4 ms·

Because our own human nature works against us in this case. Electronic medium acts as a (intimate) safe space because it's your own device where you share your

by high_5 3y ago

Because our own human nature works against us in this case. Electronic medium acts as a (intimate) safe space because it's your own device where you share your mind, usually at an intimate safety of your home (or at least most of the time a familiar location). There just isn't that slightly unbearable feeling of 10000 pairs of eyes staring at you attentively for every word you write before you hit 'send' button.

dredmorbius 3y ago
I've wondered who might have had a similar experience prior to widespread social media. I suspect broadcasters and columnists for newspapers and magazines might have --- they would flip out a few hundred or thousand words of copy, or make a statement live on air, and start hearing back from people. In the broadcast case the response time might be comparable to the online experience --- seconds to hours or days. In print a piece might not hit the streets for days or weeks, giving a delayed hit. But there's still the experience of writing up something in what's putatively a private space (office or home), without the immediate sense of ten thousand eyeballs, but knowing intellectually that that actually is the case. (Do I dare hit "reply" now? ...)
- pjc50 3y ago
  The unique thing about social media is the symmetry of the experience. The broadcaster sits behind a desk. He may get written complaints fed back to him. He does not have to go home and then see a thousand someone elses behind a desk on TV criticizing him.
  - dredmorbius 3y ago
    I'd draw the asymmetry differently. Public performers, whether authors, actors, artists, etc., not reading reviews of their own work is so commonplace as to be a trope, and it long predates the Internet. Rather, the asymmetry is that whilst in a broadcast-mode world the performer is a public character and faces the audience's response, the audience does not in turn have a similar experience. Very rarely a single individual might be made an example of ridicule, but my sense is that that was rare. Today, the spotlight can, and does, turn on anyone at virtually any time. And it can be incredibly discomfitting when that happens. Moreover text, or audio, or images, or video, can suddenly be published around the world. Jon Ronson's explored the contemporary experience in his 2015 book So You've Been Publicly Shamed, describes several incidents. (At least one of these ... was featured fairly extensively on HN.) But that's the distinction I was trying to draw. Prior to, say, the late 1990s to early aughts, it was people in broadcasting, mass media, entertainment, and a few in high-profile political or business careers who might draw mass attention with frequency. Now that effect can strike virtually anyone online (and in some cases off) with little warning or reason, and expose them instantly to mass judgement by strangers. It's not that the broadcaster could go home to avoid the onslaught (and in many cases they couldn't). It's that the many others weren't similarly vulnerable.

by high_5 3y ago

dredmorbius 3y ago

I've wondered who might have had a similar experience prior to widespread social media. I suspect broadcasters and columnists for newspapers and magazines might have --- they would flip out a few hundred or thousand words of copy, or make a statement live on air, and start hearing back from people. In the broadcast case the response time might be comparable to the online experience --- seconds to hours or days. In print a piece might not hit the streets for days or weeks, giving a delayed hit. But there's still the experience of writing up something in what's putatively a private space (office or home), without the immediate sense of ten thousand eyeballs, but knowing intellectually that that actually is the case. (Do I dare hit "reply" now? ...)

pjc50 3y ago
The unique thing about social media is the symmetry of the experience. The broadcaster sits behind a desk. He may get written complaints fed back to him. He does not have to go home and then see a thousand someone elses behind a desk on TV criticizing him.
- dredmorbius 3y ago
  I'd draw the asymmetry differently. Public performers, whether authors, actors, artists, etc., not reading reviews of their own work is so commonplace as to be a trope, and it long predates the Internet. Rather, the asymmetry is that whilst in a broadcast-mode world the performer is a public character and faces the audience's response, the audience does not in turn have a similar experience. Very rarely a single individual might be made an example of ridicule, but my sense is that that was rare. Today, the spotlight can, and does, turn on anyone at virtually any time. And it can be incredibly discomfitting when that happens. Moreover text, or audio, or images, or video, can suddenly be published around the world. Jon Ronson's explored the contemporary experience in his 2015 book So You've Been Publicly Shamed, describes several incidents. (At least one of these ... was featured fairly extensively on HN.) But that's the distinction I was trying to draw. Prior to, say, the late 1990s to early aughts, it was people in broadcasting, mass media, entertainment, and a few in high-profile political or business careers who might draw mass attention with frequency. Now that effect can strike virtually anyone online (and in some cases off) with little warning or reason, and expose them instantly to mass judgement by strangers. It's not that the broadcaster could go home to avoid the onslaught (and in many cases they couldn't). It's that the many others weren't similarly vulnerable.