5 ms·

I couldn't care less if people say mean things about me on Twitter, and I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't lose any friends if I became the target of an online mob

by Meekro 9y ago

I couldn't care less if people say mean things about me on Twitter, and I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't lose any friends if I became the target of an online mob. My significant other certainly wouldn't think less of me. The scary bit is employment. If a bunch of Twitter users wrote me mean emails, I'd spend about a minute creating a filter to drop them all and then go back to my life. If those emails went to my employer, on the other hand, there is a very real chance that they would determine that I'm more trouble than I'm worth. This is a new and unique security hole in our social fabric, and it's one that didn't exist 20 years ago. I don't have a good solution, but this will keep getting worse until we find one.

ZenoArrow 9y ago
> "I don't have a good solution" You do. You're already using it (on HN at least). Pseudo-anonymity. The chances of someone doxxing you over a small-scale Twitter dispute is slim.
- benjamincburns 9y ago
  I don't disagree that anonymity offers protection against situations like this, but bear in mind that anonymity is very much a factor in the lack of civil discourse online. I'm not suggesting for a second that stripping anonymity is a solution to any of these problems, but personally I feel like I'm less likely to engage in the sort of behavior which might invite an angry mob while posting under my real name.
  - hueving 9y ago
    > but personally I feel like I'm less likely to engage in the sort of behavior which might invite an angry mob while posting under my real name. The problem with this is the 'sort of behavior' you are referring to is posting any statements that disagree with the worldview of the majority of the people in your circles. Without anonymity you will also lack civil discourse when all of the sane people on the minority side know not to speak up because they fear retribution. Anyone who publicly considered voting for Trump was accused of being a sexist, racist, xenophobic, Islamophobe. So instead of any sane discourse, there was just a surprise upset when Trump won because everyone was convinced the strategy of accusing all Trump supporters of 'isms' until they shut up was working.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - benjamincburns 9y ago
      FWIW, most of what you're saying here is my rationale for the first half of the sentence you quoted. Specifically, there are times when it makes sense to speak up, and being able to do so anonymously definitely quashes fear-driven self censorship. While generally I'd agree that self censorship is a bad thing, I'd also agree that an ability to control one's impulsiveness is just the opposite. Impulse control is what I was referring to above as my general reasoning for why I default to using my real identity online, not self censorship.
  - flukus 9y ago
    > I don't disagree that anonymity offers protection against situations like this, but bear in mind that anonymity is very much a factor in the lack of civil discourse online. We might lose some civility but we also gain a lot of honesty which is absent everywhere else now due to PC culture. So the question is whether we prefer sometimes uncivilized but honest discussion or a civil veneer of what people really think.
    - benjamincburns 9y ago
      To be clear I was speaking in terms of likelihood, not extremes. I personally feel I derive a benefit from identifying myself online, but YMMV. Also I really hope I didn't give the idea that I think all discourse must be kept PC, or even civil. That'd be a rather sad world to live in.
- busterarm 9y ago
  Have you been paying attention lately? Doxxing has become the weapon of first resort, by all sides.
  - ZenoArrow 9y ago
    Not really. I've had plenty of disagreements with people online, and have seen others in similar disputes, and in all those cases I've seen zero examples of someone being doxxed. Perhaps you're just thinking of a handful of high profile cases of doxxing. For the vast majority of online disputes it's a non-issue.
- stubish 9y ago
  The article mentions the fear of exposure with emails being hacked. There are plenty of cases of people being 'outed', which is the chilling factor involved here. People don't trust their tools so can't use them to express their opinions. They lose their voice and the ability to challenge conventional thinking.
busterarm 9y ago
I lost a great many friends just because I don't think it's okay to punch people. Good riddance honestly. I've always tended to travel ahead of or away from the herds, but socially it's become pretty costly in the last few years. This has been growing over a long time and is honestly pretty scary when I consider what this could turn into down the road. I'm doing my best to combat this by sticking up for what I believe in out in the open and I hope others do too.
- ycombinete 9y ago
  You didn't think it was okay to punch Richard Spencer, I assume?
  - aaron-lebo 9y ago
    You're no better than him when you engage in thuggery.
  - busterarm 9y ago
    http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/assault-and-battery-overview.html http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/assault-and-bat... I'll let you figure this one out. I don't really think it's okay to punch _anyone_. Given that Spencer's position is seriously indefensible, it's much more effective to attack his arguments directly.
  - curtisblaine 9y ago
    It wasn't. It's illegal for starters.
- adjkant 9y ago
  > I lost a great many friends just because I don't think it's okay to punch people. Good riddance honestly. I doubt you lost the friends for that. You lost friends likely because of the beliefs that you supported with this. While people can be pretty unreasonable, I would be cautious to paint them even more so. It's only going to strengthen any divide on issues that likely caused you to lose the friends. Another part is the context of the argument. I'm pretty against punching people too. I'm not going to bring up that argument for Richard Spencer because I don't think people punching actual Nazi's is a big problem compared to the many others I support. What issues you choose to be outspoken about is a statement in itself. Edit: This is all context based. See OP's thread below for specifics.
thaumasiotes 9y ago
> This is a new and unique security hole in our social fabric, and it's one that didn't exist 20 years ago. The 1935 Japanese novel Musashi, set in the seventeenth century, depicts the protagonist losing a job offer because of a one-woman public smear campaign consisting entirely of lies. This may be more of a problem now than it was then, but it's certainly not new or unique.
matt4077 9y ago
> This is a new and unique security hole in our social fabric, and it's one that didn't exist 20 years ago. McCarthy is seriously annoyed that after being vilified, he's now being forgotten :) (Note that there is a difference, because McCarthy was acting in his capacity as an elected Senator; And that it wasn't even the blacklisting of communists that people objected to, but the frequently fraudulent prosecution he initiated)

by Meekro 9y ago

ZenoArrow 9y ago

> "I don't have a good solution" You do. You're already using it (on HN at least). Pseudo-anonymity. The chances of someone doxxing you over a small-scale Twitter dispute is slim.

benjamincburns 9y ago
I don't disagree that anonymity offers protection against situations like this, but bear in mind that anonymity is very much a factor in the lack of civil discourse online. I'm not suggesting for a second that stripping anonymity is a solution to any of these problems, but personally I feel like I'm less likely to engage in the sort of behavior which might invite an angry mob while posting under my real name.
- hueving 9y ago
  > but personally I feel like I'm less likely to engage in the sort of behavior which might invite an angry mob while posting under my real name. The problem with this is the 'sort of behavior' you are referring to is posting any statements that disagree with the worldview of the majority of the people in your circles. Without anonymity you will also lack civil discourse when all of the sane people on the minority side know not to speak up because they fear retribution. Anyone who publicly considered voting for Trump was accused of being a sexist, racist, xenophobic, Islamophobe. So instead of any sane discourse, there was just a surprise upset when Trump won because everyone was convinced the strategy of accusing all Trump supporters of 'isms' until they shut up was working.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - benjamincburns 9y ago
    FWIW, most of what you're saying here is my rationale for the first half of the sentence you quoted. Specifically, there are times when it makes sense to speak up, and being able to do so anonymously definitely quashes fear-driven self censorship. While generally I'd agree that self censorship is a bad thing, I'd also agree that an ability to control one's impulsiveness is just the opposite. Impulse control is what I was referring to above as my general reasoning for why I default to using my real identity online, not self censorship.
- flukus 9y ago
  > I don't disagree that anonymity offers protection against situations like this, but bear in mind that anonymity is very much a factor in the lack of civil discourse online. We might lose some civility but we also gain a lot of honesty which is absent everywhere else now due to PC culture. So the question is whether we prefer sometimes uncivilized but honest discussion or a civil veneer of what people really think.
  - benjamincburns 9y ago
    To be clear I was speaking in terms of likelihood, not extremes. I personally feel I derive a benefit from identifying myself online, but YMMV. Also I really hope I didn't give the idea that I think all discourse must be kept PC, or even civil. That'd be a rather sad world to live in.
busterarm 9y ago
Have you been paying attention lately? Doxxing has become the weapon of first resort, by all sides.
- ZenoArrow 9y ago
  Not really. I've had plenty of disagreements with people online, and have seen others in similar disputes, and in all those cases I've seen zero examples of someone being doxxed. Perhaps you're just thinking of a handful of high profile cases of doxxing. For the vast majority of online disputes it's a non-issue.
stubish 9y ago
The article mentions the fear of exposure with emails being hacked. There are plenty of cases of people being 'outed', which is the chilling factor involved here. People don't trust their tools so can't use them to express their opinions. They lose their voice and the ability to challenge conventional thinking.

busterarm 9y ago

I lost a great many friends just because I don't think it's okay to punch people. Good riddance honestly. I've always tended to travel ahead of or away from the herds, but socially it's become pretty costly in the last few years. This has been growing over a long time and is honestly pretty scary when I consider what this could turn into down the road. I'm doing my best to combat this by sticking up for what I believe in out in the open and I hope others do too.

ycombinete 9y ago
You didn't think it was okay to punch Richard Spencer, I assume?
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  You're no better than him when you engage in thuggery.
- busterarm 9y ago
  http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/assault-and-battery-overview.html http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/assault-and-bat... I'll let you figure this one out. I don't really think it's okay to punch _anyone_. Given that Spencer's position is seriously indefensible, it's much more effective to attack his arguments directly.
- curtisblaine 9y ago
  It wasn't. It's illegal for starters.
adjkant 9y ago
> I lost a great many friends just because I don't think it's okay to punch people. Good riddance honestly. I doubt you lost the friends for that. You lost friends likely because of the beliefs that you supported with this. While people can be pretty unreasonable, I would be cautious to paint them even more so. It's only going to strengthen any divide on issues that likely caused you to lose the friends. Another part is the context of the argument. I'm pretty against punching people too. I'm not going to bring up that argument for Richard Spencer because I don't think people punching actual Nazi's is a big problem compared to the many others I support. What issues you choose to be outspoken about is a statement in itself. Edit: This is all context based. See OP's thread below for specifics.

thaumasiotes 9y ago

> This is a new and unique security hole in our social fabric, and it's one that didn't exist 20 years ago. The 1935 Japanese novel Musashi, set in the seventeenth century, depicts the protagonist losing a job offer because of a one-woman public smear campaign consisting entirely of lies. This may be more of a problem now than it was then, but it's certainly not new or unique.

matt4077 9y ago

> This is a new and unique security hole in our social fabric, and it's one that didn't exist 20 years ago. McCarthy is seriously annoyed that after being vilified, he's now being forgotten :) (Note that there is a difference, because McCarthy was acting in his capacity as an elected Senator; And that it wasn't even the blacklisting of communists that people objected to, but the frequently fraudulent prosecution he initiated)