5 ms·

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 i

by 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.
- emiliobumachar 7y ago
  Well, there's always the risk of some twitter celebrity choosing your comment to draw attention to. There's been more than a few cases of regular people losing their jobs to mobs calling their employer.
dagw 7y ago
I am forced to exercise self-censorship. I've found that a net good thing at least for myself. I used to be the dude who would blurt out whatever popped into my head and not care too much how it would be received by my audience, and sometimes even relish the fact that it was badly received. By self-censoring and thinking through what I'm about to say and thinking about my audience before I open my mouth I find not only are social interactions easier and more pleasant, but I actually get my points across more consistently and clearly. People are then also more open to listening and don't always automatically get defensive. So ironically applying self-censorship has made it easier to make the points I actually want to make.
- CRConrad 7y ago
  That, plus one can actually change one's mind on some things one has reflexively formed a badly thought-out opinion on before embarrassing oneself by blurting it out. Not only getting one's point across better, but actually getting a better point across. On the whole, definitely a net positive.
- ukj 7y ago
  Statistically and predominantly that is my experience too, but in risk management you don't count your wins - you count your losses. It's not the 99 times when your parachute opens that you stress about. It's the other 1%. (Mis)interpretation reduces to choice, as does the principle of charity. With a large enough audience fallout is a statistical certainty.
  - kelnos 7y ago
    I think at the end of the day you just have to take that risk. Or not. It's up to you. I think the majority of the time that you accidentally say something stupid or are misunderstood, it's in a fairly low-stakes situation, so a simple apology will suffice. But when you're a public figure with power over people and ideologies, you have to be a lot more careful about where you choose to engage. Arguably the (male) head of the Free Software movement has no place debating the definition of "sexual assault" or "statutory rape" in a conversation about a human trafficker and child abuser. His opinions there have zero value (not to mention that a debate over such definitions is missing the point entirely), and engaging in that conversation -- even to come to the defense of his tangentially-related dead friend -- was a very poor choice, even for someone known to be contentious and often misunderstood.
kelnos 7y ago
I agree with this, at least. It is very easy to be misunderstood in a textual medium like the internet, where people have very little (or no) context about you or how you express yourself. You call your solution self-censorship, but I just kinda think it's general common sense: why do you feel the need to broadcast your views to a large, unknown audience on controversial subjects where misunderstandings cause a lot of trouble for you? There are plenty of other real-world places to discuss things that don't carry that risk, and likely some more-private places on the internet where you can join an actual community of people who will get to know you over time and understand what you say in context. Put another way: most people wouldn't randomly walk up to a group of 10 strangers on the street and immediately bring up a controversial topic. Why do we think that's a good move on the internet? I think we're starting to see the social limits of instant around-the-world communication. It just doesn't work as well as we want it to. The internet is still ridiculously new to the world, and our understanding of its social nuances is still in its infancy.
- balaksakrionon 7y ago
  I agree our understanding of the social nuances of the internet is in infancy; though the human tendency to enact mob "justice" is relatively better understood. The internet has enabled that ugly tendency of humanity to a scary degree. Especially coupled with the strong profit motive of sites like Vice and other so called media outlets, which stand to benefit greatly from whipping up such smear campaigns.
CathedralBorrow 7y ago
What's the difference between exercising self-censorship and exercising judgment about what's appropriate to say in different situations? Because I think we all do that. Is that censorship?
- ukj 7y ago
  Has your judgment ever led you to conclude that something ought to be said and it's the appropriate thing to say, and then choosing not to say it anyway because you can't predict the response? I do that a lot. You could trivially interpret that as "exercising judgment", but it's not that. I am exercising caution and self-preservation. It's akin to the onset of apathy.
  - CathedralBorrow 7y ago
    I can definitely relate to that, and that's probably a good way to think about the difference. However, that would categorize Stallman's gaffe here as bad judgment and not self-censorship. Seeing as what he said was definitely not appropriate to say in those circumstances.

by ukj 7y ago

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.
emiliobumachar 7y ago
Well, there's always the risk of some twitter celebrity choosing your comment to draw attention to. There's been more than a few cases of regular people losing their jobs to mobs calling their employer.

dagw 7y ago

I am forced to exercise self-censorship. I've found that a net good thing at least for myself. I used to be the dude who would blurt out whatever popped into my head and not care too much how it would be received by my audience, and sometimes even relish the fact that it was badly received. By self-censoring and thinking through what I'm about to say and thinking about my audience before I open my mouth I find not only are social interactions easier and more pleasant, but I actually get my points across more consistently and clearly. People are then also more open to listening and don't always automatically get defensive. So ironically applying self-censorship has made it easier to make the points I actually want to make.

CRConrad 7y ago
That, plus one can actually change one's mind on some things one has reflexively formed a badly thought-out opinion on before embarrassing oneself by blurting it out. Not only getting one's point across better, but actually getting a better point across. On the whole, definitely a net positive.
ukj 7y ago
Statistically and predominantly that is my experience too, but in risk management you don't count your wins - you count your losses. It's not the 99 times when your parachute opens that you stress about. It's the other 1%. (Mis)interpretation reduces to choice, as does the principle of charity. With a large enough audience fallout is a statistical certainty.
- kelnos 7y ago
  I think at the end of the day you just have to take that risk. Or not. It's up to you. I think the majority of the time that you accidentally say something stupid or are misunderstood, it's in a fairly low-stakes situation, so a simple apology will suffice. But when you're a public figure with power over people and ideologies, you have to be a lot more careful about where you choose to engage. Arguably the (male) head of the Free Software movement has no place debating the definition of "sexual assault" or "statutory rape" in a conversation about a human trafficker and child abuser. His opinions there have zero value (not to mention that a debate over such definitions is missing the point entirely), and engaging in that conversation -- even to come to the defense of his tangentially-related dead friend -- was a very poor choice, even for someone known to be contentious and often misunderstood.

kelnos 7y ago

I agree with this, at least. It is very easy to be misunderstood in a textual medium like the internet, where people have very little (or no) context about you or how you express yourself. You call your solution self-censorship, but I just kinda think it's general common sense: why do you feel the need to broadcast your views to a large, unknown audience on controversial subjects where misunderstandings cause a lot of trouble for you? There are plenty of other real-world places to discuss things that don't carry that risk, and likely some more-private places on the internet where you can join an actual community of people who will get to know you over time and understand what you say in context. Put another way: most people wouldn't randomly walk up to a group of 10 strangers on the street and immediately bring up a controversial topic. Why do we think that's a good move on the internet? I think we're starting to see the social limits of instant around-the-world communication. It just doesn't work as well as we want it to. The internet is still ridiculously new to the world, and our understanding of its social nuances is still in its infancy.

balaksakrionon 7y ago
I agree our understanding of the social nuances of the internet is in infancy; though the human tendency to enact mob "justice" is relatively better understood. The internet has enabled that ugly tendency of humanity to a scary degree. Especially coupled with the strong profit motive of sites like Vice and other so called media outlets, which stand to benefit greatly from whipping up such smear campaigns.

CathedralBorrow 7y ago

What's the difference between exercising self-censorship and exercising judgment about what's appropriate to say in different situations? Because I think we all do that. Is that censorship?

ukj 7y ago
Has your judgment ever led you to conclude that something ought to be said and it's the appropriate thing to say, and then choosing not to say it anyway because you can't predict the response? I do that a lot. You could trivially interpret that as "exercising judgment", but it's not that. I am exercising caution and self-preservation. It's akin to the onset of apathy.
- CathedralBorrow 7y ago
  I can definitely relate to that, and that's probably a good way to think about the difference. However, that would categorize Stallman's gaffe here as bad judgment and not self-censorship. Seeing as what he said was definitely not appropriate to say in those circumstances.