7 ms·

I am both happy to hear BBC talking about this, and also can't help but feel like they (alongside with the rest of MSM) are the main source of that problem (eve

I am both happy to hear BBC talking about this, and also can't help but feel like they (alongside with the rest of MSM) are the main source of that problem (even bigger than social media, as they shape what social media landscape looks like). We just went through the most censorious (and self-censorship inducing) few years in my living memory (I am almost 40), where people who we "asking questions" were called all kind of names by all kind of news outlets.

djaychela 4y ago
I'd disagree that the BBC is more responsible for a backlash than social media is. I'd suggest that it's social media that shapes the wider media landscape (particularly in recent years twitter), not the other way round. There's also a huge difference between "just asking questions" and "just asking questions" - and there are a huge number of people who are doing so in a bad-faith manner. All IMO, of course.
- mantas 4y ago
  A good chunk of social media is mainstream media, discussions around mainstream articles or driven by people working in mainstream media.
- 543g43g43 4y ago
  I'd rather live in a world where raising certain questions is seen as "bad faith", than a world where the experts have decided that certain topics are "too important" to be discussed. Also - if your point of view is threatened by people just asking questions, then you really should think some more.
- kryogen1c 4y ago
  > There's also a huge difference between "just asking questions" and "just asking questions" What is that? Let's pretend I'm a card carrying jackboot wearing nazi. What question could I just ask, in bad faith? How come black people commit more crime? How come more black people are in prison? Those are actually fantastic questions that, seriously considered, could lead to some significant societal change. I can't think of an instance where the good/bad faith of the asker has any bearing on the question.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    > I can't think of an instance where the good/bad faith of the asker has any bearing on the question. It often shows up more clearly in the follow-up questions. "But doesn't that mean that..."
  - jakopo87 4y ago
    From the Rational Wiki[0]: "Just asking questions (also known as JAQing off) is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one's opponent; rather than laboriously having to prove that all politicians are reptoid scum, one can pull out one single odd piece of evidence and force the opponent to explain why the evidence is wrong." I think it's about this. [0] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions
phpisthebest 4y ago
Social Media is the root cause, the problem is Social media became the "Source of news" for most "journalists" who lazily just regurgitate the same info, using the same "sources" of twitter, facebook, etc.
- thefounder 4y ago
  I highly doubt that. How did social media increase self censorship in the media?
  - naasking 4y ago
    Social media virality started creating juicy headlines in mainstream media.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    I think you misunderstood the comment, the self censorship is in the wider public not the media, the media via social media is the cause of the censorship The chilling effect is that the "traditional" media see something on social media, say a "racist" post (something they deem to be racist anyway) of some normal person, then amplifies triggering wide scale harassment, and "canceling" of the person.
    - thefounder 4y ago
      The real issue is not having laws to prevent firing someone for writing political incorrect stuff on social media not that mainstream media amplifies whatever someone posts on social media.
      - nine_k 4y ago
        Such laws, if existed, would be of limited help. Would you enjoy to continue working when your boss badly wants to fire you, and your colleagues badly want to have you fired, but they can't by the law? How soon would you leave by yourself? Being fired usually at least involves some severance pay. These laws could help though if it's just your boss who wants to fire you, but most of your colleagues would like to support you, even if silently.
35amxn35 4y ago
Bingo. Most so-called journalists should be hanged in public streets.
- dang 4y ago
  Can you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamewar comments? You've been doing it repeatedly, unfortunately. It also looks like you've been using HN primarily for ideological battle, and that's a line at which we ban accounts, so please stop doing that. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=primarily%20test%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
eulgro 4y ago
I use uBlacklist to highlight results for good websites like reddit, stackoverflow, or official documentation. It also blocks hundreds of SEO websites and low quality stuff (quora, geeksforgeeks, clones of stackoverflow). You can even block stuff by title, like "\d+ (best|essential|...).*". Sometimes a get 2 results per page as a result of this.
ambicapter 4y ago
Probably because "asking questions" or "just asking questions" is a known bad-faith tactic https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=JAQing%20off https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=JAQing%20off
- tiahura 4y ago
  Socrates deserved to die.
- scandox 4y ago
  Well as Ngozi Adichie says we must reestablish good faith as the default position. If we jettison good faith and always assume bad faith then indeed asking questions becomes impossible. But I'm sure that's not what people want. She does seem to acknowledge that social media is not the best place for.good faith debate.
- trention 4y ago
  - Kye 4y ago
    >> "Not when applied to the quasi-religious civil morality of the modern left." You could put this sentence in a museum. A real cultural artifact. It's nonsense, but very much worth preserving as a reflection of the rhetoric of our times. edit: They can file it in the gallery of things people once considered true.
    - trention 4y ago
- dbfx 4y ago
  Urban dictionary is hardly a good enough source to do the heavy lifting you're trying to use it for.
- 543g43g43 4y ago
lapcat 4y ago
The article talks about Salman Rushdie. The MSM didn't put a fatwa on Rushdie, and then stab him nearly to death. That was ultra-religious conservatives. Ultra-religious conservatives are also responsible for much of the censorship in the United States, especially in schools, refusing to allow kids to read certain books or be taught certain subjects. Getting "called all kind of names" is not censorship, it's just criticism. That's actually an exercise of free speech by the name callers, don't you think? [EDIT:] The irony of voting this comment down until it's effectively censored. Sigh.
- HPsquared 4y ago
  It was indeed mainstream in Iran though. I mean, the fatwa was issued by the Supreme Leader - can hardly get more mainstream than that.
- Jarmsy 4y ago
  I'm guessing Rushdie is the only specific case referred to in the article because they can assume that the vast majority of their audience will consider what happened to him abhorrent. However, they then slip into much more general terms, as though by induction any writers facing any kind of social consequences for expressing their bigoted views is the same as the fatwa. That they neglect entirely to make any mention of Adichie's own case seems disingenuous.
- robomartin 4y ago
  > ultra-religious conservatives As an atheist I have to object to this comment. There's a vast difference between what you call "ultra-religious" across cultures and religions. For example, I have Born Again Christian friends who never miss an opportunity to try to bring me out of the dark side. I also have "ultra religious" Jewish friends. In both cases some of the nicest people you will ever meet. We have to be careful not to classify-and-vilify. Every single one of us could easily fit into a classification worth of some level of vilification. That only serves to create further division and friction and does not make for a better society.
  - lapcat 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
RickJWagner 4y ago
Yes, exactly. Especially in some work settings, where 'approved' thought is rewarded and 'discouraged' thought is punished. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you can find it in places like Reddit. Post something nice about a politician from one side of the political aisle. Then post something nice about a politician from the other side. You'll see pretty quickly what it's about.

djaychela 4y ago

I'd disagree that the BBC is more responsible for a backlash than social media is. I'd suggest that it's social media that shapes the wider media landscape (particularly in recent years twitter), not the other way round. There's also a huge difference between "just asking questions" and "just asking questions" - and there are a huge number of people who are doing so in a bad-faith manner. All IMO, of course.

mantas 4y ago
A good chunk of social media is mainstream media, discussions around mainstream articles or driven by people working in mainstream media.
543g43g43 4y ago
I'd rather live in a world where raising certain questions is seen as "bad faith", than a world where the experts have decided that certain topics are "too important" to be discussed. Also - if your point of view is threatened by people just asking questions, then you really should think some more.
kryogen1c 4y ago
> There's also a huge difference between "just asking questions" and "just asking questions" What is that? Let's pretend I'm a card carrying jackboot wearing nazi. What question could I just ask, in bad faith? How come black people commit more crime? How come more black people are in prison? Those are actually fantastic questions that, seriously considered, could lead to some significant societal change. I can't think of an instance where the good/bad faith of the asker has any bearing on the question.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  > I can't think of an instance where the good/bad faith of the asker has any bearing on the question. It often shows up more clearly in the follow-up questions. "But doesn't that mean that..."
- jakopo87 4y ago
  From the Rational Wiki[0]: "Just asking questions (also known as JAQing off) is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one's opponent; rather than laboriously having to prove that all politicians are reptoid scum, one can pull out one single odd piece of evidence and force the opponent to explain why the evidence is wrong." I think it's about this. [0] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions

phpisthebest 4y ago

Social Media is the root cause, the problem is Social media became the "Source of news" for most "journalists" who lazily just regurgitate the same info, using the same "sources" of twitter, facebook, etc.

thefounder 4y ago
I highly doubt that. How did social media increase self censorship in the media?
- naasking 4y ago
  Social media virality started creating juicy headlines in mainstream media.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  I think you misunderstood the comment, the self censorship is in the wider public not the media, the media via social media is the cause of the censorship The chilling effect is that the "traditional" media see something on social media, say a "racist" post (something they deem to be racist anyway) of some normal person, then amplifies triggering wide scale harassment, and "canceling" of the person.
  - thefounder 4y ago
    The real issue is not having laws to prevent firing someone for writing political incorrect stuff on social media not that mainstream media amplifies whatever someone posts on social media.
    - nine_k 4y ago
      Such laws, if existed, would be of limited help. Would you enjoy to continue working when your boss badly wants to fire you, and your colleagues badly want to have you fired, but they can't by the law? How soon would you leave by yourself? Being fired usually at least involves some severance pay. These laws could help though if it's just your boss who wants to fire you, but most of your colleagues would like to support you, even if silently.

35amxn35 4y ago

Bingo. Most so-called journalists should be hanged in public streets.

dang 4y ago
Can you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamewar comments? You've been doing it repeatedly, unfortunately. It also looks like you've been using HN primarily for ideological battle, and that's a line at which we ban accounts, so please stop doing that. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=primarily%20test%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.

eulgro 4y ago

I use uBlacklist to highlight results for good websites like reddit, stackoverflow, or official documentation. It also blocks hundreds of SEO websites and low quality stuff (quora, geeksforgeeks, clones of stackoverflow). You can even block stuff by title, like "\d+ (best|essential|...).*". Sometimes a get 2 results per page as a result of this.

ambicapter 4y ago

Probably because "asking questions" or "just asking questions" is a known bad-faith tactic https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=JAQing%20off https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=JAQing%20off

tiahura 4y ago
Socrates deserved to die.
scandox 4y ago
Well as Ngozi Adichie says we must reestablish good faith as the default position. If we jettison good faith and always assume bad faith then indeed asking questions becomes impossible. But I'm sure that's not what people want. She does seem to acknowledge that social media is not the best place for.good faith debate.
trention 4y ago
- Kye 4y ago
  >> "Not when applied to the quasi-religious civil morality of the modern left." You could put this sentence in a museum. A real cultural artifact. It's nonsense, but very much worth preserving as a reflection of the rhetoric of our times. edit: They can file it in the gallery of things people once considered true.
  - trention 4y ago
dbfx 4y ago
Urban dictionary is hardly a good enough source to do the heavy lifting you're trying to use it for.
543g43g43 4y ago

lapcat 4y ago

The article talks about Salman Rushdie. The MSM didn't put a fatwa on Rushdie, and then stab him nearly to death. That was ultra-religious conservatives. Ultra-religious conservatives are also responsible for much of the censorship in the United States, especially in schools, refusing to allow kids to read certain books or be taught certain subjects. Getting "called all kind of names" is not censorship, it's just criticism. That's actually an exercise of free speech by the name callers, don't you think? [EDIT:] The irony of voting this comment down until it's effectively censored. Sigh.

HPsquared 4y ago
It was indeed mainstream in Iran though. I mean, the fatwa was issued by the Supreme Leader - can hardly get more mainstream than that.
Jarmsy 4y ago
I'm guessing Rushdie is the only specific case referred to in the article because they can assume that the vast majority of their audience will consider what happened to him abhorrent. However, they then slip into much more general terms, as though by induction any writers facing any kind of social consequences for expressing their bigoted views is the same as the fatwa. That they neglect entirely to make any mention of Adichie's own case seems disingenuous.
robomartin 4y ago
> ultra-religious conservatives As an atheist I have to object to this comment. There's a vast difference between what you call "ultra-religious" across cultures and religions. For example, I have Born Again Christian friends who never miss an opportunity to try to bring me out of the dark side. I also have "ultra religious" Jewish friends. In both cases some of the nicest people you will ever meet. We have to be careful not to classify-and-vilify. Every single one of us could easily fit into a classification worth of some level of vilification. That only serves to create further division and friction and does not make for a better society.
- lapcat 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

RickJWagner 4y ago

Yes, exactly. Especially in some work settings, where 'approved' thought is rewarded and 'discouraged' thought is punished. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you can find it in places like Reddit. Post something nice about a politician from one side of the political aisle. Then post something nice about a politician from the other side. You'll see pretty quickly what it's about.