4 ms·

The social norm under discussion here is exactly when and to what degree those ostracism campaigns ought to be waged. If the answer is “never” we are going to

The social norm under discussion here is exactly when and to what degree those ostracism campaigns ought to be waged. If the answer is “never” we are going to see a lot of pedophilia, Nazism, and spam. If the answer is “whenever people disagree” then we are going to be a world of mutually unintelligible and isolated factions. The correct setpoint is an interesting and non-obvious question, and the limited scope of the First Amendment doesn’t answer it.

rayiner 8y ago
Yes, but that question has nothing to do with the Internet. The correct set point of that social norm is whatever it is in the rest of society, because the Internet (at least in the US) now includes almost everyone. My point is that the folks that founded the Internet, even if they believed in techno libertarian ideas like that mentioned by OP (which I’m not sure is true—the Internet was built by a bunch of defense contractors at a very mainstream company), have no say in what the Internet should be like. It belongs to my mom and my six year old as much as anyone.
- closeparen 8y ago
  The dinner table, the subway, and debate club each have distinct social norms around which opinions one may state and what sort of appeals may be used in their support. Why shouldn't internet communities have their own? SSC is basically hosting a grown-up, text based debate club. Even the version that 16-year-olds encounter will ask questions like affirmative action, immigration, abortion, church & state. Kids are required not only to listen quietly through, but to competently articulate opposing views on such topics. The social norm proposed for the internet in campaigns like this is a narrower range of acceptable opinion than in officially sanctioned activities of regional federations of public high schools. There is more going on here than "sorry, no techno-anarchist utopia for you."
- barrkel 8y ago
  It sounds like you want to have an internet universally suitable for both your mom and your child, which is ludicrous - but I'm having a hard time understanding your point if that isn't what you're saying.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    He's saying there's no attribute intrinsic to the Internet that demands sites and communities be free of social norms, and that when a community adopts broader social norms, they aren't betraying the Internet by doing so. His analysis is value-neutral. He's not saying the SSC culture war thread, in its previous state, was good or bad. He's that the Internet itself doesn't require it to be one way or the other, and on that point he's obviously right.

rayiner 8y ago

Yes, but that question has nothing to do with the Internet. The correct set point of that social norm is whatever it is in the rest of society, because the Internet (at least in the US) now includes almost everyone. My point is that the folks that founded the Internet, even if they believed in techno libertarian ideas like that mentioned by OP (which I’m not sure is true—the Internet was built by a bunch of defense contractors at a very mainstream company), have no say in what the Internet should be like. It belongs to my mom and my six year old as much as anyone.

closeparen 8y ago
The dinner table, the subway, and debate club each have distinct social norms around which opinions one may state and what sort of appeals may be used in their support. Why shouldn't internet communities have their own? SSC is basically hosting a grown-up, text based debate club. Even the version that 16-year-olds encounter will ask questions like affirmative action, immigration, abortion, church & state. Kids are required not only to listen quietly through, but to competently articulate opposing views on such topics. The social norm proposed for the internet in campaigns like this is a narrower range of acceptable opinion than in officially sanctioned activities of regional federations of public high schools. There is more going on here than "sorry, no techno-anarchist utopia for you."
barrkel 8y ago
It sounds like you want to have an internet universally suitable for both your mom and your child, which is ludicrous - but I'm having a hard time understanding your point if that isn't what you're saying.
- tptacek 8y ago
  He's saying there's no attribute intrinsic to the Internet that demands sites and communities be free of social norms, and that when a community adopts broader social norms, they aren't betraying the Internet by doing so. His analysis is value-neutral. He's not saying the SSC culture war thread, in its previous state, was good or bad. He's that the Internet itself doesn't require it to be one way or the other, and on that point he's obviously right.