9 ms·

What I find most shocking about all of this is that we can't even publicly or openly discuss things anymore because even if it is no longer done, there is surel

What I find most shocking about all of this is that we can't even publicly or openly discuss things anymore because even if it is no longer done, there is surely still a latent deterrent effect from all the censorship and public persecution of anyone who was not willing to tow the regime message. When a culture of fear and intimidation sets it, it is extremely dangerous and usually in my experience even terminal for things like organizations and companies.

nickthemagicman 5y ago
There's a term for it. It's called Social Cooling.
kwertyoowiyop 5y ago
Where is it that you’re not able to publicly or openly discuss things? There has never BEEN such a wealth of opinions and discussion freely accessible to everyone.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  Correct, which is why there is a such a strong push to get Facebook to increase censorship. All of this communication freedom is absolutely freaking elites out, as their ability to control the discourse has slipped substantially.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    OK, so by many standards I'm "elite" (in terms of net worth, education etc.). But I don't think I'm part of the "elite" you're referring to, and I'm still concerned about the information flows enabled by the internet. Does that make me a member of said elite, or is there something else going on?
    - furgooswft13 5y ago
      It makes you a useful idiot.
    - alexashka 5y ago
      No, elite is defined by ability to affect non-trivial change within society. If you don't have that ability, you're just upper middle class.
      - davidw 5y ago
        So is the truck driver guy who got elected in NJ 'elite' or not?
        throwaway6734 5y ago
        Elites are the people I don't like and the more I don't like them the more Elite they are.
        PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        As he is likely to find out if he ever gets re-elected, he will be part of the elite soon, even if he rejects the label (which I am sure he will).
    - nawgz 5y ago
      > by many standards I'm "elite" (in terms of net worth High 8 figures+ net worth? Generationally wealthy? With government connections? Otherwise I don't think anyone cares about you
      - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        Inside the top 10% for net worth would be my criteria for this, and I think many other Americans too. No self-aggrandisement here, I just wouldn't want to pretend to be "an ordinary guy on the street" (whatever that actually means).
        nawgz 5y ago
        That would make 30 million people “elite”. We mean the 0.01% who enact laws and escape enforcement, not people who live a comfortable life lmao
        PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        Back up-thread, I had written: > "OK, so by many standards I'm "elite" (in terms of net worth, education etc.). But I don't think I'm part of the "elite" you're referring to" explicitly acknowledging different (simultaneous, potentially overlapping) versions of what "elite" could mean. Yet here you are dickering about one definition versus another.
        nawgz 5y ago
        I surely have never heard any one cast the top 10% of some thing as the "elite" of said domain, so I hoped to enlighten you. I must say though, your emotional control - specifically lack thereof - belies just how not-elite you are. Angry at what a commoner wrote at you on a public forum and trying to cast oneself into the highest tiers of society at the same time... Incredible
    - fallingknife 5y ago
      You can rationally be concerned without being one of the "elite". But if your solution involves trusting the real "elites" to censor information, then you would have to be one of them because you trust them to act in your interests.
    - rsj_hn 5y ago
      I'm not going to try to diagnose you, but in general, the outrage that people have that someone is saying the wrong thing online is exactly what I'm talking about. The definition of "elite" is of course murky, but that does not mean that it's not real. There is a very real process of preference cascades among the discourse of those who hold power in society together with the professional classes that identify with them (even if they themselves do not hold much power). The ability to control the public discourse has collapsed as centralized media has been converted into decentralized social media, which has led to panic and calls to bring social media back to heel. Part of this is the (correct) belief that Trump and other populist phenomena - for example Democratic Socialists and the rise of Bernie Sanders -- are made possible by people being able to communicate with each other directly, bypassing whatever Overton window the major media outlets try to set, and even forming their own tribal Overton windows with no regard to what respectable people at the Heritage Foundation or the New York Times or members of the Davos-set think about this. These outsiders can then win elections or at least threaten to win elections. That creates a moral panic about wrongthink, "misinformation", fact-checker discourse, and general terror that ordinary people are able to communicate freely, form their own opinions, and coordinate without the supervision of elite consensus.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        The point is surely that many people without much power take issue with the discourse that the internet has enabled, and that therefore it is incorrect to hear such opinions and conclude that they can only be about the retention of some kind of power. If you'd like, you could accuse them of "false consciousness" (long a favorite derisive put down from Leninists and their friends), or of simply being patsies for the powerful (more typical of the current US right). So I'm wondering what your explanation of this concern among non-elites?
        rsj_hn 5y ago
        > The point is surely that many people without much power take issue with the discourse that the internet has enabled Well sure, but that's always been the case. E.g. in the past, people who were outside the overton window had no choice but to get mad at views they disagreed with as they had great difficulty in getting their own voices heard. Now they can have their own voices heard. They can make their own overton window and completely ignore someone else's. Point being, there is a democratization at work, but whereas those on the outside always had to put up with disagreeable voices, now elites must also put up with it, which is something they are not used to, indeed they are offended by needing to - it's a real shock to them - and this is where the calls for censorship of social media are coming from.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- thenewnormal 5y ago
  Let's pick an example - there is very little scientific evidence to support the idea that wearing a mask provides any net public health benefit against your exhaled viral particles (and this is bourne out by a consideration of the construction, mesh size, etc, of cloth masks, compared to the size of viral particles). As far as I can see it, this statement is non-controversial and supported by the evidence (or lack thereof).
  - threeseed 5y ago
    In South Korea, major study found mandatory wearing of masks reduced COVID-19 rates by 93.5% and practicing both social distancing with masks on public transport during peak hours reduced infection rates by 98.1%. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abg3691?utm_campaign=SciMag&utm_source=Social&utm_medium=Twitter https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abg3691?utm_campa...
    - thenewnormal 5y ago
      It's all modelling. They also have to also say: > The limited number and type of experiments in this study means that there is uncertainty associated with our extrapolated findings. All results also use masks that are designed and rated for particular filtration properties, and are fitted with no leakage. I see basically none of the above in my day to day life. I'll say it again - there is incredibly limited evidence that the masks we all wear every day, with amount to random bits of cloth with gaping holes around the face (and are typically applied, removed, and re-used in a remarkably causal fashion for something that's supposed to contain biohazardous waste), do anyone any good.
      - threeseed 5y ago
        a) There are cited references within the paper that are based on real-world analysis. The onus is on you to refute the paper on its merits as well as those cited instead of dismissing anything based on modelling. b) Don't move the goalposts. You said that masks provide no net public health benefit. They clearly do. Some masks are obviously more effective than others but that doesn't change the fact that they are effective.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  Social media, youtube, the press. Anyplace comments can be censored.
eckmLJE 5y ago
I find your comment to be very vague -- what are you talking about exactly?
belltaco 5y ago
I blame the rampant misinformation and taking things out of context for that. > public persecution of anyone who was not willing to tow the regime message What regime? The side that tried to tell us covid was harmless? e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAh4uS4f78o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAh4uS4f78o
ashtonkem 5y ago
… we’re openly discussing this here. What are you talking about?
- netflixandkill 5y ago
  He's trying to waste people's time trolling.
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    Or was just clumsy and communicationally ineffective while attempting to note some trends and events which are not negligible at all: yes, we are discussing matters in a cool civilized manner (in general and sufficiently) here, while elsewhere moderators banned users who objected that vaccines should be a topic at all in sections dealing with the cutesy of small cats with big eyes (Reddit), or platforms decided that no discussion can be made about vaccine toxicity (YouTube), etc. It is refreshing that relative visibility and a better median allow us a proper environment. It's not granted.
kordlessagain 5y ago
You find it shocking that, even thought it's no longer done, discussing things openly will open up someone to censorship and public persecution? What did we do 25 years ago to discuss things? It sure the hell wasn't Twitter or Facebook. It was sitting down with the people around us and having a reasonable conversation that didn't include snippets from stupid corners of some webby thing. It required thought and a reasonable search of the information at hand, which was slower back then. We were more methodical in forming our opinions and what we put our attention on.
- brigandish 5y ago
  I’m all for having a chat with people in real life but all the internet has shown us is here is that we weren’t and are not very methodical in forming our opinions, the speed of incoming information or ability to communicate quicker over distance hasn’t worsened it, it’s just shown up how poor it is. There were plenty of conspiracy theories before Twitter and Facebook. Regardless, the best method for improving knowledge is making it available to criticism, which is why I favour free speech and openness over this silly culture of “fact checking”, algorithmic censorship and “hate” speech. If it means someone does or doesn’t do something someone else dislikes or thinks is wrong but is legal, like not taking a vaccine, then so be it, they’re adults.

nickthemagicman 5y ago

There's a term for it. It's called Social Cooling.

kwertyoowiyop 5y ago

Where is it that you’re not able to publicly or openly discuss things? There has never BEEN such a wealth of opinions and discussion freely accessible to everyone.

rsj_hn 5y ago
Correct, which is why there is a such a strong push to get Facebook to increase censorship. All of this communication freedom is absolutely freaking elites out, as their ability to control the discourse has slipped substantially.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  OK, so by many standards I'm "elite" (in terms of net worth, education etc.). But I don't think I'm part of the "elite" you're referring to, and I'm still concerned about the information flows enabled by the internet. Does that make me a member of said elite, or is there something else going on?
  - furgooswft13 5y ago
    It makes you a useful idiot.
  - alexashka 5y ago
    No, elite is defined by ability to affect non-trivial change within society. If you don't have that ability, you're just upper middle class.
    - davidw 5y ago
      So is the truck driver guy who got elected in NJ 'elite' or not?
      - throwaway6734 5y ago
        Elites are the people I don't like and the more I don't like them the more Elite they are.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        As he is likely to find out if he ever gets re-elected, he will be part of the elite soon, even if he rejects the label (which I am sure he will).
  - nawgz 5y ago
    > by many standards I'm "elite" (in terms of net worth High 8 figures+ net worth? Generationally wealthy? With government connections? Otherwise I don't think anyone cares about you
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      Inside the top 10% for net worth would be my criteria for this, and I think many other Americans too. No self-aggrandisement here, I just wouldn't want to pretend to be "an ordinary guy on the street" (whatever that actually means).
      - nawgz 5y ago
        That would make 30 million people “elite”. We mean the 0.01% who enact laws and escape enforcement, not people who live a comfortable life lmao
        PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        Back up-thread, I had written: > "OK, so by many standards I'm "elite" (in terms of net worth, education etc.). But I don't think I'm part of the "elite" you're referring to" explicitly acknowledging different (simultaneous, potentially overlapping) versions of what "elite" could mean. Yet here you are dickering about one definition versus another.
        nawgz 5y ago
        I surely have never heard any one cast the top 10% of some thing as the "elite" of said domain, so I hoped to enlighten you. I must say though, your emotional control - specifically lack thereof - belies just how not-elite you are. Angry at what a commoner wrote at you on a public forum and trying to cast oneself into the highest tiers of society at the same time... Incredible
  - fallingknife 5y ago
    You can rationally be concerned without being one of the "elite". But if your solution involves trusting the real "elites" to censor information, then you would have to be one of them because you trust them to act in your interests.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    I'm not going to try to diagnose you, but in general, the outrage that people have that someone is saying the wrong thing online is exactly what I'm talking about. The definition of "elite" is of course murky, but that does not mean that it's not real. There is a very real process of preference cascades among the discourse of those who hold power in society together with the professional classes that identify with them (even if they themselves do not hold much power). The ability to control the public discourse has collapsed as centralized media has been converted into decentralized social media, which has led to panic and calls to bring social media back to heel. Part of this is the (correct) belief that Trump and other populist phenomena - for example Democratic Socialists and the rise of Bernie Sanders -- are made possible by people being able to communicate with each other directly, bypassing whatever Overton window the major media outlets try to set, and even forming their own tribal Overton windows with no regard to what respectable people at the Heritage Foundation or the New York Times or members of the Davos-set think about this. These outsiders can then win elections or at least threaten to win elections. That creates a moral panic about wrongthink, "misinformation", fact-checker discourse, and general terror that ordinary people are able to communicate freely, form their own opinions, and coordinate without the supervision of elite consensus.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      The point is surely that many people without much power take issue with the discourse that the internet has enabled, and that therefore it is incorrect to hear such opinions and conclude that they can only be about the retention of some kind of power. If you'd like, you could accuse them of "false consciousness" (long a favorite derisive put down from Leninists and their friends), or of simply being patsies for the powerful (more typical of the current US right). So I'm wondering what your explanation of this concern among non-elites?
      - rsj_hn 5y ago
        > The point is surely that many people without much power take issue with the discourse that the internet has enabled Well sure, but that's always been the case. E.g. in the past, people who were outside the overton window had no choice but to get mad at views they disagreed with as they had great difficulty in getting their own voices heard. Now they can have their own voices heard. They can make their own overton window and completely ignore someone else's. Point being, there is a democratization at work, but whereas those on the outside always had to put up with disagreeable voices, now elites must also put up with it, which is something they are not used to, indeed they are offended by needing to - it's a real shock to them - and this is where the calls for censorship of social media are coming from.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
thenewnormal 5y ago
Let's pick an example - there is very little scientific evidence to support the idea that wearing a mask provides any net public health benefit against your exhaled viral particles (and this is bourne out by a consideration of the construction, mesh size, etc, of cloth masks, compared to the size of viral particles). As far as I can see it, this statement is non-controversial and supported by the evidence (or lack thereof).
- threeseed 5y ago
  In South Korea, major study found mandatory wearing of masks reduced COVID-19 rates by 93.5% and practicing both social distancing with masks on public transport during peak hours reduced infection rates by 98.1%. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abg3691?utm_campaign=SciMag&utm_source=Social&utm_medium=Twitter https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abg3691?utm_campa...
  - thenewnormal 5y ago
    It's all modelling. They also have to also say: > The limited number and type of experiments in this study means that there is uncertainty associated with our extrapolated findings. All results also use masks that are designed and rated for particular filtration properties, and are fitted with no leakage. I see basically none of the above in my day to day life. I'll say it again - there is incredibly limited evidence that the masks we all wear every day, with amount to random bits of cloth with gaping holes around the face (and are typically applied, removed, and re-used in a remarkably causal fashion for something that's supposed to contain biohazardous waste), do anyone any good.
    - threeseed 5y ago
      a) There are cited references within the paper that are based on real-world analysis. The onus is on you to refute the paper on its merits as well as those cited instead of dismissing anything based on modelling. b) Don't move the goalposts. You said that masks provide no net public health benefit. They clearly do. Some masks are obviously more effective than others but that doesn't change the fact that they are effective.
ipaddr 5y ago
Social media, youtube, the press. Anyplace comments can be censored.

eckmLJE 5y ago

I find your comment to be very vague -- what are you talking about exactly?

belltaco 5y ago

I blame the rampant misinformation and taking things out of context for that. > public persecution of anyone who was not willing to tow the regime message What regime? The side that tried to tell us covid was harmless? e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAh4uS4f78o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAh4uS4f78o

ashtonkem 5y ago

… we’re openly discussing this here. What are you talking about?

netflixandkill 5y ago
He's trying to waste people's time trolling.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  Or was just clumsy and communicationally ineffective while attempting to note some trends and events which are not negligible at all: yes, we are discussing matters in a cool civilized manner (in general and sufficiently) here, while elsewhere moderators banned users who objected that vaccines should be a topic at all in sections dealing with the cutesy of small cats with big eyes (Reddit), or platforms decided that no discussion can be made about vaccine toxicity (YouTube), etc. It is refreshing that relative visibility and a better median allow us a proper environment. It's not granted.

kordlessagain 5y ago

You find it shocking that, even thought it's no longer done, discussing things openly will open up someone to censorship and public persecution? What did we do 25 years ago to discuss things? It sure the hell wasn't Twitter or Facebook. It was sitting down with the people around us and having a reasonable conversation that didn't include snippets from stupid corners of some webby thing. It required thought and a reasonable search of the information at hand, which was slower back then. We were more methodical in forming our opinions and what we put our attention on.

brigandish 5y ago
I’m all for having a chat with people in real life but all the internet has shown us is here is that we weren’t and are not very methodical in forming our opinions, the speed of incoming information or ability to communicate quicker over distance hasn’t worsened it, it’s just shown up how poor it is. There were plenty of conspiracy theories before Twitter and Facebook. Regardless, the best method for improving knowledge is making it available to criticism, which is why I favour free speech and openness over this silly culture of “fact checking”, algorithmic censorship and “hate” speech. If it means someone does or doesn’t do something someone else dislikes or thinks is wrong but is legal, like not taking a vaccine, then so be it, they’re adults.