5 ms·

The infantile hyper-moralization of online discourse, on social media but also elsewhere, is starting to get really, really tiring. Is there any solution other

The infantile hyper-moralization of online discourse, on social media but also elsewhere, is starting to get really, really tiring. Is there any solution other than total anonymity, keeping one's online and IRL personae hermetically sealed off from one another? What do you all think? Is this atmosphere here to stay or do you expect the winds of culture to shift anytime soon?

Bud 6y ago
Private companies reacting to hate crimes is "infantile", now? Banning people for making credible threats of mass violence is "infantile"? No it's not. And you should retract that.
- banmyip 6y ago
  If they were credible threats you think we might have seen, oh, any "mass violence" at all. (cue "Jan 6th was mass violence)
- falcolas 6y ago
  How about we do something silly like letting the police and justice system handle things like "credible threats of mass violence" and "hate crimes", since both are fairly illegal, at least in the US.
  - Bud 6y ago
    How about we also defend the rights of people and companies to react in the way they see fit, to such actions, as well. As an aside, our police, to put it rather mildly, have historically sucked, in regard to such issues. And they suck right now, too. Badly. For hints on this, tune in to the Derek Chauvin trial, now in progress. Our "justice system" doesn't have a great record, either.
    - falcolas 6y ago
      History tells us quite clearly that extra-legal justice systems as a response to even some of the worst justice systems creates more problems, not fewer. So no we shouldn't, to use your phrasing, react as we see fit. That's how humanity has historically justified lynching.
      - Bud 6y ago
        Except this isn't a justice system, and doesn't have consequences remotely similar to a justice system. I've taken a -30 karma hit for this particular opinion already, despite very polite language. May as well go for -35.
        falcolas 6y ago
        Tell that to people who are now without jobs because of witchhunts. Jobs which are required in our society to have food on the table, a roof over your head. Some folks who have been dropped from Twitch thanks to mob justice - where there's no actual crime - can't find a job in the entertainment industry anymore. Imagine being completely blacklisted from your industry because you were reported to have made someone uncomfortable (whether it actually happened or not). Google never forgets, and people never forgive. EDIT: To me, politeness doesn't make up for encouraging vigilante justice. My state has a long history of vigilante justice, and it's not pretty.
        Bud 6y ago
        You're still misstating the issue; the "justice" in question isn't being executed by "vigilantes". It's a reaction of large institutions to someone's conduct.
        falcolas 6y ago
        That's because I see zero difference between an institution and a mob of individuals. It's still extra-legal justice handed out by people. One simply does so while also holding a business license. EDIT: To be concrete: Pinkerton's (a corporation) was just as bad as the lynch mobs.
    - kansface 6y ago
      What is the record of our corporations? When did our multinationals become paragons of moral virtue and arbiters of righteousness? Do you think companies will only do things you like with this new found power?
- voldacar 6y ago
  I don't think I will, actually. Assuming you aren't being disingenuous, by "hypermoralization" I was referring less to this specific action by Twitch and more to a general cultural phenomenon, developed over the past decade and greatly intensified since ~2015, which made Twitch's actions seem normal and possible in the first place
- dkersten 6y ago
  The problem is that the "online outrage mob" often defines "hate crime" as anything they don't like or hurts their feelings. Ie something subjective. Now, I don't know how well Twitch define what you can or can't do. I didn't read their terms, the article states: It said examples of this “severe misconduct” include terrorist activities, child sexual exploitation, violent extremism, credible threats of mass violence, carrying out or deliberately acting as an accomplice to sexual assault and threatening Twitch or its staff. Which by itself doesn't sound so bad. All of those things are definitely things I would want to disassociate my company from and are bad. But I question whether Twitch is a good judge... I certainly don't trust a corporation and its employees, many who have their own views and agendas, to give a fair "trial" and due process. There have been plenty of examples of rogue employees pushing their own agendas in companies and there's no oversight. What is the appeals process like? How thorough are their investigations (and how well will they handle the equivalent of swatting)? That's what the legal system if for, even if its not perfect either.
sergiotapia 6y ago
You have nothing to gain by using your real information online. Everything to lose. I don't consider HN a social network but more like a casual linkedin. For all other uses, anonymous. Always. Put gibberish as username and drop in false info in bio fields.
pumaontheprowl 6y ago
I don't think the general public is anywhere close to understanding the full value of being able to control discourse on large platforms like this. We will likely continue to see a trend towards tighter control of speech as political activists realize that they can have greater impact by silencing their opposition on social media than they can by protesting in their local city center.
mlindner 6y ago
> Is there any solution other than total anonymity, keeping one's online and IRL personae hermetically sealed off from one another? In my mind there really isn't. Or at least having a single platform that you are the "real you" that is completely whitewashed of anything other than harmless platitudes (see how most CEOs present themselves online for an example of this). (Oh and make it impossible to use that account from your cell phone so you're unable to use it when drunk or otherwise inebriated.) Then you can have a bunch of different accounts online that use other names.
esyir 6y ago
Political stance as protected class? Revocation of 230 under some conditions? Hell of a blunt tool, but the threat of that sort of regulation might sufficiently scare companies into providing spaces more healthy for speech.

Bud 6y ago

Private companies reacting to hate crimes is "infantile", now? Banning people for making credible threats of mass violence is "infantile"? No it's not. And you should retract that.

banmyip 6y ago
If they were credible threats you think we might have seen, oh, any "mass violence" at all. (cue "Jan 6th was mass violence)
falcolas 6y ago
How about we do something silly like letting the police and justice system handle things like "credible threats of mass violence" and "hate crimes", since both are fairly illegal, at least in the US.
- Bud 6y ago
  How about we also defend the rights of people and companies to react in the way they see fit, to such actions, as well. As an aside, our police, to put it rather mildly, have historically sucked, in regard to such issues. And they suck right now, too. Badly. For hints on this, tune in to the Derek Chauvin trial, now in progress. Our "justice system" doesn't have a great record, either.
  - falcolas 6y ago
    History tells us quite clearly that extra-legal justice systems as a response to even some of the worst justice systems creates more problems, not fewer. So no we shouldn't, to use your phrasing, react as we see fit. That's how humanity has historically justified lynching.
    - Bud 6y ago
      Except this isn't a justice system, and doesn't have consequences remotely similar to a justice system. I've taken a -30 karma hit for this particular opinion already, despite very polite language. May as well go for -35.
      - falcolas 6y ago
        Tell that to people who are now without jobs because of witchhunts. Jobs which are required in our society to have food on the table, a roof over your head. Some folks who have been dropped from Twitch thanks to mob justice - where there's no actual crime - can't find a job in the entertainment industry anymore. Imagine being completely blacklisted from your industry because you were reported to have made someone uncomfortable (whether it actually happened or not). Google never forgets, and people never forgive. EDIT: To me, politeness doesn't make up for encouraging vigilante justice. My state has a long history of vigilante justice, and it's not pretty.
        Bud 6y ago
        You're still misstating the issue; the "justice" in question isn't being executed by "vigilantes". It's a reaction of large institutions to someone's conduct.
        falcolas 6y ago
        That's because I see zero difference between an institution and a mob of individuals. It's still extra-legal justice handed out by people. One simply does so while also holding a business license. EDIT: To be concrete: Pinkerton's (a corporation) was just as bad as the lynch mobs.
  - kansface 6y ago
    What is the record of our corporations? When did our multinationals become paragons of moral virtue and arbiters of righteousness? Do you think companies will only do things you like with this new found power?
voldacar 6y ago
I don't think I will, actually. Assuming you aren't being disingenuous, by "hypermoralization" I was referring less to this specific action by Twitch and more to a general cultural phenomenon, developed over the past decade and greatly intensified since ~2015, which made Twitch's actions seem normal and possible in the first place
dkersten 6y ago
The problem is that the "online outrage mob" often defines "hate crime" as anything they don't like or hurts their feelings. Ie something subjective. Now, I don't know how well Twitch define what you can or can't do. I didn't read their terms, the article states: It said examples of this “severe misconduct” include terrorist activities, child sexual exploitation, violent extremism, credible threats of mass violence, carrying out or deliberately acting as an accomplice to sexual assault and threatening Twitch or its staff. Which by itself doesn't sound so bad. All of those things are definitely things I would want to disassociate my company from and are bad. But I question whether Twitch is a good judge... I certainly don't trust a corporation and its employees, many who have their own views and agendas, to give a fair "trial" and due process. There have been plenty of examples of rogue employees pushing their own agendas in companies and there's no oversight. What is the appeals process like? How thorough are their investigations (and how well will they handle the equivalent of swatting)? That's what the legal system if for, even if its not perfect either.

sergiotapia 6y ago

You have nothing to gain by using your real information online. Everything to lose. I don't consider HN a social network but more like a casual linkedin. For all other uses, anonymous. Always. Put gibberish as username and drop in false info in bio fields.

pumaontheprowl 6y ago

I don't think the general public is anywhere close to understanding the full value of being able to control discourse on large platforms like this. We will likely continue to see a trend towards tighter control of speech as political activists realize that they can have greater impact by silencing their opposition on social media than they can by protesting in their local city center.

mlindner 6y ago

> Is there any solution other than total anonymity, keeping one's online and IRL personae hermetically sealed off from one another? In my mind there really isn't. Or at least having a single platform that you are the "real you" that is completely whitewashed of anything other than harmless platitudes (see how most CEOs present themselves online for an example of this). (Oh and make it impossible to use that account from your cell phone so you're unable to use it when drunk or otherwise inebriated.) Then you can have a bunch of different accounts online that use other names.

esyir 6y ago

Political stance as protected class? Revocation of 230 under some conditions? Hell of a blunt tool, but the threat of that sort of regulation might sufficiently scare companies into providing spaces more healthy for speech.