6 ms·

Earlier this year when Richard Stallman was re-instated to the Board of the FSF, there were a lot of tweets expressing dismay. To one of them, I replied that I

Earlier this year when Richard Stallman was re-instated to the Board of the FSF, there were a lot of tweets expressing dismay. To one of them, I replied that I personally don't think he has done anything wrong at all - and linked to a well-known article by a woman who defended him better than me. While I found some support among a few people, the amount of hate I received shook me a bit. People started adding me to lists like "a list of people who tweet stupid things". It went on for a couple of days. The good thing is that I am a nobody - I am not known in any popular online communities, I am not famous and no one really cares who I am - so I could not be cancelled. But the amount of negative emotions and energy directed at me did affect me for a couple of days. After that event, I sympathize much more with people who have been cancelled (earlier I tended to support those doing the cancelling even though I did not tweet/comment myself).

xupybd 5y ago
Yeah Twitter is very toxic. I got on a few lists as well. I tried to talk to the NZ civil liberties association about freedom of speech. As it turns out they are against free speech and pro hate speech laws. I didn't know that going in. Then some people put me on a hate speech list. After that I was blocked by a large group of people I'd never encountered. It's a weird place and I'm glad to be off the platform.
- mdoms 5y ago
  NZ Twitter is nuts. If you think US Twitter leans left you haven't seen anything like NZPol Twitter.
- happytoexplain 5y ago
  I completely believe that whatever happened to you was totally unreasonable, but try to understand that from another person's point of view, the broad "you must be against freedom of speech" thing is "toxic", just as you have experienced "toxic" behavior from the opposite side of the issue.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - xupybd 5y ago
    I'm not saying being against freedom of speech is toxic. I'm saying getting put on a hate speech list for being pro freedom of speech is. I've had great discussions with friends and family that disagree with me on free speech. On Twitter people don't seem to treat each other as people, but as representatives of a given ideology.
    - 73gfg 5y ago
      These people are a lost cause. They cannot be convinced the value of free speech through words alone.
    - happytoexplain 5y ago
      I understand all that, and agree. Separately, I'm saying that labeling people on one side of this issue as "against free speech" is a common quip, and is also toxic. It's similar to labeling pro-choice people as pro-murder. I expect people on Twitter to fall into that hole, and I don't engage with Twitter for that reason. I have more respect for HN users. For example, the sibling to this reply refers to me, saying "These people are a lost cause. They cannot be convinced of the value of free speech." I'd like to keep sentiments like that at bay here, and I have hope for that (see the fact that the comment I'm referring to is dead).
      - xupybd 5y ago
        Ah, I see now. Sorry I didn't understand that when I replied. On re-reading your comment, that is on me. You were clear. Sorry if that term offends I didn't realize it did. Here we don't have "Free Speech." As such, we have freedom of expression in our bill of rights. "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form." So to use the term "Free Speech" in New Zealand can be seen as an attempt to advocate for an American version of free speech. Many are actively against that. That said, I'm sure many simply want to place new boundaries on speech and feel the result still maintains free speech. To them, I can see how it would be offensive to be accused of being against free speech. Also, thank you for your willingness to get to the bottom of this. You have opened my eyes to how my comment could have been read. HN is a much better environment.
nmz 5y ago
The deal with cancel culture is power, if you're canceling Joe Schmo, or if you keep canceling someone well after they've lost everything, well then that's just bullying.
CogitoCogito 5y ago
This is great example why pseudonymous commentary is often essential to honest discourse.
- tester756 5y ago
  I also believe that sometimes it'd be better if judge's name wasn't known e.g in cases like Derek's Chauvin (police officer / G. Floyd)
mandmandam 5y ago
Good for you for doing the right thing. Let me ask you - did you feel like the hate thrown at you on Twitter was completely organic? Was there anything that made you question the motives of the involved Twits? I ask because the whole smear job vs Stallman felt quite manufactured to me; from the initial Vice article horrifically misquoting him, to the weirdly rabid hate towards anyone defending him on forums like this and Reddit.
- DevKoala 5y ago
  Doesn’t it always feel manufactured? What you are mentioning regarding the case of Stallman’s cancelling is the same pattern I have seen applied against every other voice that has a dissenting opinion of the current culture that dominates social media.
  - mandmandam 5y ago
    > Doesn’t it always feel manufactured? No. Spacey, Weinstein, and Epstein, to name a few, felt the opposite of manufactured. Repressed? Those stories took years, or decades to break, even with high profile advocates. Now, you might say that they didn't have a "dissenting opinion of the social media culture" - but their actions would show otherwise.
    - DevKoala 5y ago
      None of those characters were individuals who were cancelled based on their opinions against the dominant culture in social media. Also, they weren’t cancelled, they got charged with one or multiple felonies, which is different, and there are plenty of apologists for their behavior. For example, this was a real tweet that got taken down. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E32Pup-WEAIhQvz?format=jpg&name=medium https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E32Pup-WEAIhQvz?format=jpg&name=...
- caddemon 5y ago
  I agree that what Stallman said was misrepresented, and perhaps the later stages of the "cancelling" were more manufactured, but the initial anger that popped up on various MIT mailing lists felt very organic to me. A bit mob-like, definitely driven moreso by emotion than a good-faith reading of what Stallman said, and probably amplified by people who disagreed feeling afraid to speak out. But I wouldn't describe any of it as manufactured.
mixmastamyk 5y ago
Sounds like another round of thought-crime and obsessive reactions to stamp it out, a la McCarthyism, etc. Reminds me of a great ST:TNG episode "The Drumhead" with Jean Simmons as an admiral, who goes on a conspiracy witchhunt. Not until the proceedings go off the rails does anyone have the confidence to resist. It is a bit of a different category since it is regarding organizations or government, but I believe the angry, obsessive mob angle is the same.
mdoms 5y ago
> I am not known in any popular online communities, I am not famous and no one really cares who I am - so I could not be cancelled Be very careful with that outlook. When I think of cancel culture I always come back to Justine Sacco[0]. She was a nobody with 170 twitter followers before the mob destroyed her life. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tweet-ruined-justine-saccos-life.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-t...
73gfg 5y ago
Calling it "cancelling" doesn't do it justice (comes from cancelling games or sitcoms). Let's call it what it is, purging. The same tactic employed in communist China and the USSR.
greyhair 5y ago
The whole Stallman thing was a shit show, and I think he was thrown off the board for all the wrong reasons. I was still glad so see him go, simply because FSF was a better organization without him. But yeah, the railroading that he got was wrong. He should have been removed simply because he has become an obstacle. The FSF does a lot of good things, but occasionally they do dumb things, and it seems (I could be wrong) that the dumb things come down to assuaging Stallman's ego.

xupybd 5y ago

Yeah Twitter is very toxic. I got on a few lists as well. I tried to talk to the NZ civil liberties association about freedom of speech. As it turns out they are against free speech and pro hate speech laws. I didn't know that going in. Then some people put me on a hate speech list. After that I was blocked by a large group of people I'd never encountered. It's a weird place and I'm glad to be off the platform.

mdoms 5y ago
NZ Twitter is nuts. If you think US Twitter leans left you haven't seen anything like NZPol Twitter.
happytoexplain 5y ago
I completely believe that whatever happened to you was totally unreasonable, but try to understand that from another person's point of view, the broad "you must be against freedom of speech" thing is "toxic", just as you have experienced "toxic" behavior from the opposite side of the issue.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- xupybd 5y ago
  I'm not saying being against freedom of speech is toxic. I'm saying getting put on a hate speech list for being pro freedom of speech is. I've had great discussions with friends and family that disagree with me on free speech. On Twitter people don't seem to treat each other as people, but as representatives of a given ideology.
  - 73gfg 5y ago
    These people are a lost cause. They cannot be convinced the value of free speech through words alone.
  - happytoexplain 5y ago
    I understand all that, and agree. Separately, I'm saying that labeling people on one side of this issue as "against free speech" is a common quip, and is also toxic. It's similar to labeling pro-choice people as pro-murder. I expect people on Twitter to fall into that hole, and I don't engage with Twitter for that reason. I have more respect for HN users. For example, the sibling to this reply refers to me, saying "These people are a lost cause. They cannot be convinced of the value of free speech." I'd like to keep sentiments like that at bay here, and I have hope for that (see the fact that the comment I'm referring to is dead).
    - xupybd 5y ago
      Ah, I see now. Sorry I didn't understand that when I replied. On re-reading your comment, that is on me. You were clear. Sorry if that term offends I didn't realize it did. Here we don't have "Free Speech." As such, we have freedom of expression in our bill of rights. "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form." So to use the term "Free Speech" in New Zealand can be seen as an attempt to advocate for an American version of free speech. Many are actively against that. That said, I'm sure many simply want to place new boundaries on speech and feel the result still maintains free speech. To them, I can see how it would be offensive to be accused of being against free speech. Also, thank you for your willingness to get to the bottom of this. You have opened my eyes to how my comment could have been read. HN is a much better environment.

nmz 5y ago

The deal with cancel culture is power, if you're canceling Joe Schmo, or if you keep canceling someone well after they've lost everything, well then that's just bullying.

CogitoCogito 5y ago

This is great example why pseudonymous commentary is often essential to honest discourse.

tester756 5y ago
I also believe that sometimes it'd be better if judge's name wasn't known e.g in cases like Derek's Chauvin (police officer / G. Floyd)

mandmandam 5y ago

Good for you for doing the right thing. Let me ask you - did you feel like the hate thrown at you on Twitter was completely organic? Was there anything that made you question the motives of the involved Twits? I ask because the whole smear job vs Stallman felt quite manufactured to me; from the initial Vice article horrifically misquoting him, to the weirdly rabid hate towards anyone defending him on forums like this and Reddit.

DevKoala 5y ago
Doesn’t it always feel manufactured? What you are mentioning regarding the case of Stallman’s cancelling is the same pattern I have seen applied against every other voice that has a dissenting opinion of the current culture that dominates social media.
- mandmandam 5y ago
  > Doesn’t it always feel manufactured? No. Spacey, Weinstein, and Epstein, to name a few, felt the opposite of manufactured. Repressed? Those stories took years, or decades to break, even with high profile advocates. Now, you might say that they didn't have a "dissenting opinion of the social media culture" - but their actions would show otherwise.
  - DevKoala 5y ago
    None of those characters were individuals who were cancelled based on their opinions against the dominant culture in social media. Also, they weren’t cancelled, they got charged with one or multiple felonies, which is different, and there are plenty of apologists for their behavior. For example, this was a real tweet that got taken down. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E32Pup-WEAIhQvz?format=jpg&name=medium https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E32Pup-WEAIhQvz?format=jpg&name=...
caddemon 5y ago
I agree that what Stallman said was misrepresented, and perhaps the later stages of the "cancelling" were more manufactured, but the initial anger that popped up on various MIT mailing lists felt very organic to me. A bit mob-like, definitely driven moreso by emotion than a good-faith reading of what Stallman said, and probably amplified by people who disagreed feeling afraid to speak out. But I wouldn't describe any of it as manufactured.

mixmastamyk 5y ago

Sounds like another round of thought-crime and obsessive reactions to stamp it out, a la McCarthyism, etc. Reminds me of a great ST:TNG episode "The Drumhead" with Jean Simmons as an admiral, who goes on a conspiracy witchhunt. Not until the proceedings go off the rails does anyone have the confidence to resist. It is a bit of a different category since it is regarding organizations or government, but I believe the angry, obsessive mob angle is the same.

mdoms 5y ago

> I am not known in any popular online communities, I am not famous and no one really cares who I am - so I could not be cancelled Be very careful with that outlook. When I think of cancel culture I always come back to Justine Sacco[0]. She was a nobody with 170 twitter followers before the mob destroyed her life. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tweet-ruined-justine-saccos-life.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-t...

73gfg 5y ago

Calling it "cancelling" doesn't do it justice (comes from cancelling games or sitcoms). Let's call it what it is, purging. The same tactic employed in communist China and the USSR.

greyhair 5y ago

The whole Stallman thing was a shit show, and I think he was thrown off the board for all the wrong reasons. I was still glad so see him go, simply because FSF was a better organization without him. But yeah, the railroading that he got was wrong. He should have been removed simply because he has become an obstacle. The FSF does a lot of good things, but occasionally they do dumb things, and it seems (I could be wrong) that the dumb things come down to assuaging Stallman's ego.