3 ms·

Agreed with the article. I'm especially worried about the third vector of attack on speech that they describe: individuals censoring other individuals in the na

Agreed with the article. I'm especially worried about the third vector of attack on speech that they describe: individuals censoring other individuals in the name of "not being offended". This is a big issue, so I just wanted to share a few observations that worry me. Neither is brand new, I'm sure, however I believe they are worth talking about. One thing I noticed a few years ago is that if a person has any level of social media presence and they're either outspoken or unlucky then they risk an internet mob being turned against them. Sometimes this "only" results in harassment and death threats. Other times this has real-world consequences such as for Gregory Elliott[1]. We've had mobs attacking individuals since forever, but the internet makes it much easier and almost consequence free to dog-pile the "offending" view and shut the person down, or even hurt their livelihood. Ex: it's much easier to send a threatening DM or doxx a person than to go outside and protest. The lesson here is: either keep quiet, don't have a social media presence, or firewall your more outspoken social activity from your "real self". The other case I noticed is the radicalization of thought in the "you're either with us or against us" approach. Instead of explaining their position or answering a person's online question (even by dismissively linking them to Wiki or LMGTFY), people choose to attack them as a path of least resistance. As anecdotal evidence, I've seen people belittled and harassed on facebook, reddit and twitter for asking any of the following: * Why should we legalize Marijuana? * Why is BLM important? * Why should I care about ${cause}? Some folks try to answer and educate, but they're far in the minority from my casual observation. Overall, I'm concerned that as the amount of distractions in our lives increases our capacity for opposing views or meaningful conversations decreases because there's simply way more for us to do that is more fun or important to us. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Elliott https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Elliott : There are many more examples of this. I'll avoid posting them because nothing in life is clear cut and I want to avoid derailing my point.

harveywi 10y ago
> As anecdotal evidence, I've seen people belittled and harassed on facebook, reddit and twitter for asking any of the following: * Why should we legalize Marijuana? * Why is BLM important? * Why should I care about ${cause}? People suddenly realize that they can't explain their reasoning, they get embarrassed/frustrated, and to save face they start playing dirty. This happens with software design decisions too!
jcadam 10y ago
I certainly have begun to censor myself on social media. There's a number of topics I simply won't touch on the off-chance I trigger a livelihood-destroying internet rage mob. The conspiracy theorist in me suspects some level of govt involvement in these SJW hit squads. They have much to recommend them to a totalitarian administration trying to work around the constraints imposed by, say, a "bill of rights". You can neutralize and/or make examples of people who commit acts of wrongthink without being seen getting your hands dirty.
- harveywi 10y ago
  When I was growing up, we were told that the Internet is not a toy. You were not supposed to engage in tomfoolery, and you were not supposed to use your real name. At some point (cough Facebook, Google) that changed. Social media is not a toy. Google is not a toy. In a way we are lucky to have been spared the worst possible scenario in which these technologies and all their data on us is turned against us, but it could happen at any second. People need better education about this. This is something that everyone should learn in school.
pdkl95 10y ago
> if a person has any level of social media presence and they're either outspoken or unlucky then they risk an internet mob being turned against them. One of the most important properties of the internet is that the internet is media access. The concept of "fame" used to be something you bought into. Now, fame happens to you. You may be writing for the group of peers that you informally "hang out" with, but they can spontaneously transform into "an audience" that has (sometimes inconsistent) expectations. We're used top fame being something you can walk away from. If you bought into it, you can always go back to your "normal life". The rockstar can give up the record deals and do something else with their life. The problem with the new situation is that their "normal life" is the source of fame. To walk away from fame now requires people to walk away from their normal life. I don't know what the solution is - perhaps some new sort of 'etiquette' is needed - but a very good analysis of the problem is the video essay "This Is Phil Fish"[1]. May HN readers will recognize that name as the author of "Fez", but as the essay mentions at the beginning, "This is about everybody in the world who isn't Phil Fish". I encourage everyone to watch [1], so we at lest have a clear understanding of the problem. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmTUW-owa2w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmTUW-owa2w

harveywi 10y ago

> As anecdotal evidence, I've seen people belittled and harassed on facebook, reddit and twitter for asking any of the following: * Why should we legalize Marijuana? * Why is BLM important? * Why should I care about ${cause}? People suddenly realize that they can't explain their reasoning, they get embarrassed/frustrated, and to save face they start playing dirty. This happens with software design decisions too!

jcadam 10y ago

I certainly have begun to censor myself on social media. There's a number of topics I simply won't touch on the off-chance I trigger a livelihood-destroying internet rage mob. The conspiracy theorist in me suspects some level of govt involvement in these SJW hit squads. They have much to recommend them to a totalitarian administration trying to work around the constraints imposed by, say, a "bill of rights". You can neutralize and/or make examples of people who commit acts of wrongthink without being seen getting your hands dirty.

harveywi 10y ago
When I was growing up, we were told that the Internet is not a toy. You were not supposed to engage in tomfoolery, and you were not supposed to use your real name. At some point (cough Facebook, Google) that changed. Social media is not a toy. Google is not a toy. In a way we are lucky to have been spared the worst possible scenario in which these technologies and all their data on us is turned against us, but it could happen at any second. People need better education about this. This is something that everyone should learn in school.

pdkl95 10y ago

> if a person has any level of social media presence and they're either outspoken or unlucky then they risk an internet mob being turned against them. One of the most important properties of the internet is that the internet is media access. The concept of "fame" used to be something you bought into. Now, fame happens to you. You may be writing for the group of peers that you informally "hang out" with, but they can spontaneously transform into "an audience" that has (sometimes inconsistent) expectations. We're used top fame being something you can walk away from. If you bought into it, you can always go back to your "normal life". The rockstar can give up the record deals and do something else with their life. The problem with the new situation is that their "normal life" is the source of fame. To walk away from fame now requires people to walk away from their normal life. I don't know what the solution is - perhaps some new sort of 'etiquette' is needed - but a very good analysis of the problem is the video essay "This Is Phil Fish"[1]. May HN readers will recognize that name as the author of "Fez", but as the essay mentions at the beginning, "This is about everybody in the world who isn't Phil Fish". I encourage everyone to watch [1], so we at lest have a clear understanding of the problem. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmTUW-owa2w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmTUW-owa2w