4 ms·

Ok, so the HN consensus is that mob justice is bad. Great, excellent affirmation of a nearly tautological statement. Mob justice can never actually be just, exc

by lukev 6y ago

Ok, so the HN consensus is that mob justice is bad. Great, excellent affirmation of a nearly tautological statement. Mob justice can never actually be just, except by accident. What's more interesting to me, and a problem more befitting the intellectual horsepower of folks here, is: what are the sociological causes of this behavior? And what realistic mechanisms or release valves could we put in place so people either didn't feel the need to do this, or when they did, the ways in which we could ensure justice apart and aside from online bandwagoning? This is a broad and complex topic. I don't claim to have any answers. But I think there are some interesting questions: 1. To what extent does this dynamic align with the political spectrum? If it doesn't align with the obvious left/right dynamic, is another way we can identify those who think it's acceptable vs. those who don't, so we can pursue appropriate policies? 2. To what extent is online outrage driven by systemic factors that prevent injustice from being addressed by other means? Arguably, the impetus behind the #metoo or #blacklivesmatter movements is the fact that the status quo systems are inherently weighted in favor of bad actors. The online bandwagon angle would likely not exist if victims felt they had any other meaningful recourse. Indeed, that's the whole point. 3. Free association is also A Thing. Shouldn't we be free to disassociate ourselves from those whose views we find distasteful, and (due to freedom of speech) encourage others to do the same? And how is this different (or the same) than an internet bandwagon? 4. Is there a difference between bandwagon driven by a (misguided or not) desire for justice, and pure spiteful trolling? Undoubtedly, both exist. But can we make a distinction without making a value judgement between various sociopolitical positions? 5. Where does online behavior "cross the line"? Is near-universal criticism and reprobation itself problematic? Or does it only become a problem when it becomes targeted harassment? Or when the harassment begins to extend from the internet to the real world (doxxing) or involve actual crimes (swatting)? What happens when a concerned entity (e.g) an employer take entirely legitimate action (firing a racist employee), but which they would not have otherwise taken? It's not enough to rail against the dynamic. We need to seriously grapple with all the individual factors that go into it. Because (hopefully) the internet and freedom of speech on the internet is here to stay. Reductive approaches only serve you to shove you into one camp or the other. How can we try and figure out how to make this very new informational landscape both sustainable and just?

mirimir 6y ago
Those are all excellent questions, and I've very tempted to discuss them. But on the other hand, I didn't get much sleep last night, and I'm tired. Also, in any case, I doubt seriously that any of that discussion will have any impact on the current situation. My solution (which I admit is easier for an old ~retired guy like me) is to avoid attracting attention in meatspace. I have no social media presence, in part to avoid attracting attention from my past activities. Hopefully most of my old associates think that I'm dead ;) And now that we're all wearing masks, being ~anonymous is much easier. I'm quite active online, however. As Mirimir and other personas. But there are absolutely no links to my meatspace persona. So anyway, regarding "freedom of speech on the internet", ~anonymity and compartmentalization are essential.
archagon 6y ago
This should be at the top of every post about “cancel culture.” It’s a complex, gradated phenomenon that sits at the intersection of a bunch of sociological, technological, and political forces, and can hardly be dismissed with a cute moniker and a tepid call to action. I'm also very interested in how design decisions for social networks lead to emergent "modes" of interaction. Such factors include: * Global by default communication * Threaded vs. linear discussion * Likes, reactions, and "boosting" (related to above) * Easily forwardable/repostable content * Anonymity and pseudo-anonymity * Always-available communication (including photo and video) * Moderation In terms of controversy, in-person interactions have a natural dampening effect: if you have (for example) some crappy opinions that aren't shared by your peer group, not only are they unlikely to escape that social circle, but the tone and content of your conversations (plus other cues such as body language) might steer you in the right direction over time. On the other end of the spectrum, "global" interactions (public, threaded, boostable, relayable) can reach all of humanity in an instant, but often at the expense of the individual. Justice may be served, but the offender is crushed in the process. (Justice, as you point out, that might have never been served otherwise, as in the case of MeToo or BLM.) Some people can't see the difference between these two modes: they post on Twitter as if they were still the first mode, only to find out that they were in the second. (That is, they were actually professing Their Ideas from a global podium.) Or maybe they want to "poke the bear" without realizing how massive that bear actually is. It obviously goes the other way, too: a "good cop" in a bad department will find their idealism ground down over time, and terrible ideas (QAnon, climate change denial) can spread like wildfire over Twitter and Facebook. I don't know if I have much of a point to make. I very much recognize how "global" mediums can be a force for positive change in the world, including "cancel culture." But I also miss my teenage years, when my friends and I would have endless discussions on a simple ProBoards instance, helping each other make sense of the world as the years went on. Part of me wants to go back to an internet built up of small communities and linear discussions, but social media is pushing in the opposite direction. Would the former result in a bunch of nasty echo chambers littering the web? Will the latter sap social interaction of all context and humanity, leaving only ideas and soap boxes vaguely tied to avatars? Why do so many of us consider Twitter and Facebook a "default" medium of social interaction when their impact can be so globally powerful?

by lukev 6y ago

mirimir 6y ago

Those are all excellent questions, and I've very tempted to discuss them. But on the other hand, I didn't get much sleep last night, and I'm tired. Also, in any case, I doubt seriously that any of that discussion will have any impact on the current situation. My solution (which I admit is easier for an old ~retired guy like me) is to avoid attracting attention in meatspace. I have no social media presence, in part to avoid attracting attention from my past activities. Hopefully most of my old associates think that I'm dead ;) And now that we're all wearing masks, being ~anonymous is much easier. I'm quite active online, however. As Mirimir and other personas. But there are absolutely no links to my meatspace persona. So anyway, regarding "freedom of speech on the internet", ~anonymity and compartmentalization are essential.

archagon 6y ago

This should be at the top of every post about “cancel culture.” It’s a complex, gradated phenomenon that sits at the intersection of a bunch of sociological, technological, and political forces, and can hardly be dismissed with a cute moniker and a tepid call to action. I'm also very interested in how design decisions for social networks lead to emergent "modes" of interaction. Such factors include: * Global by default communication * Threaded vs. linear discussion * Likes, reactions, and "boosting" (related to above) * Easily forwardable/repostable content * Anonymity and pseudo-anonymity * Always-available communication (including photo and video) * Moderation In terms of controversy, in-person interactions have a natural dampening effect: if you have (for example) some crappy opinions that aren't shared by your peer group, not only are they unlikely to escape that social circle, but the tone and content of your conversations (plus other cues such as body language) might steer you in the right direction over time. On the other end of the spectrum, "global" interactions (public, threaded, boostable, relayable) can reach all of humanity in an instant, but often at the expense of the individual. Justice may be served, but the offender is crushed in the process. (Justice, as you point out, that might have never been served otherwise, as in the case of MeToo or BLM.) Some people can't see the difference between these two modes: they post on Twitter as if they were still the first mode, only to find out that they were in the second. (That is, they were actually professing Their Ideas from a global podium.) Or maybe they want to "poke the bear" without realizing how massive that bear actually is. It obviously goes the other way, too: a "good cop" in a bad department will find their idealism ground down over time, and terrible ideas (QAnon, climate change denial) can spread like wildfire over Twitter and Facebook. I don't know if I have much of a point to make. I very much recognize how "global" mediums can be a force for positive change in the world, including "cancel culture." But I also miss my teenage years, when my friends and I would have endless discussions on a simple ProBoards instance, helping each other make sense of the world as the years went on. Part of me wants to go back to an internet built up of small communities and linear discussions, but social media is pushing in the opposite direction. Would the former result in a bunch of nasty echo chambers littering the web? Will the latter sap social interaction of all context and humanity, leaving only ideas and soap boxes vaguely tied to avatars? Why do so many of us consider Twitter and Facebook a "default" medium of social interaction when their impact can be so globally powerful?