6 ms·

Cancel culture is not the result of free speech, it's the result of a toxic social environment. Here are some actionable solutions that don't require limiting

Cancel culture is not the result of free speech, it's the result of a toxic social environment. Here are some actionable solutions that don't require limiting free speech: 1. Improve labor laws so craven employers can't just dump their employee because they said something online (unrelated to the company on their personal time) and people are complaining. 2. Regulate social media algorithms to prevent the feedback loops that lead to events like a woman with two followers becoming the target of 20 million people. 3. Change media incentives to improve the quality of journalism and decrease click-bait and outrage-chasing.

colinmhayes 4y ago
You don't think employers should be able to fire people who cost them money?
- ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
  Definitely not in these circumstances but the cost is irrelevant to this discussion. Should employers be able to fire cancer patients who go on sick leave for months or years? Should employers be able to fire a green man if their clients hate green people? What matters is where you set the bar for someone losing their means of survival, in what circumstances would you like your neighbour to go homeless: Because he has cancer, because he is green, or because he said something controversial in public. I don't want any of these, and I believe a healthy society should have strong enough labour laws to put the employee before the employer in these circumstances.
hotpotamus 4y ago
Doesn't free speech mean the freedom to create a toxic social environment?
- ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
  Sure, if I insult my neighbour, I exercise free speech and create a toxic social environment. But how does that relate to the phenomenons I outlined to contextualize the toxicity I'm referring to?
  - hotpotamus 4y ago
    I mean, do employers not have freedom of association? I don't understand how you'd compel them to employ people whose speech they don't like for instance.
    - ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
      The rights of one man end where the rights of another begin. I don't believe the right of an employer to freedom of association supersede that of his employees to their financial safety and the survival of their family. As for compelling them to not fire their employees under specific circumstances you use labour laws.
      - hotpotamus 4y ago
        Yeah, I'd like someone to give me money while I yell whatever I want at them, but I don't see it happening. Good luck with that.
        ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
        Your workplace behaviour doesn't fall under the scope of the laws we're discussing but thanks, I've been enjoying it while I worked all over Europe.
        hotpotamus 4y ago
        I fail to see how my workplace behavior would be relevant to what I said?
        ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
        If you yell at your employer, it is workplace behaviour.
        4y ago
angst_ridden 4y ago
Should employers be required to retain employees who say things that damage their business? Are algorithms free speech? Who gets to determine which algorithms I'm allowed to implement to promote or demote comments on my private media platform? How do you propose altering media incentives without restricting people's freedom of expression? Passing laws?
- ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
  To your first question, an emphatic yes. That's the point of labour laws, employers rarely fire people for fun, they do it for economic reasons. I expected your second and third questions, and I agree with the premise to some extent. If algorithms promote or demote some speech they affect free speech. If you accept that, free speech does not exist online and never can by definition. It's a spectrum however and it's hard to reason about because recommendation algorithms are complicated, have many parameters and are a black box to consumers. If a company promotes posts that benefit it financially, that's very far from free speech, if a company promotes posts based on a random generator it's very close to free speech but probably useless to users. I don't have a bite-sized answer to what must be done, it's a project that must be started and tested in the real world. I'd certainly prefer the government to be in charge of what gets implemented, it's a matter of public good that should not be left to private corporations. My naive, off-the-top of my head idea would be a range of public, open source algorithms cautioned by the government that prevent companies from exploiting their users. There are other softer ideas depending on your beliefs wrt the government, for example you could let all companies use any algorithms but force them to publish them. To me social media is equivalent to tobacco, sugar and gambling, it's highly toxic, exploits our baser instincts, and cannot be solved by an individualist perspective but social media is a fairly recent phenomenon so I think it'll take a few decades before we grasp the full severity of the problem. W.r.t the press, I think the problem is apparent but I'm hesitant to answer because I'm not knowledgeable enough about the domain. Often technological solutions get discussed here, like micropayments & cie, which don't seem to be doing well. I think there is something to be said for more diversity in the industry so it's more representative of the people they're supposed to inform, but positive discrimination is a tricky subject. There are also lot of former government employees working for big media companies so we're not starting from a blank state wrt the influence of the government, passing laws could rebalance things but I honestly don't know what form they'd take. I know addressing perverse incentives doesn't have to lead to a curtailing of free speech.
cycomanic 4y ago
> Cancel culture is not the result of free speech, it's the result of a toxic social environment. > Here are some actionable solutions that don't require limiting free speech: > 1. Improve labor laws so craven employers can't just dump their employee because they said something online (unrelated to the company on their personal time) and people are complaining. Well that would mean changing the laws so that people can't be fired for essentially any reason like it is at the moment. Or are you proposing people should be able to get fired for any reason except for saying reprehensible things online? > 2. Regulate social media algorithms to prevent the feedback loops that lead to events like a woman with two followers becoming the target of 20 million people. Generally a good idea, how? Also does that include female journalists being targeted by a horde of guys who are supposedly concerned about gaming journalism? > 3. Change media incentives to improve the quality of journalism and decrease click-bait and outrage-chasing. I could get behind this, but how would we do that. More media financed through taxes/fees?
- ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
  I think stronger labour laws are generally a good idea, employment is survival. The full extent is out of scope for this discussion but I've seen many deplorable examples of employee abuse beyond being fired for expressing an opinion. Reprehensible is an interesting term, I think it's at the core of this issue. I gave a couple ideas in a comment below for algorithms so I'll you check that out. I don't understand the basis of the question with regards to the journalist, could you elaborate why you'd want a different algorithm for this female journalist? With regards to the media I answered that in another comment too. Tax incentives and government subsidies are an idea but it's tricky, it depends on the implementation. We have a lot of government influence over the media already so we're not starting from a blank slate. Everything needs to be weighed, I don't have the skills to do so.
  - cycomanic 4y ago
    > I think stronger labour laws are generally a good idea, employment is survival. The full extent is out of scope for this discussion but I've seen many deplorable examples of employee abuse beyond being fired for expressing an opinion. Reprehensible is an interesting term, I think it's at the core of this issue. I think some views are reprehensible. Someone who says e.g. black people are subhuman or glorifies the Nazis is exposing reprehensible views in my opinion. And I am very adamant that I don't need to be tolerant of this intolerance. That doesn't necessarily mean that those views should be forbidden, but I will certainly not interact with you if you expose those views. They clearly cross the line. > I gave a couple ideas in a comment below for algorithms so I'll you check that out. OK will do > I don't understand the basis of the question with regards to the journalist, could you elaborate why you'd want a different algorithm for this female journalist? Sorry I was not sure how to take your comment, so I was not fully engaging in good faith. I was referring to gamer gate. But I apologise it was not a good comment. > With regards to the media I answered that in another comment too. Tax incentives and government subsidies are an idea but it's tricky, it depends on the implementation. We have a lot of government influence over the media already so we're not starting from a blank slate. Everything needs to be weighed, I don't have the skills to do so. I agree with you, this is definitely not easy. I do observe that broadly speaking "government sponsored" media, like e..g the BBC in the UK, the ABC in Australia or the German ARD, ZDF,... are significantly less sensationalist.

colinmhayes 4y ago

You don't think employers should be able to fire people who cost them money?

ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
Definitely not in these circumstances but the cost is irrelevant to this discussion. Should employers be able to fire cancer patients who go on sick leave for months or years? Should employers be able to fire a green man if their clients hate green people? What matters is where you set the bar for someone losing their means of survival, in what circumstances would you like your neighbour to go homeless: Because he has cancer, because he is green, or because he said something controversial in public. I don't want any of these, and I believe a healthy society should have strong enough labour laws to put the employee before the employer in these circumstances.

hotpotamus 4y ago

Doesn't free speech mean the freedom to create a toxic social environment?

ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
Sure, if I insult my neighbour, I exercise free speech and create a toxic social environment. But how does that relate to the phenomenons I outlined to contextualize the toxicity I'm referring to?
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  I mean, do employers not have freedom of association? I don't understand how you'd compel them to employ people whose speech they don't like for instance.
  - ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
    The rights of one man end where the rights of another begin. I don't believe the right of an employer to freedom of association supersede that of his employees to their financial safety and the survival of their family. As for compelling them to not fire their employees under specific circumstances you use labour laws.
    - hotpotamus 4y ago
      Yeah, I'd like someone to give me money while I yell whatever I want at them, but I don't see it happening. Good luck with that.
      - ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
        Your workplace behaviour doesn't fall under the scope of the laws we're discussing but thanks, I've been enjoying it while I worked all over Europe.
        hotpotamus 4y ago
        I fail to see how my workplace behavior would be relevant to what I said?
        ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
        If you yell at your employer, it is workplace behaviour.
        4y ago

angst_ridden 4y ago

Should employers be required to retain employees who say things that damage their business? Are algorithms free speech? Who gets to determine which algorithms I'm allowed to implement to promote or demote comments on my private media platform? How do you propose altering media incentives without restricting people's freedom of expression? Passing laws?

ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
To your first question, an emphatic yes. That's the point of labour laws, employers rarely fire people for fun, they do it for economic reasons. I expected your second and third questions, and I agree with the premise to some extent. If algorithms promote or demote some speech they affect free speech. If you accept that, free speech does not exist online and never can by definition. It's a spectrum however and it's hard to reason about because recommendation algorithms are complicated, have many parameters and are a black box to consumers. If a company promotes posts that benefit it financially, that's very far from free speech, if a company promotes posts based on a random generator it's very close to free speech but probably useless to users. I don't have a bite-sized answer to what must be done, it's a project that must be started and tested in the real world. I'd certainly prefer the government to be in charge of what gets implemented, it's a matter of public good that should not be left to private corporations. My naive, off-the-top of my head idea would be a range of public, open source algorithms cautioned by the government that prevent companies from exploiting their users. There are other softer ideas depending on your beliefs wrt the government, for example you could let all companies use any algorithms but force them to publish them. To me social media is equivalent to tobacco, sugar and gambling, it's highly toxic, exploits our baser instincts, and cannot be solved by an individualist perspective but social media is a fairly recent phenomenon so I think it'll take a few decades before we grasp the full severity of the problem. W.r.t the press, I think the problem is apparent but I'm hesitant to answer because I'm not knowledgeable enough about the domain. Often technological solutions get discussed here, like micropayments & cie, which don't seem to be doing well. I think there is something to be said for more diversity in the industry so it's more representative of the people they're supposed to inform, but positive discrimination is a tricky subject. There are also lot of former government employees working for big media companies so we're not starting from a blank state wrt the influence of the government, passing laws could rebalance things but I honestly don't know what form they'd take. I know addressing perverse incentives doesn't have to lead to a curtailing of free speech.

cycomanic 4y ago

> Cancel culture is not the result of free speech, it's the result of a toxic social environment. > Here are some actionable solutions that don't require limiting free speech: > 1. Improve labor laws so craven employers can't just dump their employee because they said something online (unrelated to the company on their personal time) and people are complaining. Well that would mean changing the laws so that people can't be fired for essentially any reason like it is at the moment. Or are you proposing people should be able to get fired for any reason except for saying reprehensible things online? > 2. Regulate social media algorithms to prevent the feedback loops that lead to events like a woman with two followers becoming the target of 20 million people. Generally a good idea, how? Also does that include female journalists being targeted by a horde of guys who are supposedly concerned about gaming journalism? > 3. Change media incentives to improve the quality of journalism and decrease click-bait and outrage-chasing. I could get behind this, but how would we do that. More media financed through taxes/fees?

ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
I think stronger labour laws are generally a good idea, employment is survival. The full extent is out of scope for this discussion but I've seen many deplorable examples of employee abuse beyond being fired for expressing an opinion. Reprehensible is an interesting term, I think it's at the core of this issue. I gave a couple ideas in a comment below for algorithms so I'll you check that out. I don't understand the basis of the question with regards to the journalist, could you elaborate why you'd want a different algorithm for this female journalist? With regards to the media I answered that in another comment too. Tax incentives and government subsidies are an idea but it's tricky, it depends on the implementation. We have a lot of government influence over the media already so we're not starting from a blank slate. Everything needs to be weighed, I don't have the skills to do so.
- cycomanic 4y ago
  > I think stronger labour laws are generally a good idea, employment is survival. The full extent is out of scope for this discussion but I've seen many deplorable examples of employee abuse beyond being fired for expressing an opinion. Reprehensible is an interesting term, I think it's at the core of this issue. I think some views are reprehensible. Someone who says e.g. black people are subhuman or glorifies the Nazis is exposing reprehensible views in my opinion. And I am very adamant that I don't need to be tolerant of this intolerance. That doesn't necessarily mean that those views should be forbidden, but I will certainly not interact with you if you expose those views. They clearly cross the line. > I gave a couple ideas in a comment below for algorithms so I'll you check that out. OK will do > I don't understand the basis of the question with regards to the journalist, could you elaborate why you'd want a different algorithm for this female journalist? Sorry I was not sure how to take your comment, so I was not fully engaging in good faith. I was referring to gamer gate. But I apologise it was not a good comment. > With regards to the media I answered that in another comment too. Tax incentives and government subsidies are an idea but it's tricky, it depends on the implementation. We have a lot of government influence over the media already so we're not starting from a blank slate. Everything needs to be weighed, I don't have the skills to do so. I agree with you, this is definitely not easy. I do observe that broadly speaking "government sponsored" media, like e..g the BBC in the UK, the ABC in Australia or the German ARD, ZDF,... are significantly less sensationalist.