9 ms·

The way social media works today is crazy. Like someone's tweet can be cherry picked out of 10,000+ tweets to control any narrative about that person. I often d

The way social media works today is crazy. Like someone's tweet can be cherry picked out of 10,000+ tweets to control any narrative about that person. I often delete tweets out of pure regret and often think how the tweet would be weaponized against me in the future. This is why I've largely shifted to messenger apps with disappearing messages turned on. Some things just need to be ephemeral and forgotten about.

belltaco 4y ago
Do you think the tweets by King referred to in the article in the article are okay to make on Twitter just because someone has 10K other tweets? >"A routine background check of King's social media revealed two racist jokes, one comparing black mothers to gorillas and another making light of black people killed in the holocaust
- josephcsible 4y ago
  You're missing the point. Petty theft is bad but petty thieves don't deserve capital punishment. Similarly, those tweets are bad but King didn't deserve to be canceled for them.
  - belltaco 4y ago
    Is it considered petty theft by all the victims of the latest racist mass shooting in NYand their friends and families? King literally dehumanized Black women thus making it sound like its okay to kill them in cold bloaod and livestream it. There would be no deterrence for that if people didn't find it unacceptable.
    - josephcsible 4y ago
      > Is it considered petty theft by all the victims of the latest racist mass shooting in NYand their friends and families? No, but King isn't the one who committed that mass shooting. You shouldn't hold him responsible for others' actions.
      - belltaco 4y ago
        By the same metric you should also not hold the reporter who revealed the racist tweets responsible for the actions of Anheuser-Busch and other companies. He didn't do the canceling.
        josephcsible 4y ago
        I'd argue that the reporter did do the canceling, though. Canceling happens in three stages: 1. Someone with access to a wide audience learns of a minor transgression, blows it out of proportion, and blasts it to them all 2. People who heard about the minor transgression start pressuring the employer/school/business partners/social media moderators/etc. to cut ties 3. The employer/school/business partners/social media moderators/etc. kowtow to the pressure and actually do cut ties If you've done any of those steps, you've participated in cancel culture.
        belltaco 4y ago
        Now do the same analysis for racism.
ziml77 4y ago
Not just that they can cherry-pick, but they can go back many years to find words of your own to turn against you. Peoples' positions on all sorts of topics change over time. Punishing them for ever having a certain point of view doesn't help anyone. Instead people should be happy to see that change happen. It means the person took in new information about the world and other people and adjusted their opinions to match. That is far better than someone who digs their feet into a position and cover their ears, even if that position does turn out to be the better one.
loceng 4y ago
I think the experience Elon Musk had in regards to this effect is why he developed a strong aversion for misinformation/lies - and why he seems to have genuinely decided to acquire Twitter; even if he's playing a game to see if either he can get it cheaper than his offer by forcing Twitter to be transparent with its numbers, or deciding its not worth anywhere near $44 billion - and perhaps launching his own platform; he does have x.com - not the best for branding, but quick to type at least; x marks the spot. I don't think ephemeral messages really solve the problem because the information that seems most often weaponized are public posts - or a person can just take a screenshot of it if they're interacting with you for the express purpose of gathering something they could frame in a bad light against you.
- belltaco 4y ago
  >I think the experience Elon Musk had in regards to this effect is why he developed a strong aversion for misinformation/lies I'm lost. Musk himself was spreading misinformation and lies about Covid, e.g. about HCQ/Ivermectin being magic cures to his 62M twitter followers. What lies and misinformation are you talking about?
  - loceng 4y ago
    So you're certain that the pharmaceutical industrial complex had nothing to do with suppressing existing, safe medications, by spreading propaganda that they weren't effective - and even dangerous - rather that you need to buy their newer, expensive treatment? Are you so sure Musk was spreading misinformation? Did you know that Pfizers new anti-viral drug targets the same pathway that Ivermectin apparently uses as well? I've seen that stated elsewhere - but also someone on HN not so long ago brought it up too, and provided citations to that research. Are you aware of how much money and what % of ad spend on mainstream-mass media channels is paid for by the pharmaceutical industry? Ads which are solely meant to manipulate people to believe something to then do certain behaviours they otherwise wouldn't have? Is it starting to feel like a conspiracy theory to you, even though the logic holds?
    - belltaco 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
eddyfromtheblok 4y ago
when I, and others, did moderation of a community primarily communicating with Slack, using the channels to cause drama was an easy way to get yourself talked about in the moderator chat. Eventually, some of us moved to Telegram, which had the nice feature of letting you know when someone had taken screenshots of 'private' messages. There's ways around that if you don't want the recipient to know you are recording them, of course, but I think the lesson from all that was if you don't want to get yourself in trouble for stirring the pot, then take your conversations offline, with people, in person.

belltaco 4y ago

Do you think the tweets by King referred to in the article in the article are okay to make on Twitter just because someone has 10K other tweets? >"A routine background check of King's social media revealed two racist jokes, one comparing black mothers to gorillas and another making light of black people killed in the holocaust

josephcsible 4y ago
You're missing the point. Petty theft is bad but petty thieves don't deserve capital punishment. Similarly, those tweets are bad but King didn't deserve to be canceled for them.
- belltaco 4y ago
  Is it considered petty theft by all the victims of the latest racist mass shooting in NYand their friends and families? King literally dehumanized Black women thus making it sound like its okay to kill them in cold bloaod and livestream it. There would be no deterrence for that if people didn't find it unacceptable.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    > Is it considered petty theft by all the victims of the latest racist mass shooting in NYand their friends and families? No, but King isn't the one who committed that mass shooting. You shouldn't hold him responsible for others' actions.
    - belltaco 4y ago
      By the same metric you should also not hold the reporter who revealed the racist tweets responsible for the actions of Anheuser-Busch and other companies. He didn't do the canceling.
      - josephcsible 4y ago
        I'd argue that the reporter did do the canceling, though. Canceling happens in three stages: 1. Someone with access to a wide audience learns of a minor transgression, blows it out of proportion, and blasts it to them all 2. People who heard about the minor transgression start pressuring the employer/school/business partners/social media moderators/etc. to cut ties 3. The employer/school/business partners/social media moderators/etc. kowtow to the pressure and actually do cut ties If you've done any of those steps, you've participated in cancel culture.
        belltaco 4y ago
        Now do the same analysis for racism.

ziml77 4y ago

Not just that they can cherry-pick, but they can go back many years to find words of your own to turn against you. Peoples' positions on all sorts of topics change over time. Punishing them for ever having a certain point of view doesn't help anyone. Instead people should be happy to see that change happen. It means the person took in new information about the world and other people and adjusted their opinions to match. That is far better than someone who digs their feet into a position and cover their ears, even if that position does turn out to be the better one.

loceng 4y ago

I think the experience Elon Musk had in regards to this effect is why he developed a strong aversion for misinformation/lies - and why he seems to have genuinely decided to acquire Twitter; even if he's playing a game to see if either he can get it cheaper than his offer by forcing Twitter to be transparent with its numbers, or deciding its not worth anywhere near $44 billion - and perhaps launching his own platform; he does have x.com - not the best for branding, but quick to type at least; x marks the spot. I don't think ephemeral messages really solve the problem because the information that seems most often weaponized are public posts - or a person can just take a screenshot of it if they're interacting with you for the express purpose of gathering something they could frame in a bad light against you.

belltaco 4y ago
>I think the experience Elon Musk had in regards to this effect is why he developed a strong aversion for misinformation/lies I'm lost. Musk himself was spreading misinformation and lies about Covid, e.g. about HCQ/Ivermectin being magic cures to his 62M twitter followers. What lies and misinformation are you talking about?
- loceng 4y ago
  So you're certain that the pharmaceutical industrial complex had nothing to do with suppressing existing, safe medications, by spreading propaganda that they weren't effective - and even dangerous - rather that you need to buy their newer, expensive treatment? Are you so sure Musk was spreading misinformation? Did you know that Pfizers new anti-viral drug targets the same pathway that Ivermectin apparently uses as well? I've seen that stated elsewhere - but also someone on HN not so long ago brought it up too, and provided citations to that research. Are you aware of how much money and what % of ad spend on mainstream-mass media channels is paid for by the pharmaceutical industry? Ads which are solely meant to manipulate people to believe something to then do certain behaviours they otherwise wouldn't have? Is it starting to feel like a conspiracy theory to you, even though the logic holds?
  - belltaco 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

eddyfromtheblok 4y ago

when I, and others, did moderation of a community primarily communicating with Slack, using the channels to cause drama was an easy way to get yourself talked about in the moderator chat. Eventually, some of us moved to Telegram, which had the nice feature of letting you know when someone had taken screenshots of 'private' messages. There's ways around that if you don't want the recipient to know you are recording them, of course, but I think the lesson from all that was if you don't want to get yourself in trouble for stirring the pot, then take your conversations offline, with people, in person.