4 ms·

Most of these are anonymous platforms where people are unafraid to speak their mind due to that anonymity. Also the existence of loud people on these platforms

Most of these are anonymous platforms where people are unafraid to speak their mind due to that anonymity. Also the existence of loud people on these platforms isn't evidence that the number of people self-censoring hasn't increased. A small, loud group of people is enough to create the effect that you see. Polling suggests that the number of people self-censoring has increased. It's especially common among college educated conservatives, who are in tune with what they're supposed to think and also aware that their thoughts do not line up with that, and so decide to keep quiet on political questions, probably because they have more to lose career-wise.

krapp 5y ago
It is circumstantial evidence, but I wouldn't expect an increase in radical activity on social media to occur in a society in which most people are afraid to express their views due to fear of omnipresent surveillance. Some people are self-suppressing, a lot of people aren't. And what is it that people are afraid to say? That they only believe in two genders, or innate gender roles? That the US should return to the gold standard? That they don't trust the consensus on COVID vaccinations? Most people's "radical" beliefs aren't that radical, and the truly radical beliefs (white supremacy, anti-semitism, violent revolutionary ideology, pro-pedophilia) have always been suppressed by society, so the existence of the surveillance state changes nothing in those cases. >It's especially common among college educated conservatives, who are in tune with what they're supposed to think and also aware that their thoughts do not line up with that, and so decide to keep quiet on political questions, probably because they have more to lose career-wise. I'm not aware of any mainstream Conservative beliefs that are suppressed in general discourse, or that would lead someone to lose their job. I don't think many people have ever been fired for believing in limited government or the free market. Conservatives have an entire political party and half a country that supports and welcomes their beliefs, and plenty of businesses that would hire them because of those beliefs.
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  This[1] is a survey of college students. About 25-30% are self-censoring on campus, and rates are higher among conservatives. This is a pretty well established finding across multiple polls of both college-age and working-age people. > I'm not aware of any mainstream Conservative beliefs that are suppressed in general discourse Not in "general discourse" (if by that you mean anonymous social media), but if you work for a tech company, many mainstream conservative beliefs are not to be discussed in public. Consider the James Damore memo, which he got fired for and which most conservatives would agree with. Or imagine being a Trump supporter in a tech company, and wanting to put a Trump poster on your wall/cubicle compared to a Biden/Hillary poster. You might not get fired, but there's enough stories of social ostracism that people probably won't want to do that. Or consider having the opinion that gender = sex and therefore pronouns should correspond to sex, which is what most conservatives think, and something that they'd get fired over. Self-censorship is a rational thing to do in such a climate. A left-leaning person would probably self-censor in a heavily conservative industry (e.g. oil & gas), too. I don't really have a reference point in such industries about how stifling the climate would be for them, but I don't think this is a phenomenon that's unique to one side of the spectrum. It's mostly a consequence of heightened polarization. [1] https://2cnzc91figkyqqeq8390pgd1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/HxA-CES-Report-Fall-2019-FINAL.pdf https://2cnzc91figkyqqeq8390pgd1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-...
  - alexilliamson 5y ago
    If you care that much, speak up and fight. If you don't, don't.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- Comevius 5y ago
  The danger of surveillance is that it changes the power dynamics, which creates a risk of discrimination, blackmail and persuasion. It also interferes with our intellectial freedom. It hinders us at experimenting with new or controversial ideas. It can cause us to not exercise our civil liberties. Not exactly a wonder that autocratic regimes are among the worst offenders of state surveillance. The recurrent purpose of surveillance is to control behavior. Intellectual privacy is an important part of intellectual diversity and individuality. Basically it allows culture and values to be generated from the bottom up, rather than from the top down. The fear of being watched causes people to act and think differently from the way they might otherwise. Surveillance fails to respect the line between public and private actors as well.
- 35fbe7d3d5b9 5y ago
  > It is circumstantial evidence, but I wouldn't expect an increase in radical activity on social media to occur in a society in which most people are afraid to express their views due to fear of omnipresent surveillance. The consistent "haha only serious" taunt I hear on the left is directed towards "Twitter activists" – leftists whose only contribution is to tweet, and who aren't politically active outside of their social media bubble. I'd almost wonder if taking a hands-off approach to social media benefits the surveillance state: undirected radical energy flows into social media and away from organizations that could try to focus it towards change. Those organizations remain small, which means the people who are actually likely to radicalize are easier to watch. Social media as a "pressure relief valve", I guess. Someone may point out that sometimes that pressure relief valve gets stuck and we experience stochastic terrorism, which is very true. But I contend that benefits the state as well.

krapp 5y ago

It is circumstantial evidence, but I wouldn't expect an increase in radical activity on social media to occur in a society in which most people are afraid to express their views due to fear of omnipresent surveillance. Some people are self-suppressing, a lot of people aren't. And what is it that people are afraid to say? That they only believe in two genders, or innate gender roles? That the US should return to the gold standard? That they don't trust the consensus on COVID vaccinations? Most people's "radical" beliefs aren't that radical, and the truly radical beliefs (white supremacy, anti-semitism, violent revolutionary ideology, pro-pedophilia) have always been suppressed by society, so the existence of the surveillance state changes nothing in those cases. >It's especially common among college educated conservatives, who are in tune with what they're supposed to think and also aware that their thoughts do not line up with that, and so decide to keep quiet on political questions, probably because they have more to lose career-wise. I'm not aware of any mainstream Conservative beliefs that are suppressed in general discourse, or that would lead someone to lose their job. I don't think many people have ever been fired for believing in limited government or the free market. Conservatives have an entire political party and half a country that supports and welcomes their beliefs, and plenty of businesses that would hire them because of those beliefs.

fighterpilot 5y ago
This[1] is a survey of college students. About 25-30% are self-censoring on campus, and rates are higher among conservatives. This is a pretty well established finding across multiple polls of both college-age and working-age people. > I'm not aware of any mainstream Conservative beliefs that are suppressed in general discourse Not in "general discourse" (if by that you mean anonymous social media), but if you work for a tech company, many mainstream conservative beliefs are not to be discussed in public. Consider the James Damore memo, which he got fired for and which most conservatives would agree with. Or imagine being a Trump supporter in a tech company, and wanting to put a Trump poster on your wall/cubicle compared to a Biden/Hillary poster. You might not get fired, but there's enough stories of social ostracism that people probably won't want to do that. Or consider having the opinion that gender = sex and therefore pronouns should correspond to sex, which is what most conservatives think, and something that they'd get fired over. Self-censorship is a rational thing to do in such a climate. A left-leaning person would probably self-censor in a heavily conservative industry (e.g. oil & gas), too. I don't really have a reference point in such industries about how stifling the climate would be for them, but I don't think this is a phenomenon that's unique to one side of the spectrum. It's mostly a consequence of heightened polarization. [1] https://2cnzc91figkyqqeq8390pgd1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/HxA-CES-Report-Fall-2019-FINAL.pdf https://2cnzc91figkyqqeq8390pgd1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-...
- alexilliamson 5y ago
  If you care that much, speak up and fight. If you don't, don't.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Comevius 5y ago
The danger of surveillance is that it changes the power dynamics, which creates a risk of discrimination, blackmail and persuasion. It also interferes with our intellectial freedom. It hinders us at experimenting with new or controversial ideas. It can cause us to not exercise our civil liberties. Not exactly a wonder that autocratic regimes are among the worst offenders of state surveillance. The recurrent purpose of surveillance is to control behavior. Intellectual privacy is an important part of intellectual diversity and individuality. Basically it allows culture and values to be generated from the bottom up, rather than from the top down. The fear of being watched causes people to act and think differently from the way they might otherwise. Surveillance fails to respect the line between public and private actors as well.
35fbe7d3d5b9 5y ago
> It is circumstantial evidence, but I wouldn't expect an increase in radical activity on social media to occur in a society in which most people are afraid to express their views due to fear of omnipresent surveillance. The consistent "haha only serious" taunt I hear on the left is directed towards "Twitter activists" – leftists whose only contribution is to tweet, and who aren't politically active outside of their social media bubble. I'd almost wonder if taking a hands-off approach to social media benefits the surveillance state: undirected radical energy flows into social media and away from organizations that could try to focus it towards change. Those organizations remain small, which means the people who are actually likely to radicalize are easier to watch. Social media as a "pressure relief valve", I guess. Someone may point out that sometimes that pressure relief valve gets stuck and we experience stochastic terrorism, which is very true. But I contend that benefits the state as well.