19 ms·

it's rather interesting how all the information technology (social media, etc...) is slowly moving our culture towards increasing self-censorship. One has to ha

• paggle 7y ago
  That’s why I mostly use pseudonymous channels these days, like this one. I treat everything I say with my real name like I’m publishing it on the front page of the New York Times and submitting three copies to the Library of Congress. Many fewer of my current associates hear any real thoughts of mine compared to 20 years ago. I used to get into all kinds of arguments like Stallman’s, on public email lists, which thankfully haven’t surfaced online (yet).
  • armitron 7y ago
    Wait until the AIs get a little better at forensics. Might not be wise to post comments you wouldn't want to come back at you at a forum that doesn't let you delete them, pseudonymous - for now - or not.
    • paggle 7y ago
      It is something I've thought more about in recent years and have pulled back on what I say even pseudonymously.
      • armitron 7y ago
        Sad to have to limit yourself in this fashion but you know it's coming.
    • GoblinSlayer 7y ago
      That would be stalking, a criminal offense. And GDPR is must have too.
      • paggle 7y ago
        In what jurisdiction is ascertaining someone’s identity from their public posts criminal stalking? Certainly not mine (California).
        • GoblinSlayer 7y ago
          Ascertaining identity is not stalking, but ascertaining identity via stalking (unrestrained targeted data collection) is stalking.
  • twoheadedboy 7y ago
    Isn't that just indicative of the sad state of things.
• kfrzcode 7y ago
  I'm hesitant to post anything, anywhere, just because I don't want to offend anyone by expressing an earnest opinion. I think the trend's moving more quickly towards self-censorship than anyone realizes. How can we even quantify that? Those who censor just disappear? What stands out for me is the obvious monoculture we're developing. I miss custom PHPBB boards for every little interest and opinion.
  • ryan_lane 7y ago
    This is like the argument from male managers who say they can't have 1-1s with their female workers. It's tired, and shows a lot about your character. When you say this, you're sending up a red flag with a flare.
    • scoobyyabbadoo 7y ago
      I just don't have 1-1s with anyone I manage. Don't want problems for having 1-1s with women, don't want discrimination accusations for having 1-1s with men. No one can accuse me of anything if everything happens in an open office with plenty of witnesses.
      • ryan_lane 7y ago
        You shouldn't be a manager.
      • CRConrad 7y ago
        How do you do performance reviews (or whatever they're called at your workplace) with those you manage, then?
        • scoobyyabbadoo 7y ago
          Good point, those are private, but I go in with the paper version of their review in that case and they sign a document at the end which states we discussed everything in the document during the meeting.
      • 7y ago
• nikdaheratik 7y ago
  I think that it has next to nothing to do with technology. MIT was still reeling from the fall out with the Media Lab and Epstein. If it wasn't for that, they might have gotten by with a simple apology, but that wouldn't be enough at this point. There is also a history of controversial stuff related to his time at the FSF which meant that probably wouldn't settle for a simple apology either (not that RMS seemed willing to give one). As organisations change over time, what they need in leadership also changes. In this case, they didn't need an ideologue with a history of generating controversy, they needed someone who can keep the ship going forward so that the projects they are overseeing don't lose enough talent that they become irrelevant.
  • raxxorrax 7y ago
    I think without heavy proponents for free software, we would be in a worse place, especially technologically. Never met a software developer that wasn't dependent on free software to learn about the fundamentals of programming and system design. Calling him an ideologue in contrast to current pioneers in the software industry is a bit much, maybe he just had some hard principles. > wouldn't settle for a simple apology To whom? To those that endorsed questionable business relations that drew attention in the first place that still are in leading positions at the MIT? > need in leadership also changes Visionaries and thought leaders can probably have a positive influence. I doubt we will get a adequate replacement. There also is no strong leader/mentor that can make you magically smart. He would need to inspire you to learn yourself which I would argue Stallman did pretty well. "Controversies" are seldom intellectually engaging and if you look at the core of his statements, the subject and reactions become quite ridiculous.
    • throwaway8941 7y ago
      >Never met a software developer that wasn't dependent on free software to learn about the fundamentals of programming and system design. You probably have been in a bubble all this time. I grew up in former Soviet Union without an internet connection with whatever software I was able to buy around the corner. It wasn't Linux and GCC, it was Windows 9x, Delphi, then MSVC, and so on. I think the first time I've used (any) FOSS application was after 4 or 5 years of using computers. I had the fundamentals more or less covered by then. This only strengthens your point though.
• Uhuhreally 7y ago
  Bollocks. Like Ricky Gervais said the other day actually you can say anything you like. People might not agree with you and that's fine.
  • mdpopescu 7y ago
    You can say anything you like in North Korea too. The government might not agree with you and that's fine.
  • Funeralopolis 7y ago
    If it was as simple as a disagreement, that would be fine. But it's not just simple disagreements anymore. It is costing people their livelihoods and futures because they're not toeing the ever shifting line.
    • journalctl 7y ago
      Indeed, it’s no longer cool to be an open white supremacist anymore. What a shame.
    • journalctl 7y ago
      Ah yes, the ever-shifting line about whether or not sex trafficking is okay.
      • diffeomorphism 7y ago
        Not what this was about.
      • Sacho 7y ago
        I think you managed to perfectly exemplify the point parent is making. Stallman never argued this, but in the frenzy of outrage his points are being misconstrued and he is villified to rationalize the punishment he has received.
        • Uhuhreally 7y ago
• snowwrestler 7y ago
  > it's rather interesting how all the information technology (social media, etc...) is slowly moving our culture towards increasing self-censorship. It's not. Take it from me, a guy who predates social media by decades. If you go back and look at what Gary Hart dropped out of the 1988 presidential race for, and compare it to what Donald Trump said on social media before, during, and after being elected President, there's just no comparison. Racial, misogynistic, derogatory, offensive sentiments you can easily find being published on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, or most other social media platforms would not have passed muster in any mass-media channel or public conversation 30 or even 20 years ago. On the positive side, social media has been a tremendous boon to marginalized communities like gay/lesbian/bisexual, transgender, heck, even furries. It has allowed like minds to find and support each other, and allowed the rest of us normies to see these communities for the constructive, positive forces so many of them are. I am convinced that social media aided in their growing public acceptance. In fact, I'd say that social media has opened up the discourse so much that even the resignation of a powerful figure over controversial remarks about pedophilia--an outcome which would have been expected and commonplace for at least the past 70 years of U.S. society--are taken as somehow problematic. In other words, things are so de-censored now that even the most anodyne and obvious objections to gross statements by powerful figures is taken as censorship. The Overton Window has moved way over to one side, but people still complain when they hit the edge of it.
  • js8 7y ago
    It's an interesting dynamic. I would agree that on the whole, you're probably correct that there is less censorship in the society. However, it seems that the political division is greater than ever. It is almost as if there are two Overton windows now, one for liberals and one for republicans (roughly). The republican one shifted to much less self-censorship, while the liberal one shifted very slightly to more self-censorship. And RMS seems to be caught in the liberal one. He has held his opinions for a long time, and nobody really cared that much. He is also not a particularly powerful figure. If anything, FSF is weaker than it has been in the 90s. That's also an interesting change in dynamics, the shifting of both windows now affects powerful and powerless alike, where in the past, it was I believe considered less decent to have "wrong opinions" if you were powerful, and the wrong opinions of the powerless were tolerated much more. (Basically, the difference between elites and proletes, and agreement who is what, is now morphing into a difference between liberals and republicans.)
• lizzard 7y ago
  "Taboos" is an oddly mild way to put this. Why shouldn't a person who approves of raping children have to pause and consider "staying quiet" one wonders.
  • mtrower 7y ago
    Please read Richard's actual words again. Read them carefully --- and read his actual words, not just someone summarizing them or stitching fragments out of context. Richard said no such thing.
    • input_sh 7y ago
      Except he did: > P]rostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia ... should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness. Here, June 28th 2003: http://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html http://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html Or do you believe someone planted it on his website and it went unnoticed for 16 years? How about this: > Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it. > Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why. Posted 3 days ago: https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September_2019_(Sex_between_an_adult_and_a_child_is_wrong) https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September... Does that confirm that he indeed said it?
      • Tharkun 7y ago
        > Does that confirm that he indeed said it? Well, no? Surely the coercion bit is the important bit? It's a bit odd that he had to "learn" that sex could bring psychological harm to children, but he's basically saying that adults should not have sex with children.
        • 7y ago
• bad_user 7y ago
  This has nothing to do with technology. If you start expressing opinions about how sex with a sex-trafficked child should be legal, won't your friends and family raise some questions about your character? Unless we're talking of morally flexible individuals. And at least parents should raise an eyebrow, since we have this natural reaction to protect our children. > information wants to be free Whomever said that was probably thinking of facts, of knowledge, s/he was probably not thinking of having opinions about pedophiles. EDIT: don't get me wrong, I think there's a time and place to argue that consensual sex with teenagers might be ok and I think people should be free to make that argument, the problem in this case is that the sex couldn't have been consensual, in which case age becomes relevant, as that teenager isn't fully developed, therefore the harm done is amplified. And also these opinions have been delivered by a very public figure, with a history of harassing women. Words matter so the lesson here is don't be a jerk, as technology won't save you from that.
  • throw_away_zyx 7y ago
    >If you start expressing opinions about how sex with a sex-trafficked child should be legal, won't your friends and family raise some questions about your character? In a civilized world you would be sued for libel for saying that. I look forward to someone making a startup doing just that.
    • tptacek 7y ago
      In a civilized world, you would be able to sue someone for libel for making a statement of opinion, in the abstract, that might somehow be applied to you? And this is your response to a thread rooted in someone concerned about the need for self-censorship?
  • 2_listerine_pls 7y ago
    You are twisting what Stallman said. -He argued that rape is no the same as having sex with a minor. He is right, that's not the definition of rape. -A minor is not necessarily a child. You can be a minor and the next day be 18 in a porno movie. -Never did Stallman said it was ok, He just raised the question whether Minsky knew She was being coerced by Epstein. Clearly not the same.
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• friendlybus 7y ago
  I agree the internet is getting locked down, it'll end up like daytime tv if we're not careful. But I'm two clicks away from access to Nazi and extremist content right now. The internet still is the wild wild west version of a library, in terms of access to content, but now there's laws and archiving of everything typed and read applied on top of that too. This Stallman case is edge-case fallout from a massive political movement. He could have probably discussed the age of consent in public pre-2013 and maybe get a few disgusted reactions but generally be fine. The political control of internet arguments is more obvious than ever, and the quest for advertising money.. but I'm fairly sure I can start and run a website/subreddit/blog for whatever niche idea and be left alone.
  • anilakar 7y ago
    > He could have probably discussed the age of consent in public pre-2013 and maybe get a few disgusted reactions but generally be fine. He did. People don't remember, but his home page used to have articles regarding age of consent, which he later took down.
    • friendlybus 7y ago
      I hope my post didn't look like a defense of stallman, because it isn't meant to be. Yeah people don't remember right? The stories about him seem troubling.
  • smsm42 7y ago
    > But I'm two clicks away from access to Nazi and extremist content right now So? Don't make these clicks and you'd never see them. > The political control of internet arguments is more obvious than ever, and the quest for advertising money Advertising money has nothing to do with it - FSF doesn't need advertising money. They're just live in deathly fear of the woke Red Guards, as many before them (e.g. Mozilla) - and that fear may be very well justified. > but I'm fairly sure I can start and run a website/subreddit/blog for whatever niche idea and be left alone. Sure you can. If you can do without: hosting, DDoS protection, DNS, advertising, search engines, social media, payment processing, etc. All those have recently been engaged in deplatforming people for political considerations. But yes, you are free to lay your own cable infrastructure, set up your own data centers, build out your own internet, and there have you own website about whatever you want, completely free.
• journalctl 7y ago
  I wouldn’t call “not actively espousing hateful or bigoted views” “self-censorship”. And if people are afraid to be hateful or creepy in public, I’d call that a win. You don’t get to proclaim the advantages of chattel slavery and be magically immune from everyone’s responses, and afterwards you can’t complain about self-censorship when you think twice about writing or saying something abhorrent.
  • ukj 7y ago
    I am afraid to be mis-interpreted as hateful or bigoted, and have to spend an inordinate amount of time/effort either choosing my words for my audience (which is really hard on the internet with such a broad audience) or correcting knee-jerk responses. The general over-reaction and constant jousting at windmills seems like a net loss to me. I am forced to exercise self-censorship.
    • tonyedgecombe 7y ago
      Most of us don't have to do that because we aren't in the public eye. The worst you will get is a couple of downvotes.
      • ukj 7y ago
        Yeah, I've been watching the vote-count on this post. It's quite... erratic to say the least. It re-bounded from the negatives. Many angry down-voters bashing that [-] button only making my point.
        • clhodapp 7y ago
          The [-] button is actually a handy thread-collapser. The downvote button is a mirror image of the upvote button and only shows if you have several hundred karma.
          • baud147258 7y ago
            500 karmas for downvoting, at least it was then that the downvote button appeared for me a few months ago.
• csb6 7y ago
  The wrong opinion? Stallman questions whether the victim, who he admits was coerced into sex, was actually sexually assaulted. This is an incredibly shameful take on the situation. If any politician or public figure said this statement in the past 70 years, they would have ended their career. There are no Internet vigilantes hunting down dissenters. There are people trying to downplay sexual assault. As the internet and as the tech community, we absolutely have the right to condemn public figures when they say stuff like this. That’s what free speech actually means. If you or I said what Stallman said, but to a coworker or to the boss, we would get fired - justifiably. This is not a new concept unique to the digital age, nor is it a concept that should be done away with. The popularity of your comment depresses me deeply.
  • gojomo 7y ago
    I didn't read RMS's "take" as in any way excusing what happened to Giuffre, but rather disputing whether it was accurate to accuse Marvin Minsky of "sexual assault", if from Minsky's perspective at the time nothing seemed wrong. (Sensationalist reporting and selective paraphrasing, like you've done here, has conflated the two issues.) Suppose there's a boxer, "Joe", and he has a scheduled fight against a named opponent. It's set in a legitimate venue, is freely advertised as if the promoters have nothing to hide, includes a normal ref & audience, and then proceeds like any other boxing match, including the traditional cordialities between opponents before and after. To "Joe", nothing's wrong. But then, years later, it's discovered that the opposing boxer was coerced into fighting, perhaps with threats of violence or blackmail. Is "Joe" now guilty of physical assault, for repeatedly punching the other boxer, even if to "Joe" at the time it seemed like a normal voluntary encounter, no seedier than any other boxing match? Maybe RMS's take was dumb. Maybe my analogy is dumb! But it's not "shameful" to try to work out the reasonable characterizations, given Minksy's possible mental state, the law, or common-sense. It might even be possible, under formal legal definitions, for Giuffre to have been "assaulted" while at the same time Minsky's actions don't rise to the level of "assault".
    • jacobush 7y ago
      RMS's take was really dumb. He may not be the right fit for the job. The example you gave with the boxer was a really good comparison, but for him to handle the topic that way is so incredibly tone-deaf and frankly, stupid.
• roguecoder 7y ago
  Ah yes, that free golden age of the Comic Code and McCarthy hearings.
• darkwater 7y ago
  I'm quite certain that in '50s USA there were almost no problem saying racist comments and jokes in front of a public audience, but decades later there were. And I guess people from those same '50s were complaining during this change period that they could not express their opinions freely.
  • steveeq1 7y ago
    You can apply the same reasoning to rappers today, yet there is no public outrage.
    • darkwater 7y ago
      I'd say that the fact that rappers using the N-word are part of the community for whom the word was created as an insult it's crucial enough, wouldn't you? Just like I can talk shit of my family but you can't.
      • steveeq1 7y ago
        Yes, but they say a lot of "bad things" and yet don't seem to be subject to the politically correct rules that the rest of us have to abide by. Hell, Jay Z said worse things than anything stallman said. Yet he was CEO of tommy boy records and there was no controversy.
• akvadrako 7y ago
  Twitter is not the real world - what goes on there only really effects what happens if you let it. If you ignore it, nothing bad happens.
• kelnos 7y ago
  > One has to have the right opinion or stay quiet. I don't really see how this is so hard. Don't treat women poorly, in person or online. Don't talk authoritatively about subjects you don't understand, especially when those subjects (like rape and human trafficking) cause people intense pain. If you really do want to act this way, then you probably should exercise some self-censorship, and rethink your views, perhaps. > ...in what we can say without facing consequences. What you say should have consequences. No one should censor you (what you say should be up to you), but you don't live in a vacuum. What you say has a real effect on others, and if that effect is bad, you should be held accountable.
  • noobermin 7y ago
    How does one learn what is wrong unless they speak out? You have to give people room to grow and forgive them when they fail.
    • Faark 7y ago
      Yes, people have to grow to not be stupid assholes. On the other side, if people think you're a stupid asshole, they should be allowed to cut off contact. Thus you probably want to avoid growing in the only global circle we have. With smaller circles, getting cut off (as always has happened) is less of big deal. In a similar vein, I'm fine with scientists exploring "IQ of the races" in their work. But going on a podcast and sharing that with a more general audience while not understanding its role in broader society while washing concerns away with "this just facts" is fine to have consequences.
      • concordDance 7y ago
        You seem to be advocating keeping the public ignorant. Presumably this only applies in cases the knowledge in question is an instance of the adage "a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing"? Do you think having norms that advocate hiding knowledge that someone could argue is dangerous from the public will do more good than harm and won't backfire in the form of public distrust of experts?
    • 7y ago
• jeegsy 7y ago
  Having the wrong opinion about certain topics is getting more expensive This is an excellent point. More and more, there is no middle ground in consequences. Nothing like a suspension? or leave of absence etc. I don't recall how things used to be but I really lament the lack of some sort of gradient scale for punishment.
  • al_form2000 7y ago
    Not only that, now we obviously have reliable sources to turn to to get the right opinion about stuff. O brave new world.
    • CathedralBorrow 7y ago
      I'm afraid I've lost the metaphor, what's the "right opinion" about pedophilia?
      • al_form2000 7y ago
        > I'm afraid I've lost the metaphor Then you should be way more careful, sir. Lost metaphors are seldom returned, in these uncivilized times.
      • concordDance 7y ago
        That "pedophilia" means the same thing as "child molestation" whih means the same thing as "child rape" which is obviously bad.
• empath75 7y ago
  You say people should be able to to say what they want on one hand but that other people should not be able to say what they want on the other hand. You’re free to say what you want and I’m free to not want to associate with your or not want to do business with you and encourage others to do the same. I don’t see how you have one without the other.
• KaiserPro 7y ago
  > Weirdly all the information technology is steering towards being more similar in our opinions and in what we can say without facing consequences. Patently that is false. Given the sheer amount of ad revenue that youtube, twitter et al get from hosting stuff that if printed or broadcast, would be liable to fines. (at least in the UK) Self censorship is what defines empathy. When your child has done something hilariously stupid and hurt themselves, you comfort them, you don't stand back and tell them how incredibly stupid they are. 99.999% of people would never Mock a grieving spouse in person, why should you be enabled to broadcast that to millions of people on the internet?
• brlewis 7y ago
  Yes, it's sad that there are 50 ways to instantly send photos to your friends, but for bringing disparate opinions together it's pretty much just https://www.kialo.com/ https://www.kialo.com/
• m-p-3 7y ago
  I feel like this censorship is mostly caused by centralization of information on closed/proprietary platforms, and the stakeholders of these platforms put it upon themselves to censor content they deem inappropriate or incompatible with their bottomline. People can say that these platforms are privately-owned and freedom of speech is only about government censorship, but where do you speak when these platform are well established and chances of dethroning them with a decentralized and open alternative are slim to none? Social media is not social, it's corporate.
• efa 7y ago
  Absolutely. In certain environments you have to even self-censor your political affiliation. https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/11/11/grubhub-ceo-trump-voters-resign/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/11/11/grubhub-ceo-trump-vot...
• elboru 7y ago
  I recently deleted all my “controversial” tweets (about 3 or 2). I just don’t share the same opinion than the majority in a couple of topics. I never got into any kind of trouble because of that, my tweets were far from inflammatory, but after reading so many stories of people losing their jobs after someone found an old tweet, I couldn’t risk it, I just can’t risk my family’s stability just for expressing an opinion.