13 ms·

University of Oregon will monitor students' social media statements

104 points by rsj_hn 5y ago

jagger27 5y ago
Carleton University in Ottawa got in touch with me about comments I made on its subreddit last year. That did not sit right with me.
- elliekelly 5y ago
  Whoa. Can you elaborate? Is your reddit username identifying or had you posted any identifying information (like a photo) from your account? I guess what I’m getting at is how much legwork did they have to do to track you down?
  - jagger27 5y ago
    Same username as here. I criticized their Covid-19 response right at the beginning. I have a rather unique first name so I suppose that’s how they tracked me down.
- duxup 5y ago
  Can you elaborate without giving away too much? What did they ask about?
  - jagger27 5y ago
    It was really surreal. They called me on my personal cellphone and accused me of not giving Carleton quote "a fair shake" with my criticism. I was venting on the subreddit, like many others. The teaching staff was not prepared for a sudden shift to online learning more than half way through the term. This was in late March 2020.
    - duxup 5y ago
      That's really weird. Was this an individual or some sort of organized thing?
      - jagger27 5y ago
        I believe a file was built up on me by the “Student Conduct” department and an individual from there reached out. I agree it was extremely odd.
    - koheripbal 5y ago
      Did they threaten any consequences to you?
      - jagger27 5y ago
        No.
- ne0flex 5y ago
  I'm a Carleton grad myself. Really interested in hearing what happened, if you can disclose.
burkaman 5y ago
Is there some context missing from the article? How does the quoted policy mandate the school monitor social media? If they wanted to, couldn't they have monitored social media before this policy was added? I'm not understanding why the author thinks this monitoring is happening, and why he thinks the policy mandates it. Edit: I've read the article like 5 times now, what am I missing that everyone else here is seeing?
- 1shooner 5y ago
  >I'm not understanding why the author thinks this monitoring is happening, and why he thinks the policy mandates it. It all seems rather clickbait-y, but HN doesn't seem to mind.
- ncallaway 5y ago
  I've read both the policy and the proposed changes to the Student Conduct Code and they aren't lining up for me. I'm also left wondering what I've missed. It seems there's no language calling for active monitoring, passive monitoring or surveillance. It also seems that off-campus behaviors were previously considered to be within the scope of the Student Conduct Code and the language has been cleaned up. The new Conduct Code actually seems like it (very slightly) narrows what the University considers applicable off-campus behavior in that it introduces a new burden on the University of being able to "demonstrate a clear and distinct interest as an academic institution". I'm not really familiar with this document, so I'm hoping someone can help me understand how the proposed changes line up with the headline of the linked post
- duxup 5y ago
  "social media" For some reason that's in the title but I agree... I'm not seeing any mandate or etc.
underseacables 5y ago
I’m surprised more people are not using pseudonyms online. First rule of social media: Don’t use your real name.
- SN76477 5y ago
  When I was younger, the internet was a tool for discovery and creativity. We used creative names. Today, it is an extension of personality.
  - meowface 5y ago
    It doesn't have to be. There are plenty of (non-troll) Twitter users who use pseudonyms. That can still be an extension of personality, but I'm guessing it's less likely to be the primary focus.
- koolba 5y ago
  It's a delicate balance of not tieing inflammatory statements to your true persona, yet also profiting off of any fame that may arise from your public presence. For the vast majority of people erring on the side of anonymity is the right choice. You can only go in the other direction once.
  - Jiocus 5y ago
    Currently, the majority of people seem to vastly overestimate the prospect of fame and act accordingly.
- standardUser 5y ago
  When I'm dealing with people I actually know - which is nearly all of my social media use - I prefer to use my actual name just as I do when we interact outside of social media. Using as fake name with these people would be bizarre and confusing. Even if I were to use a pseudonym, I would not pretend it afforded me any guarantee of anonymity anyway.
- marsrover 5y ago
  Second rule of social media: never use the same pseudonym twice.
theknocker 5y ago
Everyone is figuring degrees are a scam, so the university has to find new ways to feel important.
FridayoLeary 5y ago
How many resources does the university have to do so effectively? Anyway, i am confident that their teenaged student body will prove far more savvy than any moderator. I predict circles will be run around them until they quietly retreat in defeat. That's my cynical take on this.
- snarf21 5y ago
  They won't, they will outsource to some company running "machine learning" and then students will start getting suspended for other people with the same name doing things deemed inappropriate.
- docdeek 5y ago
  My own cynical take is that this will be a lot less about trying to monitor the social media postings of students as it is a way for the university to have a way to respond when, inevitably, a student posts something that gets whipped up into a media storm. In other words, they won’t go looking for students saying the ‘wrong’ thing, they’ll wait for someone to kick up a stink and then point to the policy as their reason for excluding/suspending/punishing the student.
- HideousKojima 5y ago
  That's not cynical, that's overly hopefully to think the students will defeat this. The most likely scenario: and disciplinary decisions that arise from this will be arbitrary and capricious (like anything school administrations do, from university down to kindergarten), and won't have anything remotely resembling consistent enforcement.
- ncallaway 5y ago
  Genuine question: Where in the original policy is there any reference to active monitoring? The quoted section of the policies say that the University "may apply the Student Conduct Code" to off-campus behavior. But I don't see anything in the policy document that discusses any kind of active monitoring or active searching of social media accounts. The word "monitor", for example, doesn't appear in the linked PDF at all. It seems like they have updated their policy to clarify the language of how off-campus behavior impacts the Student Conduct Code, but I think the headline is extremely misleading, unless I've missed something from the linked policy. Can you clarify what I've missed?
ixacto 5y ago
The thought police strike again! More realistically the university is running brand protection...
- jonnycomputer 5y ago
  well most employers can fire people at will. for any cause. and do. including for your twitter posts. its been state-sanctioned capitalist thought police for a while now..
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    Students aren't employees, though. They're customers.
    - jonnycomputer 5y ago
      Students aren't customers either. If you took an apprenticeship, you wouldn't think you're a customer. If you took an internship, even if you had to pay for it, you wouldn't be a customer. Students are customers. They're students.
      - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        In what sense are they not? They're paying money to the university, in order to receive services that the university offers.
        jonnycomputer 5y ago
        In almost every sense that matters. The model that seems to underlay this idea is that in a financial transaction, one person is a customer, and other is the provider (of a service, or product, etc.). But not all financial transactions fit this mental model of what is a kind of social relationship. Suppose you go to Craigslist, and find that someone is selling their old bike. You give them a call, give them cash, and you get a bike. Were you their customer? Something doesn't fit. This is a one-off transaction, on each side. There is no "custom". But I don't want to argue the point, because there are other examples. Suppose you get the opportunity to pay for an internship at a prestigious lawfirm. You pay your $1000 bucks, and then you work for free for a few weeks. Are you their customer? Sure, there was a financial transaction, but the relationship isn't one of being a customer. Is it? Ok, suppose you are a plumber. Every few years you pay a fee to a certification board to keep your license. You also pay membership money to the Better Business Bureau. Are you customers to the certification board, or to the BBB? Doesn't seem like it to me. Students are students. That is the relationship they hold to schools. That there is also a financial transaction happening is incidental to the primary relationship. Indeed, for students who pay no money because everything is funded by grants, then the idea that students are customers breaks down further. I understand the temptation. It is a lot of money most people pay for an education. But students are not customers, and university degrees aren't products.
jmpman 5y ago
Is this why college prices are increasing faster than inflation? How many $100k+/year administrators are required to manage this project? How large of an IT organization?
JustARandomGuy 5y ago
The article mentions the Tinker case, but recently there has been another case argued with the Supreme Court: Mahanoy Area School Districts vs BL: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/justices-ponder-narrow-ruling-in-student-speech-case/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/justices-ponder-narrow-ru... This is the infamous "cheerleader" case you may have heard on the news. I'm optimistic that the Court will rule against the school district and guarantee more free speech rights for students; I think it's ridiculous how schools are increasingly intruding more and more into the lives of children.
- iammisc 5y ago
  University students are not children which means no one should be monitoring their activity without the normal legal proceedings. I'm also hopeful the supreme court makes the right call but just wanted to make sure we are not confusing uni students with minors.
  - duxup 5y ago
    >which means no one should be monitoring their activity On a public site? Like ... their friends who might monitor it?
  - jalk 5y ago
    But neither is faculty, whom they are supposedly monitoring already. - so perhaps this is just a way to to get all of the monitoring removed
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- duxup 5y ago
  That case the justices seem to be trying to figure out where the line is where a school might have legitimate concern about speech off campus, and what kind of speech is ok to take action on. It seemed to be less about monitoring in general and about where to draw the line. They did not seem interested in wholesale blocking any monitoring or requiring the school ignore public internet posts. SCOTUS seemed to be more interested where to draw the line on what actions schools could take on what types of speech, not so much about monitoring overall.
trutannus 5y ago
Universities can now penalize students for what they do in their private lives'? Well that's dystopian. Reading the article, it's pretty clear this can, and will, be used for ideological ends: "Students whose off-campus behavior has a significant adverse impact on the University community, its members, and/or the pursuit of its mission and educational objectives." They do specify that violence is one of the two reasons, however in the current ideological climate, violence has been classified in a super broad way that does not match the conventional description of violence. Some institutes have classified some speech acts as violence. Which is alarming. Also, disrupting the university's "pursuit of its mission" is a very ominous turn of phrase. It's reminiscent of the phrase "anti-revolutionary acts". Imagine being sanctioned for "acts which disrupt the mission of the institution"? Others have pointed out that I grabbed an old version of the document to quote. Fair, that said however the text when updated includes: "[that] which causes substantial disruption to the University community or any of its members" Again, disruption to members can, and has been, classified as "making feel uncomfortable". The language of this, in any revision shown, is dangerous. Someone being upset could easily argue that the "disruption" caused them harm, and prevented them from carrying out the institution's academic goals. Different wording, same impact. ' Updated from initial wording to avoid spreading mistaken information.
- ixacto 5y ago
  Well in the current ideological climate "silence is violence", as they say, damn this 1984ificaton of speech sucks. More specifically I think this is targeted at any views they don't like which really sucks. It's a public university which means you have to see even the views that you don't like.
  - tines 5y ago
    Too bad silence and violence almost rhyme, otherwise no one would have thought up this stupid phrase.
  - silicon2401 5y ago
    Exemplary modern dialogue shut-down tactic. Don't question me, don't debate me, don't ask me questions, don't think. If you don't do exactly what I say is good, you're problematic. If you're not as extreme as me, you're as bad as the enemy. Things like this have made me lose faith in modern civilization; we're watching the beginning of a catastrophic downfall.
sigzero 5y ago
Yeah, that is not going to hold up in any kind of court.
- caseysoftware 5y ago
  In the court of public opinion, there is no defense counsel.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    There are plenty, on both sides of the aisle, often being paid tens of millions of dollars a year to do so. They're often quite effective at it, too.
duxup 5y ago
Will be interesting to see the outcome. Not sure I'm a fan of active monitoring. At the same time I have little sympathy for "I made a public post on the internet under my own name for all to see, and other people saw it!" type situations.
- anticristi 5y ago
  > At the same time I have little sympathy for "I made a public post on the internet under my own name for all to see, and other people saw it!" type situations. Fully agree. At this point, it is valuable to ask yourself: Is this a public forum? If yes, would I be okay for my comment to appear on NYT's front page? If not, consider posting to a private group instead.
SilasX 5y ago
Isn't this just the other side of bowing to pressure when a student says something controversial on social media (or said it long before being admitted)? Hive mind: "What? You have a student that used the n-word on social media? Rabblerabblerabble." University: <Monitors social media> Hive mind: "Why would totalitarian oppressors do this?"
- ncallaway 5y ago
  Except...the University in this case hasn't said that they are going to actively monitor social media. As far as I can tell from the linked policy document, there's no mention of monitoring of social media anywhere in the document.
  - SilasX 5y ago
    Maybe that belongs as a top level reply rather than to one of the thirty comments addressing the ethics of doing it at all? I’m not sure the point of singling me out as someone assuming there is some potential truth and relevance to the practice.
    - ncallaway 5y ago
      Well, your response appeared to assume that the contents of the article were true and the contents of the article weren't true. In general, when I receive incorrect information and respond to it assuming its true, I appreciate when people inform me that its not true. I assume other people on HN share that desire.
      - SilasX 5y ago
        >Well, your response appeared to assume that the contents of the article were true I guess it might seem that way if you were going out of the way to read it uncharitably so you could be correct about something, I suppose. A more charitable reading would be, "monitoring social media is a natural response to the demands of the hive mind, and outrage at it would reveal a double standard." If you're "refuting" that -- if you're negating the relevance of the entire argument -- then you're effectively claiming my point will never be relevant on this topic at all: that, because this one university isn't actually doing it (probably because their trial balloon went badly), then no one will ever do it, and we never have to deal with the implications of universities (or large orgs) monitoring social media, or think about the pressure they're put under when they're associated with someone who said something bad on social media. That would be the wrong lesson to take. >In general, when I receive incorrect information and respond to it assuming its true, I appreciate when people inform me that its not true. I assume other people on HN share that desire. I absolutely do! That's why I insist that you do post it, in the place where it's the most relevant, with the appropriate caveats: "Hey, even though this might be an issue some day, it looks like this specific university isn't doing it." -- as a top level comment, directly on the story. Were you planning to respond to everyone who discussed the merit of "universities monitoring social media" by saying "well akshually this whole issue is irrelevant because this one university halted its plan to do it and insists there never was one"? Then what do you think you were accomplishing by raising the point one time (well, two times it looks like) in a subthread about an orthogonal issue? It's great if you want to take the tack of "hey, I'm just trying to be super-rigorous and care about the Truth, man". But the other side of that is making an effort to post it where the opposite claim is actually asserted, not as "late hit" in a subthread where it isn't relevant. And not in a way that implies no one should care about the general issue.
egberts1 5y ago
Say nothing bad of UO and you’re good. /sarcasm
helen___keller 5y ago
While I'm not a fan of the idea, I suppose this is a predictable outcome in a world of social media shitstorms. Post anonymously or be prepared to have any statement you have ever written on the internet be interpreted in the least generous way possible as a weapon against you by an irrational mob. That's how the internet works in the 21st century.
1shooner 5y ago
There is no mention of monitoring social media statements anywhere beyond this headline.
- elliekelly 5y ago
  This entire blog is just outrage fodder. They take a shred of truth from a news story, warp it beyond all recognition, add a headline about “cancelled” or “silence” or “triggered”, and then watch the angry people stir to action for their cause. This blog post is not interesting because it’s composed almost entirely of misinformation and false insinuation.
peanut_worm 5y ago
Young people don’t use Facebook and every other social media platform does not require your real name. If you post something stupid under your real name then you have no one to blame but yourself.
pmlnr 5y ago
"social media" - do they include the fediverse? retroshare? secure scuttlebutt? Otherwise it's "we'll monitor you on fb & co and twitter", because even reddit allows pseudonyms. So it boils down to this: stop using facebook, instagram, and twitter, and find a nerd friend to run a mastodon/pixelfed/etc circle for you & your circles.
- duxup 5y ago
  >"social media" As far as I can tell those words only appear in the title of the article so I'm not entirely sure if that's the case.
  - ed25519FUUU 5y ago
    What else can they monitor? Local newspaper op-eds?
    - duxup 5y ago
      If it's public, you can, I can, anyone can read the newspaper.
- burkaman 5y ago
  The code doesn't mention social media or monitoring at all, so it's up to your imagination. If you think they're monitoring the fediverse, why not, I guess they could be. It is publicly accessible.
  - pmlnr 5y ago
    > It is publicly accessible That depends on the instance.
DaniloDias 5y ago
I’ve started shopping explicitly for conservative colleges for my kids. I don’t understand why anyone would go into debt for institutions that want to crucify youthful stupidity. Oregon in particular seems to struggle with this topic.
- anticristi 5y ago
  I didn't go as far, but the conservative-liberal false dichotomy made me increasing watch conservative YouTubers, so that my brain experiences a more moderate world view. I'm totally not conservative, but I also feel alienated by some liberal ideas. Would be great to hear a healthier mixture someday.
belly_joe 5y ago
This seems like it's merely codifying a practice that already existed de facto. I doubt Harvard had a specific social media monitoring policy in place when it rescinded admissions from the admits posting offensive memes, but that didn't really mean anything to the kids who got un-admitted.(1) Not sure what to think of how big a step this is. [1] (https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/6/5/2021-offers-rescinded-memes/ https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/6/5/2021-offers-resc...)
NikolaeVarius 5y ago
Well this is what we all wanted right?
gallerdude 5y ago
I don't even see how this could scale to a whole University's worth of students. The current population of U of Oregon is 23,600. If you have say, 10 administrators dedicated to monitoring social media, that means each have to sift through ~2000 students posts each and every day. Yes, some students don't have any social media, but a lot of them are on multiple social networks.
- lelanthran 5y ago
  > I don't even see how this could scale to a whole > University's worth of students. That's not the point. > The current population of U of Oregon is 23,600. If you > have say, 10 administrators dedicated to monitoring social > media, that means each have to sift through ~2000 students > posts each and every day. Yes, some students don't have any > social media, but a lot of them are on multiple social > networks. They aren't going to do fair enforcement - like all code of conducts, they are only going to mine your accounts for ammunition if you show up on their radar. It's for selective enforcement. If you don't sign their petition/join their party/support their protests, then they will look at your social media posts. This is why CoC are written; I've yet to find an example of an in-group person being subjected to the code of CoC. The targets are always people with different politics.
- koheripbal 5y ago
  It doesn't need to scale. Surveillance methods have a habit of only being exercised on people the controlling party deems "undesirable" or "disruptive". Selective prosecution is a hallmark of oppression.
jimbob45 5y ago
Maybe Harvard could get away with this but the fact remains that there is no Oregon university, let alone UO, requiring more than a 3.25 GPA to get in and that’s already being extremely generous. UO simply isn’t prestigious enough to pull this kind of stunt.
variant 5y ago
We're taking this stuff too far. Vote differently or it will continue.
backtoyoujim 5y ago
Seems that the first seven paragraphs were ideologically fodder for the last three paragraphs.
MattGaiser 5y ago
Where in the policy mandate anything to do with monitoring social media? I get how it could be twisted into that by the university if they wished, but that is unproven.
- grayhatter 5y ago
  That's the issue though. Opportunity for abuse exists within ambiguity. Both the chilling effect this will have on other speech. And the risk that administrators Will apply this policy exclusively to speech they find distasteful especially in a biased manner.
Spivak 5y ago
Look, actively monitoring social media is weird but the general policy that what you say outside of work or school can affect you in work or school is a good thing. This kind of policy is necessary any time people don't have a choice of who they interact with. The example from my lived experience is bullying at school. I mean it was literally assault but since we were kids it's considered less of a problem for some reason. But my bullies weren't stupid, they would never do it in view of a teacher or they would just wait just outside of school grounds. So despite the fact that I lived less than a mile from my home I had wait three hours every day at the office for my parents to get off work and pick me up. The school had zero power to punish them for anything they did off school grounds while every. single. day. I had to be in class with them. Does that sound like a healthy environment for learning? Alright, so assuming that you believe that words can be just as harmful and create just as much a toxic environment surely the same policy should apply. It's not about workplaces or schools supplanting the police (not that they would care or do anything anyway) but that creating a healthy environment in a school and workplace means being aware of what happens outside of them. Pretending that I could be comfortable being in school with my bullies because "technically they couldn't hurt me here" misses the point entirely that I still lived in fear.
- ncallaway 5y ago
  > Look, actively monitoring social media is weird but the general policy that what you say outside of work or school can affect you in work or school is a good thing. This kind of policy is necessary any time people don't have a choice of who they interact with. As far as I can tell, there's no active monitoring of social media mentioned anywhere in the linked document that is used as a source.
  - anticristi 5y ago
    I think the point is not monitoring social media. Rather the university want to hold you accountable for public statements, where social media without using an anonymous ID is essentially a public statement. I kind of empathise with GP. Bulling can and does happen off-campus and online, and has a detrimental effect on education. Unfortunately, I can also see how this can and will be used as a silencing tool. No clue where to draw the line. We will likely see the pendulum swing every decade between more free speech and more responsible speech. Currently the fear of detrimental effects due to fake news makes the pendulum swing towards more responsible speach.
JustSomeNobody 5y ago
I have only one social media account under my given name. I only interact with a few people I know using the social media account using my given name. I tell everyone else I don't do social media when asked and I won't go through social media for anything important. And I get that certain large organizations know who I really am, I'm not naive. But the entire world doesn't need to know what I am doing on social media. It is none of their business. None. At all. Ever.
jonnycomputer 5y ago
It is curious. Because no where in Turley's article, or in the policy he links to, can I find it saying the school is to actively monitor social media statements of its students. In fact, the word "social media" doesn't come up once in the policy document. Maybe it says something in less explicit terms? If someone can find it, let me know. So I'm left with the impression that the title of the article is click-bait. It doesn't sound like the school is going to require access to social media accounts and actively monitor those. All it seems to be saying is that conduct outside of school can be punished? Is that even new? I have this vague feeling that Turley wouldn't have a problem with private employers that are not schools firing people for things they say. But I could be wrong. btw, this is Jonathan Turley of defend-Trump-in-impeachment-trial fame.
recursivedoubts 5y ago
Puritanism never ceased to be the primary underlying intellectual current in the United States. It just changed causes.
jonnycomputer 5y ago
The title of the article is click-bait or red-meat for the anti-SJWs of the world. Doesn't accurately reflect the actual policy or content of the article. Flagging.
jb775 5y ago
The Leftist thought-process: 100% freedom of speech, as long as you speak exactly what we want to hear. If you don't speak what we want to hear, we will do everything in our power to muzzle you and threaten your future & livelihood.
heinrichhartman 5y ago
Why is this flagged?
grouphugs 5y ago
feels incredibly discouraging how the nazis always run xenophobic campaigns about how great and censorship-free the naziland is. oof. like, the campaigns always focus on only china having these issues, but this kind of news comes out of naziland weekly

104 points by rsj_hn 5y ago

Carleton University in Ottawa got in touch with me about comments I made on its subreddit last year. That did not sit right with me.

elliekelly 5y ago
Whoa. Can you elaborate? Is your reddit username identifying or had you posted any identifying information (like a photo) from your account? I guess what I’m getting at is how much legwork did they have to do to track you down?
- jagger27 5y ago
  Same username as here. I criticized their Covid-19 response right at the beginning. I have a rather unique first name so I suppose that’s how they tracked me down.
duxup 5y ago
Can you elaborate without giving away too much? What did they ask about?
- jagger27 5y ago
  It was really surreal. They called me on my personal cellphone and accused me of not giving Carleton quote "a fair shake" with my criticism. I was venting on the subreddit, like many others. The teaching staff was not prepared for a sudden shift to online learning more than half way through the term. This was in late March 2020.
  - duxup 5y ago
    That's really weird. Was this an individual or some sort of organized thing?
    - jagger27 5y ago
      I believe a file was built up on me by the “Student Conduct” department and an individual from there reached out. I agree it was extremely odd.
  - koheripbal 5y ago
    Did they threaten any consequences to you?
    - jagger27 5y ago
      No.
ne0flex 5y ago
I'm a Carleton grad myself. Really interested in hearing what happened, if you can disclose.

burkaman 5y ago

Is there some context missing from the article? How does the quoted policy mandate the school monitor social media? If they wanted to, couldn't they have monitored social media before this policy was added? I'm not understanding why the author thinks this monitoring is happening, and why he thinks the policy mandates it. Edit: I've read the article like 5 times now, what am I missing that everyone else here is seeing?

1shooner 5y ago
>I'm not understanding why the author thinks this monitoring is happening, and why he thinks the policy mandates it. It all seems rather clickbait-y, but HN doesn't seem to mind.
ncallaway 5y ago
I've read both the policy and the proposed changes to the Student Conduct Code and they aren't lining up for me. I'm also left wondering what I've missed. It seems there's no language calling for active monitoring, passive monitoring or surveillance. It also seems that off-campus behaviors were previously considered to be within the scope of the Student Conduct Code and the language has been cleaned up. The new Conduct Code actually seems like it (very slightly) narrows what the University considers applicable off-campus behavior in that it introduces a new burden on the University of being able to "demonstrate a clear and distinct interest as an academic institution". I'm not really familiar with this document, so I'm hoping someone can help me understand how the proposed changes line up with the headline of the linked post
duxup 5y ago
"social media" For some reason that's in the title but I agree... I'm not seeing any mandate or etc.

underseacables 5y ago

I’m surprised more people are not using pseudonyms online. First rule of social media: Don’t use your real name.

SN76477 5y ago
When I was younger, the internet was a tool for discovery and creativity. We used creative names. Today, it is an extension of personality.
- meowface 5y ago
  It doesn't have to be. There are plenty of (non-troll) Twitter users who use pseudonyms. That can still be an extension of personality, but I'm guessing it's less likely to be the primary focus.
koolba 5y ago
It's a delicate balance of not tieing inflammatory statements to your true persona, yet also profiting off of any fame that may arise from your public presence. For the vast majority of people erring on the side of anonymity is the right choice. You can only go in the other direction once.
- Jiocus 5y ago
  Currently, the majority of people seem to vastly overestimate the prospect of fame and act accordingly.
standardUser 5y ago
When I'm dealing with people I actually know - which is nearly all of my social media use - I prefer to use my actual name just as I do when we interact outside of social media. Using as fake name with these people would be bizarre and confusing. Even if I were to use a pseudonym, I would not pretend it afforded me any guarantee of anonymity anyway.
marsrover 5y ago
Second rule of social media: never use the same pseudonym twice.

theknocker 5y ago

Everyone is figuring degrees are a scam, so the university has to find new ways to feel important.

FridayoLeary 5y ago

How many resources does the university have to do so effectively? Anyway, i am confident that their teenaged student body will prove far more savvy than any moderator. I predict circles will be run around them until they quietly retreat in defeat. That's my cynical take on this.

snarf21 5y ago
They won't, they will outsource to some company running "machine learning" and then students will start getting suspended for other people with the same name doing things deemed inappropriate.
docdeek 5y ago
My own cynical take is that this will be a lot less about trying to monitor the social media postings of students as it is a way for the university to have a way to respond when, inevitably, a student posts something that gets whipped up into a media storm. In other words, they won’t go looking for students saying the ‘wrong’ thing, they’ll wait for someone to kick up a stink and then point to the policy as their reason for excluding/suspending/punishing the student.
HideousKojima 5y ago
That's not cynical, that's overly hopefully to think the students will defeat this. The most likely scenario: and disciplinary decisions that arise from this will be arbitrary and capricious (like anything school administrations do, from university down to kindergarten), and won't have anything remotely resembling consistent enforcement.
ncallaway 5y ago
Genuine question: Where in the original policy is there any reference to active monitoring? The quoted section of the policies say that the University "may apply the Student Conduct Code" to off-campus behavior. But I don't see anything in the policy document that discusses any kind of active monitoring or active searching of social media accounts. The word "monitor", for example, doesn't appear in the linked PDF at all. It seems like they have updated their policy to clarify the language of how off-campus behavior impacts the Student Conduct Code, but I think the headline is extremely misleading, unless I've missed something from the linked policy. Can you clarify what I've missed?

ixacto 5y ago

The thought police strike again! More realistically the university is running brand protection...

jonnycomputer 5y ago
well most employers can fire people at will. for any cause. and do. including for your twitter posts. its been state-sanctioned capitalist thought police for a while now..
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  Students aren't employees, though. They're customers.
  - jonnycomputer 5y ago
    Students aren't customers either. If you took an apprenticeship, you wouldn't think you're a customer. If you took an internship, even if you had to pay for it, you wouldn't be a customer. Students are customers. They're students.
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      In what sense are they not? They're paying money to the university, in order to receive services that the university offers.
      - jonnycomputer 5y ago
        In almost every sense that matters. The model that seems to underlay this idea is that in a financial transaction, one person is a customer, and other is the provider (of a service, or product, etc.). But not all financial transactions fit this mental model of what is a kind of social relationship. Suppose you go to Craigslist, and find that someone is selling their old bike. You give them a call, give them cash, and you get a bike. Were you their customer? Something doesn't fit. This is a one-off transaction, on each side. There is no "custom". But I don't want to argue the point, because there are other examples. Suppose you get the opportunity to pay for an internship at a prestigious lawfirm. You pay your $1000 bucks, and then you work for free for a few weeks. Are you their customer? Sure, there was a financial transaction, but the relationship isn't one of being a customer. Is it? Ok, suppose you are a plumber. Every few years you pay a fee to a certification board to keep your license. You also pay membership money to the Better Business Bureau. Are you customers to the certification board, or to the BBB? Doesn't seem like it to me. Students are students. That is the relationship they hold to schools. That there is also a financial transaction happening is incidental to the primary relationship. Indeed, for students who pay no money because everything is funded by grants, then the idea that students are customers breaks down further. I understand the temptation. It is a lot of money most people pay for an education. But students are not customers, and university degrees aren't products.

jmpman 5y ago

Is this why college prices are increasing faster than inflation? How many $100k+/year administrators are required to manage this project? How large of an IT organization?

JustARandomGuy 5y ago

The article mentions the Tinker case, but recently there has been another case argued with the Supreme Court: Mahanoy Area School Districts vs BL: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/justices-ponder-narrow-ruling-in-student-speech-case/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/justices-ponder-narrow-ru... This is the infamous "cheerleader" case you may have heard on the news. I'm optimistic that the Court will rule against the school district and guarantee more free speech rights for students; I think it's ridiculous how schools are increasingly intruding more and more into the lives of children.

iammisc 5y ago
University students are not children which means no one should be monitoring their activity without the normal legal proceedings. I'm also hopeful the supreme court makes the right call but just wanted to make sure we are not confusing uni students with minors.
- duxup 5y ago
  >which means no one should be monitoring their activity On a public site? Like ... their friends who might monitor it?
- jalk 5y ago
  But neither is faculty, whom they are supposedly monitoring already. - so perhaps this is just a way to to get all of the monitoring removed
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
duxup 5y ago
That case the justices seem to be trying to figure out where the line is where a school might have legitimate concern about speech off campus, and what kind of speech is ok to take action on. It seemed to be less about monitoring in general and about where to draw the line. They did not seem interested in wholesale blocking any monitoring or requiring the school ignore public internet posts. SCOTUS seemed to be more interested where to draw the line on what actions schools could take on what types of speech, not so much about monitoring overall.

trutannus 5y ago

Universities can now penalize students for what they do in their private lives'? Well that's dystopian. Reading the article, it's pretty clear this can, and will, be used for ideological ends: "Students whose off-campus behavior has a significant adverse impact on the University community, its members, and/or the pursuit of its mission and educational objectives." They do specify that violence is one of the two reasons, however in the current ideological climate, violence has been classified in a super broad way that does not match the conventional description of violence. Some institutes have classified some speech acts as violence. Which is alarming. Also, disrupting the university's "pursuit of its mission" is a very ominous turn of phrase. It's reminiscent of the phrase "anti-revolutionary acts". Imagine being sanctioned for "acts which disrupt the mission of the institution"? Others have pointed out that I grabbed an old version of the document to quote. Fair, that said however the text when updated includes: "[that] which causes substantial disruption to the University community or any of its members" Again, disruption to members can, and has been, classified as "making feel uncomfortable". The language of this, in any revision shown, is dangerous. Someone being upset could easily argue that the "disruption" caused them harm, and prevented them from carrying out the institution's academic goals. Different wording, same impact. ' Updated from initial wording to avoid spreading mistaken information.

ixacto 5y ago
Well in the current ideological climate "silence is violence", as they say, damn this 1984ificaton of speech sucks. More specifically I think this is targeted at any views they don't like which really sucks. It's a public university which means you have to see even the views that you don't like.
- tines 5y ago
  Too bad silence and violence almost rhyme, otherwise no one would have thought up this stupid phrase.
- silicon2401 5y ago
  Exemplary modern dialogue shut-down tactic. Don't question me, don't debate me, don't ask me questions, don't think. If you don't do exactly what I say is good, you're problematic. If you're not as extreme as me, you're as bad as the enemy. Things like this have made me lose faith in modern civilization; we're watching the beginning of a catastrophic downfall.

sigzero 5y ago

Yeah, that is not going to hold up in any kind of court.

caseysoftware 5y ago
In the court of public opinion, there is no defense counsel.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  There are plenty, on both sides of the aisle, often being paid tens of millions of dollars a year to do so. They're often quite effective at it, too.

duxup 5y ago

Will be interesting to see the outcome. Not sure I'm a fan of active monitoring. At the same time I have little sympathy for "I made a public post on the internet under my own name for all to see, and other people saw it!" type situations.

anticristi 5y ago
> At the same time I have little sympathy for "I made a public post on the internet under my own name for all to see, and other people saw it!" type situations. Fully agree. At this point, it is valuable to ask yourself: Is this a public forum? If yes, would I be okay for my comment to appear on NYT's front page? If not, consider posting to a private group instead.

SilasX 5y ago

Isn't this just the other side of bowing to pressure when a student says something controversial on social media (or said it long before being admitted)? Hive mind: "What? You have a student that used the n-word on social media? Rabblerabblerabble." University: <Monitors social media> Hive mind: "Why would totalitarian oppressors do this?"

ncallaway 5y ago
Except...the University in this case hasn't said that they are going to actively monitor social media. As far as I can tell from the linked policy document, there's no mention of monitoring of social media anywhere in the document.
- SilasX 5y ago
  Maybe that belongs as a top level reply rather than to one of the thirty comments addressing the ethics of doing it at all? I’m not sure the point of singling me out as someone assuming there is some potential truth and relevance to the practice.
  - ncallaway 5y ago
    Well, your response appeared to assume that the contents of the article were true and the contents of the article weren't true. In general, when I receive incorrect information and respond to it assuming its true, I appreciate when people inform me that its not true. I assume other people on HN share that desire.
    - SilasX 5y ago
      >Well, your response appeared to assume that the contents of the article were true I guess it might seem that way if you were going out of the way to read it uncharitably so you could be correct about something, I suppose. A more charitable reading would be, "monitoring social media is a natural response to the demands of the hive mind, and outrage at it would reveal a double standard." If you're "refuting" that -- if you're negating the relevance of the entire argument -- then you're effectively claiming my point will never be relevant on this topic at all: that, because this one university isn't actually doing it (probably because their trial balloon went badly), then no one will ever do it, and we never have to deal with the implications of universities (or large orgs) monitoring social media, or think about the pressure they're put under when they're associated with someone who said something bad on social media. That would be the wrong lesson to take. >In general, when I receive incorrect information and respond to it assuming its true, I appreciate when people inform me that its not true. I assume other people on HN share that desire. I absolutely do! That's why I insist that you do post it, in the place where it's the most relevant, with the appropriate caveats: "Hey, even though this might be an issue some day, it looks like this specific university isn't doing it." -- as a top level comment, directly on the story. Were you planning to respond to everyone who discussed the merit of "universities monitoring social media" by saying "well akshually this whole issue is irrelevant because this one university halted its plan to do it and insists there never was one"? Then what do you think you were accomplishing by raising the point one time (well, two times it looks like) in a subthread about an orthogonal issue? It's great if you want to take the tack of "hey, I'm just trying to be super-rigorous and care about the Truth, man". But the other side of that is making an effort to post it where the opposite claim is actually asserted, not as "late hit" in a subthread where it isn't relevant. And not in a way that implies no one should care about the general issue.

egberts1 5y ago

Say nothing bad of UO and you’re good. /sarcasm

helen___keller 5y ago

While I'm not a fan of the idea, I suppose this is a predictable outcome in a world of social media shitstorms. Post anonymously or be prepared to have any statement you have ever written on the internet be interpreted in the least generous way possible as a weapon against you by an irrational mob. That's how the internet works in the 21st century.

1shooner 5y ago

There is no mention of monitoring social media statements anywhere beyond this headline.

elliekelly 5y ago
This entire blog is just outrage fodder. They take a shred of truth from a news story, warp it beyond all recognition, add a headline about “cancelled” or “silence” or “triggered”, and then watch the angry people stir to action for their cause. This blog post is not interesting because it’s composed almost entirely of misinformation and false insinuation.

peanut_worm 5y ago

Young people don’t use Facebook and every other social media platform does not require your real name. If you post something stupid under your real name then you have no one to blame but yourself.

pmlnr 5y ago

"social media" - do they include the fediverse? retroshare? secure scuttlebutt? Otherwise it's "we'll monitor you on fb & co and twitter", because even reddit allows pseudonyms. So it boils down to this: stop using facebook, instagram, and twitter, and find a nerd friend to run a mastodon/pixelfed/etc circle for you & your circles.

duxup 5y ago
>"social media" As far as I can tell those words only appear in the title of the article so I'm not entirely sure if that's the case.
- ed25519FUUU 5y ago
  What else can they monitor? Local newspaper op-eds?
  - duxup 5y ago
    If it's public, you can, I can, anyone can read the newspaper.
burkaman 5y ago
The code doesn't mention social media or monitoring at all, so it's up to your imagination. If you think they're monitoring the fediverse, why not, I guess they could be. It is publicly accessible.
- pmlnr 5y ago
  > It is publicly accessible That depends on the instance.

DaniloDias 5y ago

I’ve started shopping explicitly for conservative colleges for my kids. I don’t understand why anyone would go into debt for institutions that want to crucify youthful stupidity. Oregon in particular seems to struggle with this topic.

anticristi 5y ago
I didn't go as far, but the conservative-liberal false dichotomy made me increasing watch conservative YouTubers, so that my brain experiences a more moderate world view. I'm totally not conservative, but I also feel alienated by some liberal ideas. Would be great to hear a healthier mixture someday.

belly_joe 5y ago

This seems like it's merely codifying a practice that already existed de facto. I doubt Harvard had a specific social media monitoring policy in place when it rescinded admissions from the admits posting offensive memes, but that didn't really mean anything to the kids who got un-admitted.(1) Not sure what to think of how big a step this is. [1] (https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/6/5/2021-offers-rescinded-memes/ https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/6/5/2021-offers-resc...)

NikolaeVarius 5y ago

Well this is what we all wanted right?

gallerdude 5y ago

I don't even see how this could scale to a whole University's worth of students. The current population of U of Oregon is 23,600. If you have say, 10 administrators dedicated to monitoring social media, that means each have to sift through ~2000 students posts each and every day. Yes, some students don't have any social media, but a lot of them are on multiple social networks.

lelanthran 5y ago
> I don't even see how this could scale to a whole > University's worth of students. That's not the point. > The current population of U of Oregon is 23,600. If you > have say, 10 administrators dedicated to monitoring social > media, that means each have to sift through ~2000 students > posts each and every day. Yes, some students don't have any > social media, but a lot of them are on multiple social > networks. They aren't going to do fair enforcement - like all code of conducts, they are only going to mine your accounts for ammunition if you show up on their radar. It's for selective enforcement. If you don't sign their petition/join their party/support their protests, then they will look at your social media posts. This is why CoC are written; I've yet to find an example of an in-group person being subjected to the code of CoC. The targets are always people with different politics.
koheripbal 5y ago
It doesn't need to scale. Surveillance methods have a habit of only being exercised on people the controlling party deems "undesirable" or "disruptive". Selective prosecution is a hallmark of oppression.

jimbob45 5y ago

Maybe Harvard could get away with this but the fact remains that there is no Oregon university, let alone UO, requiring more than a 3.25 GPA to get in and that’s already being extremely generous. UO simply isn’t prestigious enough to pull this kind of stunt.

variant 5y ago

We're taking this stuff too far. Vote differently or it will continue.

backtoyoujim 5y ago

Seems that the first seven paragraphs were ideologically fodder for the last three paragraphs.

MattGaiser 5y ago

Where in the policy mandate anything to do with monitoring social media? I get how it could be twisted into that by the university if they wished, but that is unproven.

grayhatter 5y ago
That's the issue though. Opportunity for abuse exists within ambiguity. Both the chilling effect this will have on other speech. And the risk that administrators Will apply this policy exclusively to speech they find distasteful especially in a biased manner.

Spivak 5y ago

Look, actively monitoring social media is weird but the general policy that what you say outside of work or school can affect you in work or school is a good thing. This kind of policy is necessary any time people don't have a choice of who they interact with. The example from my lived experience is bullying at school. I mean it was literally assault but since we were kids it's considered less of a problem for some reason. But my bullies weren't stupid, they would never do it in view of a teacher or they would just wait just outside of school grounds. So despite the fact that I lived less than a mile from my home I had wait three hours every day at the office for my parents to get off work and pick me up. The school had zero power to punish them for anything they did off school grounds while every. single. day. I had to be in class with them. Does that sound like a healthy environment for learning? Alright, so assuming that you believe that words can be just as harmful and create just as much a toxic environment surely the same policy should apply. It's not about workplaces or schools supplanting the police (not that they would care or do anything anyway) but that creating a healthy environment in a school and workplace means being aware of what happens outside of them. Pretending that I could be comfortable being in school with my bullies because "technically they couldn't hurt me here" misses the point entirely that I still lived in fear.

ncallaway 5y ago
> Look, actively monitoring social media is weird but the general policy that what you say outside of work or school can affect you in work or school is a good thing. This kind of policy is necessary any time people don't have a choice of who they interact with. As far as I can tell, there's no active monitoring of social media mentioned anywhere in the linked document that is used as a source.
- anticristi 5y ago
  I think the point is not monitoring social media. Rather the university want to hold you accountable for public statements, where social media without using an anonymous ID is essentially a public statement. I kind of empathise with GP. Bulling can and does happen off-campus and online, and has a detrimental effect on education. Unfortunately, I can also see how this can and will be used as a silencing tool. No clue where to draw the line. We will likely see the pendulum swing every decade between more free speech and more responsible speech. Currently the fear of detrimental effects due to fake news makes the pendulum swing towards more responsible speach.

JustSomeNobody 5y ago

I have only one social media account under my given name. I only interact with a few people I know using the social media account using my given name. I tell everyone else I don't do social media when asked and I won't go through social media for anything important. And I get that certain large organizations know who I really am, I'm not naive. But the entire world doesn't need to know what I am doing on social media. It is none of their business. None. At all. Ever.

jonnycomputer 5y ago

It is curious. Because no where in Turley's article, or in the policy he links to, can I find it saying the school is to actively monitor social media statements of its students. In fact, the word "social media" doesn't come up once in the policy document. Maybe it says something in less explicit terms? If someone can find it, let me know. So I'm left with the impression that the title of the article is click-bait. It doesn't sound like the school is going to require access to social media accounts and actively monitor those. All it seems to be saying is that conduct outside of school can be punished? Is that even new? I have this vague feeling that Turley wouldn't have a problem with private employers that are not schools firing people for things they say. But I could be wrong. btw, this is Jonathan Turley of defend-Trump-in-impeachment-trial fame.

recursivedoubts 5y ago

Puritanism never ceased to be the primary underlying intellectual current in the United States. It just changed causes.

jonnycomputer 5y ago

The title of the article is click-bait or red-meat for the anti-SJWs of the world. Doesn't accurately reflect the actual policy or content of the article. Flagging.

jb775 5y ago

The Leftist thought-process: 100% freedom of speech, as long as you speak exactly what we want to hear. If you don't speak what we want to hear, we will do everything in our power to muzzle you and threaten your future & livelihood.

heinrichhartman 5y ago

Why is this flagged?

grouphugs 5y ago

feels incredibly discouraging how the nazis always run xenophobic campaigns about how great and censorship-free the naziland is. oof. like, the campaigns always focus on only china having these issues, but this kind of news comes out of naziland weekly