4 ms·

Social media can become mass media, and it's not up to you to decide if and when that happens. In the past, you could just vocalise your opinion, and it would

Social media can become mass media, and it's not up to you to decide if and when that happens. In the past, you could just vocalise your opinion, and it would not survive many hops in the real-world social network. So yeah, you can express your opinion, but your chance of being crucified for it has risen significantly.

problems 9y ago
If you express your opinion on a private forum instead of a public one, you're much less likely to be crucified for it. I can make nasty off-handed comments to my friends in private chat all day, with very little fear that it'll see the light. Ultimately sheer quantity of people is the bigger problem than anything else.
- alaaibrahim 9y ago
  > I can make nasty off-handed comments to my friends in private chat all day, with very little fear that it'll see the light. And then, someone decides to take a screenshot, out of context, and post it somewhere for the whole world to see.
  - problems 9y ago
    It's possible, but it's far, far less likely than a post on social media with your name tied to it - it's also completely deniable and contains only usernames.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      This crosses the Internet boundary too - see e.g. the well-known case of a guy who lost his job because someone overheard his meatspace conversation and decided to post it on-line...
root_axis 9y ago
> In the past, you could just vocalise your opinion, and it would not survive many hops in the real-world social network. In the past, "vocalizing your opinion" meant debating friends over drinks, the difference today is that every person with an opinion deliberately leverages modern technology to broadcast that opinion to as many people as possible, and the more that receive it, the better. Naturally, people who disagree will respond... the system is working as intended.
- throwanem 9y ago
  > Naturally, people who disagree will respond... the system is working as intended. Interesting elision. Will you expand upon it?
  - root_axis 9y ago
    That's free-speech. Person A freely makes a statement and anyone else can freely respond to it. That's the ideal that everyone envisions and it's also the reality on the ground.
    - mpweiher 9y ago
      Er...not really, no. Some speech is freer than others. I already posted the link earlier, but here it goes again: https://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/11/24/the-yale-problem-begins-in-high-school/ https://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/11/24/the-yale-problem-beg...
      - root_axis 9y ago
        I read the link. Please elaborate on how this demonstrates that "some speech is freer than others"?
        throwanem 9y ago
        Creating an environment in which some people are justifiably afraid to speak, for fear not of counterargument but of very substantial punishment merely for dissenting from, or even seeking more clearly to understand, the permissible range of opinion, seems like a pretty clear problem to me. No doubt some feel otherwise.
soundwave106 9y ago
Personally, I don't think tribalism / group-think, as well as public / private image spaces are very new things at all. Scandals, blacklisting, even execution for having the "wrong opinion" for the social norm of the time -- that's unfortunately pretty common throughout history. From my viewpoint, an issue with a lot of today's social media is it doesn't feel as nakedly public as it really is. Personally, I wouldn't go into a large room of often random people that you don't know well, and loudly break traditional rules of etiquette by broadcasting inflammatory viewpoints on potentially pot-stirring topics like politics, religion, etc. Likewise, I feel the same with Facebook: that is not the place to discuss these sorts of topics due to how very public Facebook is. Yet a lot of people do that on Facebook and Twitter every day.

problems 9y ago

If you express your opinion on a private forum instead of a public one, you're much less likely to be crucified for it. I can make nasty off-handed comments to my friends in private chat all day, with very little fear that it'll see the light. Ultimately sheer quantity of people is the bigger problem than anything else.

alaaibrahim 9y ago
> I can make nasty off-handed comments to my friends in private chat all day, with very little fear that it'll see the light. And then, someone decides to take a screenshot, out of context, and post it somewhere for the whole world to see.
- problems 9y ago
  It's possible, but it's far, far less likely than a post on social media with your name tied to it - it's also completely deniable and contains only usernames.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    This crosses the Internet boundary too - see e.g. the well-known case of a guy who lost his job because someone overheard his meatspace conversation and decided to post it on-line...

root_axis 9y ago

> In the past, you could just vocalise your opinion, and it would not survive many hops in the real-world social network. In the past, "vocalizing your opinion" meant debating friends over drinks, the difference today is that every person with an opinion deliberately leverages modern technology to broadcast that opinion to as many people as possible, and the more that receive it, the better. Naturally, people who disagree will respond... the system is working as intended.

throwanem 9y ago
> Naturally, people who disagree will respond... the system is working as intended. Interesting elision. Will you expand upon it?
- root_axis 9y ago
  That's free-speech. Person A freely makes a statement and anyone else can freely respond to it. That's the ideal that everyone envisions and it's also the reality on the ground.
  - mpweiher 9y ago
    Er...not really, no. Some speech is freer than others. I already posted the link earlier, but here it goes again: https://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/11/24/the-yale-problem-begins-in-high-school/ https://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/11/24/the-yale-problem-beg...
    - root_axis 9y ago
      I read the link. Please elaborate on how this demonstrates that "some speech is freer than others"?
      - throwanem 9y ago
        Creating an environment in which some people are justifiably afraid to speak, for fear not of counterargument but of very substantial punishment merely for dissenting from, or even seeking more clearly to understand, the permissible range of opinion, seems like a pretty clear problem to me. No doubt some feel otherwise.

soundwave106 9y ago

Personally, I don't think tribalism / group-think, as well as public / private image spaces are very new things at all. Scandals, blacklisting, even execution for having the "wrong opinion" for the social norm of the time -- that's unfortunately pretty common throughout history. From my viewpoint, an issue with a lot of today's social media is it doesn't feel as nakedly public as it really is. Personally, I wouldn't go into a large room of often random people that you don't know well, and loudly break traditional rules of etiquette by broadcasting inflammatory viewpoints on potentially pot-stirring topics like politics, religion, etc. Likewise, I feel the same with Facebook: that is not the place to discuss these sorts of topics due to how very public Facebook is. Yet a lot of people do that on Facebook and Twitter every day.