to hide' individuals experience a significant chilling effect speaks to how online privacy is much bigger than the mere lawfulness of one's actions. It's about a fundamental human right to have control over one's self-presentation and image, in private, and now, in search histories and metadata,” she said. Even the bootlickers censor their more controversial opinions, leading to a thought monoculture in which there is no dissent of any kind. This should be evidence that mass surveillance and any government which supports it needs to go, pronto.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
djibigwhje 11y ago
Most of these comments are unrelated to the article. HN needs some meta site for people to discuss the site itself, feeling up a discussion with a meta discussion creates mostly noise. For what's its worth, HN Moderation is complete BS, mostly made up of nepotism, sock puppets, and mod whimsy. Siliencing pretty much any opinion is against the tenets of an open, free discussion. So of course HN becomes an echo chamber.
pessimizer 11y ago
This is the proof that people who say that they have nothing to hide to defend surveillance are lying more often than not. It's basically the same as gay legislators vocally supporting anti-gay legislation.
sdnishenbe 11y ago
Post away advice is a good way to get shadow banned, or have your entire IP banned.
geographomics 11y ago
Most of the commentary here so far is really quite tangential to the actual research done. Everyone commenting on this article should make sure they've read the study first, with particular attention to the 'Limitations' section on page 11: http://m.jmq.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/02/25/1077699016630255.full.pdf?ijkey=1jxrYu4cQPtA6&keytype=ref&siteid=spjmq http://m.jmq.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/02/25/1077699016... One other feature of the study that limits its wider applicability is that it is entirely US-centric. It would be interesting to read follow-up work on samples taken from other cultures and countries.
bediger4000 11y ago
How about leaving down and up vote, but including a button for "disagree", which doesn't affect karma. I would use "disagree" instead of downvoting quite often. Leave the downvote button with its karma loss. That lets people downvote trolls/spams/irrationality, but lets the person being disagreed with that something's wrong. A "disagree" button may also help people to write a reply with the reason for disagreeing, rather than just downvoting and moving on, which in my experience happens a lot.
whybroke 11y ago
I certainly self censor and even now am posting semi anonymously obviously. But those in favor of mass surveillance could answer the study by claiming that if the surveillance is kept secret then 1. it won't stifle minority opinions and 2. it will work better By saying this they could not only answer the study's concerns but could now advocate zealously punishing whistle blowers.
known 11y ago
Will NOT work against https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominant_minority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominant_minority
jcr 11y ago
Surveillance by a nation-state is troubling problem, but surveillance by the populace is an equally troubling problem. Related reading: "The Real Reason We Need to Stop Trying to Protect Everyone's Feelings" http://thoughtcatalog.com/ryan-holiday/2015/11/the-real-reason-we-need-to-stop-trying-to-protect-everyones-feelings/ http://thoughtcatalog.com/ryan-holiday/2015/11/the-real-reas... "The Coddling of the American Mind" http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-codd... "Rage Profiteers: How Bloggers Harness Our Anger for Their Own Gain" http://observer.com/2014/10/rage-profiteers-how-blogs-harness-our-anger-for-their-own-gain/ http://observer.com/2014/10/rage-profiteers-how-blogs-harnes...
known 11y ago
Distributive justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia#Distributive_justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia#Dis...

486 points by Libertatea 11y ago

The inquiry alone is frightening, although much less so than the implications of a surveillance state. Watching Trumbo and learning more about how the US dealt out the "Red Scare" is crushing to my soul. You want to assume people are inherently good actors, but that's not always the case.

pmarreck 11y ago
> You want to assume people are inherently good actors, but that's not always the case. Most people are... But reality is subjective, and the people you call "bad actors" in this case surely thought themselves "good actors." The problem happens when, in your good-actor zeal for righteousness (capturing bad-actors), you inconvenience a large number of good actors in order to more completely capture a small number of bad ones... and thus become a new bad actor. (I believe this would be called "high recall, low precision" if you know stats or have done any machine learning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_and_recall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_and_recall and the goal is to maximize both, not just one- also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F1_score https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F1_score and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthews_correlation_coefficient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthews_correlation_coefficie... ) An example of another (IMHO) "high recall, low precision" practice is AML/KYC laws, which find a very small percentage of bad actors at the cost of inconveniencing a large number of good ones (as well as missing some bad actors).
- wlesieutre 11y ago
  For reference: AML = anti-money laundering, KYC = know your customer.
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>You want to assume people are inherently good actors I wish I could assume such but having studied a bit of psychology, I have found no evidence to support such an assumption.

akerro 11y ago

Mass surveillance was created to work against minorities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/canada-environmental-activism-threat http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/canada-en... https://overland.org.au/2014/07/surveillance-of-activists-is-about-to-get-much-much-worse/ https://overland.org.au/2014/07/surveillance-of-activists-is... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/fbis-suicide-letter-dr-martin-luther-king-jr-and-dangers-unchecked-surveillance https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/fbis-suicide-letter-dr...

USANEEDSHELP 11y ago
Mass surveillance is meant to work against anybody and everybody
- greydius 11y ago
  Everyone except those in power.
  - emodendroket 11y ago
    That seems a little too simplistic; the parent example of McCarthyism was used to drive people out of the government so the "power/no power" binary doesn't seem adequate.
- jxf 11y ago
  Certainly, but the point here is that it suppresses some opinions much more effectively than others. If your opinion is already popular, you don't have to be brave: you know it's out there. If your opinion is unpopular, knowing someone's watching may silence it altogether.
- guelo 11y ago
  That makes no sense. Why would mass surveillance be used against people that support the regime?

CapitalistCartr 11y ago

Freedom is the right to be wrong. If I am free only to agree with the popular consensus, I'm not free. If I can't have a quiet chat with friends in public making clear I'm a gay, atheist, muslim, vegan, witch, then I'm not free. If I can't have a private chat with any other member(s) of the populace, I'm not free. Someone will always think I'm living my life wrong.

kiba 11y ago
It's also the right to be right. The majority can be wrong in their opinion after all, like being bigots and racists. Freedom of expression shield us from the 'wrong' opinions being surpassed, in the hope that they provide corrective feedback more often than not to the population at large. At least, that's the hope. People provide racist and divisive commentary to the population at large, no matter how unjustified. No doubt it will change some people opinion. People also continue to provide anti-vaccine messages, scaring parents and causing public healthcare crisis. Paradoxically, the lack of political speech is the mark of authoritarians and tyrants in our political life.
13thLetter 11y ago
> If I can't have a quiet chat with friends in public making clear I'm a gay, atheist, muslim, vegan, witch, then I'm not free. Or, for that matter, if you're a fundamentalist Christian, Trump supporter, gay marriage opponent.

pmarreck 11y ago

Sort of the inverse conclusion of "Privacy Protects Bothersome People" by Martin Fowler http://martinfowler.com/articles/bothersome-privacy.html http://martinfowler.com/articles/bothersome-privacy.html

the_af 11y ago
Thanks, that's a pretty insightful article. It has some good examples, for example the one about a journalist exposing corruption in high places but who has a secret (like drug abuse in the example). She could be attacked for this secret in order to discredit her exposé on a totally unrelated matter. I think everyone has secrets of some kind, but even if you are not a journalist, you want journalists like this to exist and be free to conduct their investigations. This is why the argument that "you shouldn't be afraid if you have nothing to hide" is bogus.

dkopi 11y ago

Mass surveillance is a really ineffective way to silence minority opinions. Personally I prefer down-votes from people with more karma to get the job done.

ChuckMcM 11y ago

This suggests we should implement mass surveillance of law enforcement personnel. If, as many people assert, the bad behavior of law enforcement is the actions of a minority, then mass surveillance of law enforcement should provide a chilling effect on that minority and result in fewer examples of these abuses. Somehow I don't think that argument would win the day though.

cowardlydragon 11y ago
The majority is not an absolute number, but more those with the majority of political power... An important distinction to understand.
- 123jay7 11y ago
  He asked about his father, not about his "name". What kind of - where is your mother, anyway?
joshkpeterson 11y ago
You're literally describing body cams, which people are activists are actively working towards making ubiquitous.
- ta_donk_gt 11y ago
  Not really, though, right? The body cams video would almost certainly be treated the same as dashcam video, would it not? Generally, dashcam video is extremely difficult to get released if it incriminates or disagrees with the reporting of the police in any way. That's not really surveillance by any meaningful definition.
  - ChuckMcM 11y ago
    That seems to be the case, for example the number of "broken microphones" in the Chicago PD[1]. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/01/29/80-percent-of-chicago-pd-dash-cam-videos-are-missing-audio-due-to-officer-error-or-intentional-destruction/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/01/29/...

cowardlydragon 11y ago

Not a lot of comments here I see...

im_down_w_otp 11y ago

Interesting. I would expect it to also foster radicalism. By creating an environment where only the most-vocal, least-risk-averse adherents to a particular way of thinking are willing to risk making their ideas known. If you make an environment where only those who are willing to face death, imprisonment, or harassment for their ideas are the ones doing the talking, then you make the only voice being heard be one of extreme conviction and cause.

13thLetter 11y ago
Yep, you can see that happening right now in various tech fields. The scope of opinions that one can publicly hold without risking doxxing and mob harassment has been narrowed tremendously, with the result that while many have been bullied into resentful silence the ones still willing to talk have been thoroughly radicalized.
- tomjen3 11y ago
  And when only the radicals talk, those who have been forced into silence (or feel they are forced into silence) ends up being radicalized too. I think a lot of Trumps support comes from that fact (along with the genuine frustrations of blue collar workers) and also because he can be counted on not to apologize.
fucking_tragedy 11y ago
Radicals don't gain majority support, can be demonized, scapegoated and persecuted into being impotent. It is very easy to rally people with moderate or disparate ideas together against a common enemy. See: witches, anarchists, terrorists, etc
- bediger4000 11y ago
  You missed "communists", "homosexuals", "union agitators" and "jews".

AnkhMorporkian 11y ago

I only had time to briefly skim the study, but I don't think there was any follow-up done. Although it might immediately affect minority opinions to be reminded of that, I would be much more interested to see if the group reminded of surveillance still kept their opinions to themselves a day, a week, a month later.

justsaysmthng 11y ago

HN is the most intelligent and open minded online community of this size that I know online. I have deep respect for you guys and girls and your opinions are always enlightening and thought provoking. I really feel much smarter because I have access to all these very valid points of view that you are surfacing. But even this community suffers from this strange phenomena of "group think" which leads me to go into this spiral of silence. I often find myself self-censoring or abandoning the comment halfway, because I know it will get down voted and it's just a waste of time. And I'm not talking about trolling or being aggressive or flaming.. Some opinions are just not accepted here on HN and the comment will get down voted fast regardless of how politely or respectfully you try to put it. This is my 3rd HN account - I've abandoned the others (with lots of karma on them) specifically as a protest for (what I thought were) valid opinions being down voted and dismissed. For example, mentioning ideas that some tech might be bad or harmful - that people are addicted to devices, that tech is causing widespread pollution - and the likes - are quickly buried, even though in my view these are subjects which we must openly discuss, since they widely affect us all. Which brings me to the thought: If one of the most intelligent and open minded online communities can exhibit censorship or can determine users to self-censor, then what can be said about other communities/platforms ?

fweespee_ch 11y ago
> I often find myself self-censoring or abandoning the comment halfway, because I know it will get down voted and it's just a waste of time. Please don't, it is just karma. > Which brings me to the thought: If one of the most intelligent and open minded online communities can exhibit censorship or can determine users to self-censor, then what can be said about other communities/platforms ? I think its an example of a problem that is difficult to solve because you want to surface the content that makes the majority happy which becomes naturally self reinforcing. That said, I'd like to see a platform that surfaces heavily downvoted content that received some upvotes as a hybrid with purely upvoted content. [e.g. +70, -100 is a comment probably worth ranking at +35 because the downvote/upvote split is likely opinion-based rather than purely factual]
- Grishnakh 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

Zigurd 11y ago

The surveillance state makes our system more brittle by entrenching a status quo that is creating accelerating income and wealth inequality, and destroying institutions that enable upward social and income mobility. We're headed for a rupture, and the response appears to be more armor, weapons, and security personnel.

nxzero 11y ago

Reminds me of the Hawthorne Effect: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect

cryoshon 11y ago

>“The fact that the 'nothing to hide' individuals experience a significant chilling effect speaks to how online privacy is much bigger than the mere lawfulness of one's actions. It's about a fundamental human right to have control over one's self-presentation and image, in private, and now, in search histories and metadata,” she said. Even the bootlickers censor their more controversial opinions, leading to a thought monoculture in which there is no dissent of any kind. This should be evidence that mass surveillance and any government which supports it needs to go, pronto.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

djibigwhje 11y ago

Most of these comments are unrelated to the article. HN needs some meta site for people to discuss the site itself, feeling up a discussion with a meta discussion creates mostly noise. For what's its worth, HN Moderation is complete BS, mostly made up of nepotism, sock puppets, and mod whimsy. Siliencing pretty much any opinion is against the tenets of an open, free discussion. So of course HN becomes an echo chamber.

pessimizer 11y ago

This is the proof that people who say that they have nothing to hide to defend surveillance are lying more often than not. It's basically the same as gay legislators vocally supporting anti-gay legislation.

sdnishenbe 11y ago

Post away advice is a good way to get shadow banned, or have your entire IP banned.

geographomics 11y ago

Most of the commentary here so far is really quite tangential to the actual research done. Everyone commenting on this article should make sure they've read the study first, with particular attention to the 'Limitations' section on page 11: http://m.jmq.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/02/25/1077699016630255.full.pdf?ijkey=1jxrYu4cQPtA6&keytype=ref&siteid=spjmq http://m.jmq.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/02/25/1077699016... One other feature of the study that limits its wider applicability is that it is entirely US-centric. It would be interesting to read follow-up work on samples taken from other cultures and countries.

bediger4000 11y ago

How about leaving down and up vote, but including a button for "disagree", which doesn't affect karma. I would use "disagree" instead of downvoting quite often. Leave the downvote button with its karma loss. That lets people downvote trolls/spams/irrationality, but lets the person being disagreed with that something's wrong. A "disagree" button may also help people to write a reply with the reason for disagreeing, rather than just downvoting and moving on, which in my experience happens a lot.

whybroke 11y ago

I certainly self censor and even now am posting semi anonymously obviously. But those in favor of mass surveillance could answer the study by claiming that if the surveillance is kept secret then 1. it won't stifle minority opinions and 2. it will work better By saying this they could not only answer the study's concerns but could now advocate zealously punishing whistle blowers.

known 11y ago

Will NOT work against https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominant_minority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominant_minority

jcr 11y ago

Surveillance by a nation-state is troubling problem, but surveillance by the populace is an equally troubling problem. Related reading: "The Real Reason We Need to Stop Trying to Protect Everyone's Feelings" http://thoughtcatalog.com/ryan-holiday/2015/11/the-real-reason-we-need-to-stop-trying-to-protect-everyones-feelings/ http://thoughtcatalog.com/ryan-holiday/2015/11/the-real-reas... "The Coddling of the American Mind" http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-codd... "Rage Profiteers: How Bloggers Harness Our Anger for Their Own Gain" http://observer.com/2014/10/rage-profiteers-how-blogs-harness-our-anger-for-their-own-gain/ http://observer.com/2014/10/rage-profiteers-how-blogs-harnes...

known 11y ago

Distributive justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia#Distributive_justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia#Dis...