4 ms·

Agreed, but it starts to be a public interest issue when real harm is done to people, such as getting them fired. I also think there is genuine psychological h

Agreed, but it starts to be a public interest issue when real harm is done to people, such as getting them fired. I also think there is genuine psychological harm being done by mobs online. This is not so hard to see in other contexts, where it would be called bullying or harassment. Consider the cases of high school students publicly informing on their peers and denouncing them. Unfortunately, for political reasons people are trivializing that right now and acting like it's no problem at all, just everyday communication and no one has a right to expect different. That's ironic since I assume most of these people would say that they believe in a politics of empathy. I also think that, contrary to a common objection, there is a genuine free speech issue with denying access to the social media platforms which have grown so large as to become de facto standards for public communication. It's popular right now to say "it's not a free speech issue because they're not the government". But Facebook, Twitter, etc. are the public squares of our time. Private institutions that become that large and monopolistic begin to encroach on the public sector in importance, and it's too legalistic an argument to say that doesn't count because e.g. the first amendment only applies to the government. Those are three areas that go beyond just expressing disagreement with someone, and have elements of actual harm in them. Also, all three are escalating and the logical next steps are worse.

glenda 6y ago
It truly depends on what the opinion being expressed is. I think this is where our conversation begins to fall apart because there are cases that warrant an angry mob, but usually not. Personally, I think this is a phase because people will quickly learn that they're just alienating people further. Real, open discussion promotes better understanding for everyone.
- donw 6y ago
  > I think this is where our conversation begins to fall apart because there are cases that warrant an angry mob, but usually not. There is never a case where the actions of an individual warrant an angry mob. Never. That is the test of morality. Not how well you treat your friends, but how you behave towards the most vile and despicable people in existence. Unquestionable evil. Stalin. Hitler. Mao. The worst and most horrible criminals. All of them deserve a fair trial for their crimes, and equal treatment under the law. Not because we are being "soft" on them. But because we are better than them.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    You're playing semantic games here. GP was using "angry mob" in the twitter sense. An angry twitter "mob" isn't going to murder you. That doesn't mean people never deserve to be deplatformed or fired. And those things (rightfully) don't require a trial.
    - donw 6y ago
      > An angry twitter "mob" isn't going to murder you. Sometimes they do. SWATting is a thing, and the targets of Twitter mobs are ripe targets for domestic terrorists looking to make a statement. But that's besides the point. There are many flavors of violence other than outright murder. > That doesn't mean people never deserve to be deplatformed or fired. "Deplatformed" is one of those words that Orwell wrote about in "Politics and the English Language" -- a euphemism that hides the real meaning. The word you are looking for is "silenced". Being silenced or fired is violence. You are being deprived of the human right to free speech, or of the means to feed yourself and provide for your loved ones, by an anonymous mob. The only way to avoid the cycle of escalating violence is to not get on it in the first place. Because if not, the US is on the fast track to turn into Venezuela, or Maoist China, or late-1930s Germany, and none of those is a place you want to live, even if you support the regime. I'm speaking up more about this because I'm seeing smoke, and would rather avoid a full-on fire.
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        > "Deplatformed" is one of those words that Orwell wrote about in "Politics and the English Language" -- a euphemism that hides the real meaning. Except that it's not. Someone who has been deplatformed can still say whatever they want, it's just that fewer people choose to listen to them or to help amplify them. Much as your right to move your fist ends at my face, your right to say whatever you want ends at my megaphone. I'm under no obligation to amplify your message. You are still welcome to say whatever the hell you want. I'm just not obligated to help.
        donw 6y ago
clairity 6y ago
societies and civil discussions will not adhere to some moral and orderly procession, so let's not cling to that unascribable ideal. we're also per capita way less violent and offensive toward each other than most of human history. sometimes repercussions greater than disagreement is warranted, and psychic injury to usher in real, positive change is a small price to pay, smaller than during most prior evolutions. but let's spell out clearly that the complainants are largely folks who want to assert power as privilege on minority groups and are meeting rightful resistance. it's true that sometimes the resistance goes too far, which is unfortunate, but that's a non-sequitur borne of an imbalance of perception, entitlement, and extra-sensitivity. that's the nexus of the clash, and a key part of why it just won't be civil and orderly. this is the internet era's version of a power struggle. feet are gonna get mashed and we're not gonna like it.
- neonate 6y ago
  This is a "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" argument. That is more honest than the argument I was criticizing, which pretends that significant harm isn't being done to people. You seem to be saying that they mostly deserve it, and if they don't, that's "unfortunate". Collateral damage, one might call it, in a righteous cause. I find it scary when people arrogate to themselves the right to injure others, and I doubt that it serves justice. But I appreciate the clarity.
  - clairity 6y ago
    you're welcome! you're missing some of the nuance, the asymmetry of cause and action, though. there is already historic, perpetual violence, acting to subjugate and disenfranchise, and it's quite understandable and reasonable to resist that subjugation. the resisters weren't initiating this thread of violence but rather had it thrust upon them. the initiators activate the risk of injury on the rebound, not the resisters. no initial violence, no rebound injury risk. asserting dominance is risky business, no two ways about it.
JAlexoid 6y ago
The analogy that Facebook or Twitter are public square is a stretch. You have to make a clear analogies in values and exclusivity, beyond "people are present there".

glenda 6y ago

It truly depends on what the opinion being expressed is. I think this is where our conversation begins to fall apart because there are cases that warrant an angry mob, but usually not. Personally, I think this is a phase because people will quickly learn that they're just alienating people further. Real, open discussion promotes better understanding for everyone.

donw 6y ago
> I think this is where our conversation begins to fall apart because there are cases that warrant an angry mob, but usually not. There is never a case where the actions of an individual warrant an angry mob. Never. That is the test of morality. Not how well you treat your friends, but how you behave towards the most vile and despicable people in existence. Unquestionable evil. Stalin. Hitler. Mao. The worst and most horrible criminals. All of them deserve a fair trial for their crimes, and equal treatment under the law. Not because we are being "soft" on them. But because we are better than them.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  You're playing semantic games here. GP was using "angry mob" in the twitter sense. An angry twitter "mob" isn't going to murder you. That doesn't mean people never deserve to be deplatformed or fired. And those things (rightfully) don't require a trial.
  - donw 6y ago
    > An angry twitter "mob" isn't going to murder you. Sometimes they do. SWATting is a thing, and the targets of Twitter mobs are ripe targets for domestic terrorists looking to make a statement. But that's besides the point. There are many flavors of violence other than outright murder. > That doesn't mean people never deserve to be deplatformed or fired. "Deplatformed" is one of those words that Orwell wrote about in "Politics and the English Language" -- a euphemism that hides the real meaning. The word you are looking for is "silenced". Being silenced or fired is violence. You are being deprived of the human right to free speech, or of the means to feed yourself and provide for your loved ones, by an anonymous mob. The only way to avoid the cycle of escalating violence is to not get on it in the first place. Because if not, the US is on the fast track to turn into Venezuela, or Maoist China, or late-1930s Germany, and none of those is a place you want to live, even if you support the regime. I'm speaking up more about this because I'm seeing smoke, and would rather avoid a full-on fire.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      > "Deplatformed" is one of those words that Orwell wrote about in "Politics and the English Language" -- a euphemism that hides the real meaning. Except that it's not. Someone who has been deplatformed can still say whatever they want, it's just that fewer people choose to listen to them or to help amplify them. Much as your right to move your fist ends at my face, your right to say whatever you want ends at my megaphone. I'm under no obligation to amplify your message. You are still welcome to say whatever the hell you want. I'm just not obligated to help.
      - donw 6y ago

clairity 6y ago

societies and civil discussions will not adhere to some moral and orderly procession, so let's not cling to that unascribable ideal. we're also per capita way less violent and offensive toward each other than most of human history. sometimes repercussions greater than disagreement is warranted, and psychic injury to usher in real, positive change is a small price to pay, smaller than during most prior evolutions. but let's spell out clearly that the complainants are largely folks who want to assert power as privilege on minority groups and are meeting rightful resistance. it's true that sometimes the resistance goes too far, which is unfortunate, but that's a non-sequitur borne of an imbalance of perception, entitlement, and extra-sensitivity. that's the nexus of the clash, and a key part of why it just won't be civil and orderly. this is the internet era's version of a power struggle. feet are gonna get mashed and we're not gonna like it.

neonate 6y ago
This is a "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" argument. That is more honest than the argument I was criticizing, which pretends that significant harm isn't being done to people. You seem to be saying that they mostly deserve it, and if they don't, that's "unfortunate". Collateral damage, one might call it, in a righteous cause. I find it scary when people arrogate to themselves the right to injure others, and I doubt that it serves justice. But I appreciate the clarity.
- clairity 6y ago
  you're welcome! you're missing some of the nuance, the asymmetry of cause and action, though. there is already historic, perpetual violence, acting to subjugate and disenfranchise, and it's quite understandable and reasonable to resist that subjugation. the resisters weren't initiating this thread of violence but rather had it thrust upon them. the initiators activate the risk of injury on the rebound, not the resisters. no initial violence, no rebound injury risk. asserting dominance is risky business, no two ways about it.

JAlexoid 6y ago

The analogy that Facebook or Twitter are public square is a stretch. You have to make a clear analogies in values and exclusivity, beyond "people are present there".