4 ms·

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.
    - trention 4y ago
      >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. Most (all?) of continental Europe actually has such laws, which is why you don't hear about american style firings here. So, your logic has been tested in practice and found out to be wrong.
      - 6510 4y ago
        If you cant have something you don't have to want it either. It's irrational and a waste of time to want to see someone fired or to want to fire someone if it's not going to happen.
        nine_k 4y ago
        There are always ways to make someone's employment feel miserable while staying on completely legal ground. If a boss wants someone fired but can't fire, the boss (and worse yet, coworkers) can "help" the person make the right decision and start looking for a new opportunity. This can give the victim some valuable paid time though.
    - thefounder 4y ago
      >> Would you enjoy to continue working when your boss badly wants to fire you Chances are the boss is just doing what's political correct too due the pressure put by various groups not what he/she badly wants.
xbar 4y ago
"Media" is largely Twitter-driven due to journalism funding collapse. And media lives in fear that Twitter will take a dim view of some story. I thought this was a foregone conclusion.
nine_k 4y ago
Social media is a harassing tool, and can be a pretty blunt and heavy one (see "cancel culture"). In 1920, a newspaper publication or a public speech needed to be really outrageously beyond the frames of the Overton window to end up in mass protests, boycotts, etc. It took a serious effort to coordinate the outrage, so it only happened when people felt really deeply about it. In 2020, with social media, the cost of spreading the outrage is nearly zero: a retweet or a repost, maybe with some a few words of an inflammatory comment added on the top. But with social graphs being what they are (highly connected via a number of popular "influencer" accounts), any bit of outrage has a good chance to spread quickly and widely. The outrage can defend itself by directing the outrage at detractors and doubters, so attempts to actively stop it can make one a victim of it; the cost of spreading outrage, and the cost of ignoring outrage, is much lower that the cost of trying to calm it down, and / or to call to reason over emotions. It does not help that any moderately public figure, especially a journalist, has to have social media presence, because it's such a powerful tool to spread their own publicity, influence, and agenda. Freer information flows usually change societies. Invention of writing changed ancient societies profoundly. Invention of the printing press and movable type in Europe changed Europe drastically. The internet and social media are changing our societies seriously, as we speak. There's no way back to the pre-Internet state of society.
- Robotbeat 4y ago
  This is a very astute observation. It’s also only really possible with centralized social media, not decentralized/federated.
  - buran77 4y ago
    Decentralization has some advantages but it also enforces bubbles further. My corner of social media will have no overlap whatsoever with your corner and they drift further and further apart. The only real solution for this is education, teaching people to think, to listen, to evaluate the quality of their sources of information, to draw their own conclusions, and so on. It's not perfect but the alternatives are closer to simple AI trained on a very limited and one sided dataset.

Social media virality started creating juicy headlines in mainstream media.

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.
  - trention 4y ago
    >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. Most (all?) of continental Europe actually has such laws, which is why you don't hear about american style firings here. So, your logic has been tested in practice and found out to be wrong.
    - 6510 4y ago
      If you cant have something you don't have to want it either. It's irrational and a waste of time to want to see someone fired or to want to fire someone if it's not going to happen.
      - nine_k 4y ago
        There are always ways to make someone's employment feel miserable while staying on completely legal ground. If a boss wants someone fired but can't fire, the boss (and worse yet, coworkers) can "help" the person make the right decision and start looking for a new opportunity. This can give the victim some valuable paid time though.
  - thefounder 4y ago
    >> Would you enjoy to continue working when your boss badly wants to fire you Chances are the boss is just doing what's political correct too due the pressure put by various groups not what he/she badly wants.

xbar 4y ago

"Media" is largely Twitter-driven due to journalism funding collapse. And media lives in fear that Twitter will take a dim view of some story. I thought this was a foregone conclusion.

nine_k 4y ago

Social media is a harassing tool, and can be a pretty blunt and heavy one (see "cancel culture"). In 1920, a newspaper publication or a public speech needed to be really outrageously beyond the frames of the Overton window to end up in mass protests, boycotts, etc. It took a serious effort to coordinate the outrage, so it only happened when people felt really deeply about it. In 2020, with social media, the cost of spreading the outrage is nearly zero: a retweet or a repost, maybe with some a few words of an inflammatory comment added on the top. But with social graphs being what they are (highly connected via a number of popular "influencer" accounts), any bit of outrage has a good chance to spread quickly and widely. The outrage can defend itself by directing the outrage at detractors and doubters, so attempts to actively stop it can make one a victim of it; the cost of spreading outrage, and the cost of ignoring outrage, is much lower that the cost of trying to calm it down, and / or to call to reason over emotions. It does not help that any moderately public figure, especially a journalist, has to have social media presence, because it's such a powerful tool to spread their own publicity, influence, and agenda. Freer information flows usually change societies. Invention of writing changed ancient societies profoundly. Invention of the printing press and movable type in Europe changed Europe drastically. The internet and social media are changing our societies seriously, as we speak. There's no way back to the pre-Internet state of society.

Robotbeat 4y ago
This is a very astute observation. It’s also only really possible with centralized social media, not decentralized/federated.
- buran77 4y ago
  Decentralization has some advantages but it also enforces bubbles further. My corner of social media will have no overlap whatsoever with your corner and they drift further and further apart. The only real solution for this is education, teaching people to think, to listen, to evaluate the quality of their sources of information, to draw their own conclusions, and so on. It's not perfect but the alternatives are closer to simple AI trained on a very limited and one sided dataset.