6 ms·

I dont plan to run for president or anything, but find myself increasingly censoring my online speech. I think the biggest risk is some out of context post bein

I dont plan to run for president or anything, but find myself increasingly censoring my online speech. I think the biggest risk is some out of context post being pulled into a civil suit, or professional cancellation following that. Things like advice in an alcohol recovery forum would be prime evidence for a liability suit. There are also groups that vacuum the internet for offensive posts, and use them to try to get people fired for things they said 10 years ago. At this point, I assume all internet activity can and will be de-anonymized, and restrict my speech accordingly. I'm sure there are some meaningful precautions and nuances, but it is too much to keep up with.

yieldcrv 2y ago
Being authentic is the ticket to public office now I’m kind of glad that the value of blackmail futures has plummeted to zero I always thought millenials would be the culprit because millennials have so much online, but nope, it was just old fashioned baby boomers that have spearheaded it and double down on their indiscretions to be the role models for the country’s top offices
- CRConrad 2y ago
  > Being authentic is the ticket to public office now Yeah, if you can fake that, you've got it made.
- exe34 2y ago
  "criminal activity?" "no sir." "for god's sake Baldrick, you're running for parliament. I'll put fraud and sexual deviancy."
- echelon 2y ago
  Only for this cycle. The pendulum will swing back to cancelling and pitchforks after this era of cult of personality.
  - EGreg 2y ago
    I thought canceling never stopped. It was just politically motivated. (Ironically, Dems eat their own for that stuff, so maybe "politically motivated" doesn't quite capture it... compare e.g. Al Franken and Katie Hill vs Roy Moore or Matt Gaetz)
    - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
      Democrats cancel and Republicans mostly double down. I don’t think there is anything Trump can do at this point to horrify or even just dissuade his base, for example.
      - blooalien 2y ago
        > "I don’t think there is anything Trump can do at this point to horrify or even just dissuade his base, for example." Pretty sure it's pretty close to true at this point that he actually could get away with literal cold-blooded murder in public at this point and his cult would fold themselves in half backwards tryin' to justify it somehow. [0] [0]: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-fifth-avenue-comment/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-fifth-avenue-...
        immibis 2y ago
        I mean, he supports the Gaza situation.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Real Americans are pretty spit on the topic of Gaza. 36% of Americans favor the U.S. providing military aid to Israel. 34% oppose military aid, and the rest are neutral. https://www.pewresearch.org/2024/03/21/views-of-the-u-s-role-in-the-israel-hamas-war/ https://www.pewresearch.org/2024/03/21/views-of-the-u-s-role...
        2y ago
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I think that reality is much more heterogenous. Say some edgy or unpopular things 10 years ago, and they can still be shared with your boss and blasted across your employer's social media channels. The social consensus and average result doesn't preclude damage in some cases.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > Being authentic is the ticket to public office now No, its not. The preferred image may be more combative, aggressive, and anti-social than in the recent past, but as always adherence to it is more important than actual authenticity. > I’m kind of glad that the value of blackmail futures has plummeted to zero It hasn’t, though the value function for current negative information is different, so things that were once valuable for blackmail or otherwise harmful to public image are less so (and things that were not are moreso.) > I always thought millenials would be the culprit because millennials have so much online, but nope, it was just old fashioned baby boomers that have spearheaded that double down on their indiscretions and are the role models for the country’s top offices The only boomer I can think of that you might be talking about denies them constantly (even if there is past documentation of his acknowledging them in a general sense) and is supported by favor-currying media magnates who either actively promote propaganda favoring his messaging on that or, at a minimum, actively spike critical coverage. And even within his movement and with the support of his cult of personality and the same favorable media, others in his orbit have often been less successful in having their indiscretions given a pass (see, e.g., Matt Gaetz’s nomination for Attorney-General of the United States.)
dylan604 2y ago
> for things they said 10 years ago. I don't think this is an automatic negative as you are implying. There's definitely lots of qualifiers involved though. There would have to be significant evidence to show that the sentiment expressed is still no longer held which could be more than problematic to prove. If it was someone up for supreme court justice that posted pics showing how much they liked beer and their antics as a party person could be shown as lack of maturity by comparing that they no longer drink now. Someone posting racist comments would be much harder as you don't really know if they've changed their view or just learned not to post publicly their views. Edit: automatic negative should really read automatic disqualifier
- iinnPP 2y ago
  I'm at a loss for how your example doesn't lead to automatically negative. Don't post something harmless today that will be deemed a "dog whistle" in 2035 so that you don't have to prove a negative? I don't mean to be critical here, it's a genuine ask. And to add to the above, my post is the kind of post that would be gone. If I was taking a similar stance.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    Having the right/freedom to post anything you want does not mean there shouldn't be consequences for those posts later. Age of post should just not be an automatic "but it was 10 years ago" get out of jail free card. If there's compelling evidence it was just a stupid thing someone did as a teen, then we can have that conversation. If it is a post from someone in some position of leadership that is 10 years old but was made in their 40s is not the same "I was an immature teen" situation.
    - DaSHacka 2y ago
      Ah, so you're who GGP's talking about.
- II2II 2y ago
  That second example pretty much demonstrates why it is so dangerous. There were attitudes that were commonplace 30 years ago that are now considered racist, in many cases because they were racist, that people don't subscribe to today. I imagine the same can be said about 10 years ago. People's values change. We should not be giving them life sentences when the have reformed their attitudes and behaviors, otherwise the incentive to reform is taken away.
exabrial 2y ago
It's a relatively new and novel thing for people your age to be able to look up anything online, to the point where it's scandalous. This card will be played over and over again by politicians, influencers, prosecutors, police, etc, until the smartphone-from-birth generation reaches office. At that point, it'll be so easy to dig up dirt on anyone, people will just stop caring (as they should anyway). We're just in a weird transition period right now.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Im not so confident. Digital natives seem just as eager to apply purity tests as anyone, if not more so. Throwing rocks still feels good, even if everyone is living in glass houses. It was true in the 1300's when the saying was coined, and is still true today.[1] https://www.bookbrowse.com/expressions/detail/index.cfm/expression_number/333/people-who-live-in-glass-houses-shouldnt-throw-stones https://www.bookbrowse.com/expressions/detail/index.cfm/expr...
ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
There was a story, a couple of years ago, about a teacher who got fired, because she posted a picture on Facebook, holding a margarita, or something. She was on a vacation in the Caribbean. One of the parents saw the post, and raised a stink. Now that I'm retired, it doesn't really matter that much, but I do my best to behave well (this joint is pretty much the only place I post much). In the past, I was not so circumspect. In fact, I was a troll. I remember once, signing up for Disqus, and they came back, and said something to the effect of "We found all these posts from around the Internet. Would you like to claim any as yours?" Included, were some of the worst troll posts I'd made, many years ago, under the [obviously mistaken] assumption that they were anonymous. I nuked the signup, and went and had a lie-down. Since then, I have never bothered to try being anonymous. I probably could, if I wanted to, but I'd rather just stay public, and not say stuff that I'd regret.
null0pointer 2y ago
> try to get people fired for things they said 10 years ago I assume the implication here is that the thing they said 10 years ago was less inappropriate back then. So how do you predict sensitivity changes 10 years in the future to limit your speech today? Even if you delete posts after, say 1 year, archives exist. Shouldn’t you just not say anything if you’re afraid of this? Maybe discussion of self-censorship like this will be taboo in 10 years and the ship has already sailed.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I wasn't implying that it depends on sensitivity changes, although that is possible too. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. My thought was more about time and distance. Something can be unpopular or even wrong when it's first said too. People are dynamic and change over time. The mechanism of change is living their lives. Taboos can change as well, so there is a motivation to steer clear of controversial topics in recorded media. You can use discretion to judge risk. It's unlikely that someone's going to fire you for discussing ice cream in 10 years.
  - ryandrake 2y ago
    Yea, that's also a big danger: A totally innocent or trivial comment written today might be taboo in 10 years, and some future justice warrior is sure to dig it up and use it against you, and you have no idea what is going to be taboo. Maybe in the far future, owning pets will be taboo, and all the pictures of me and my dog are going to be dug up and used to shame me for violating an animal's sovereignty or something. There is no way to know what people are going to get offended about in the future, but the clear trend is people getting offended about more and more things over time, rather than fewer and fewer things.
bjourne 2y ago
Herding is the best defense. If everyone who expresses opinions online do so non-anonymously it becomes much more difficult for the sleuths to target specific individuals. If everyone runs the risk of getting "sniped" for something taken out of context they wrote 10 years ago, the tactic becomes less effective.

yieldcrv 2y ago

Being authentic is the ticket to public office now I’m kind of glad that the value of blackmail futures has plummeted to zero I always thought millenials would be the culprit because millennials have so much online, but nope, it was just old fashioned baby boomers that have spearheaded it and double down on their indiscretions to be the role models for the country’s top offices

CRConrad 2y ago
> Being authentic is the ticket to public office now Yeah, if you can fake that, you've got it made.
exe34 2y ago
"criminal activity?" "no sir." "for god's sake Baldrick, you're running for parliament. I'll put fraud and sexual deviancy."
echelon 2y ago
Only for this cycle. The pendulum will swing back to cancelling and pitchforks after this era of cult of personality.
- EGreg 2y ago
  I thought canceling never stopped. It was just politically motivated. (Ironically, Dems eat their own for that stuff, so maybe "politically motivated" doesn't quite capture it... compare e.g. Al Franken and Katie Hill vs Roy Moore or Matt Gaetz)
  - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
    Democrats cancel and Republicans mostly double down. I don’t think there is anything Trump can do at this point to horrify or even just dissuade his base, for example.
    - blooalien 2y ago
      > "I don’t think there is anything Trump can do at this point to horrify or even just dissuade his base, for example." Pretty sure it's pretty close to true at this point that he actually could get away with literal cold-blooded murder in public at this point and his cult would fold themselves in half backwards tryin' to justify it somehow. [0] [0]: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-fifth-avenue-comment/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-fifth-avenue-...
      - immibis 2y ago
        I mean, he supports the Gaza situation.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Real Americans are pretty spit on the topic of Gaza. 36% of Americans favor the U.S. providing military aid to Israel. 34% oppose military aid, and the rest are neutral. https://www.pewresearch.org/2024/03/21/views-of-the-u-s-role-in-the-israel-hamas-war/ https://www.pewresearch.org/2024/03/21/views-of-the-u-s-role...
        2y ago
s1artibartfast 2y ago
I think that reality is much more heterogenous. Say some edgy or unpopular things 10 years ago, and they can still be shared with your boss and blasted across your employer's social media channels. The social consensus and average result doesn't preclude damage in some cases.
dragonwriter 2y ago
> Being authentic is the ticket to public office now No, its not. The preferred image may be more combative, aggressive, and anti-social than in the recent past, but as always adherence to it is more important than actual authenticity. > I’m kind of glad that the value of blackmail futures has plummeted to zero It hasn’t, though the value function for current negative information is different, so things that were once valuable for blackmail or otherwise harmful to public image are less so (and things that were not are moreso.) > I always thought millenials would be the culprit because millennials have so much online, but nope, it was just old fashioned baby boomers that have spearheaded that double down on their indiscretions and are the role models for the country’s top offices The only boomer I can think of that you might be talking about denies them constantly (even if there is past documentation of his acknowledging them in a general sense) and is supported by favor-currying media magnates who either actively promote propaganda favoring his messaging on that or, at a minimum, actively spike critical coverage. And even within his movement and with the support of his cult of personality and the same favorable media, others in his orbit have often been less successful in having their indiscretions given a pass (see, e.g., Matt Gaetz’s nomination for Attorney-General of the United States.)

dylan604 2y ago

> for things they said 10 years ago. I don't think this is an automatic negative as you are implying. There's definitely lots of qualifiers involved though. There would have to be significant evidence to show that the sentiment expressed is still no longer held which could be more than problematic to prove. If it was someone up for supreme court justice that posted pics showing how much they liked beer and their antics as a party person could be shown as lack of maturity by comparing that they no longer drink now. Someone posting racist comments would be much harder as you don't really know if they've changed their view or just learned not to post publicly their views. Edit: automatic negative should really read automatic disqualifier

iinnPP 2y ago
I'm at a loss for how your example doesn't lead to automatically negative. Don't post something harmless today that will be deemed a "dog whistle" in 2035 so that you don't have to prove a negative? I don't mean to be critical here, it's a genuine ask. And to add to the above, my post is the kind of post that would be gone. If I was taking a similar stance.
- dylan604 2y ago
  Having the right/freedom to post anything you want does not mean there shouldn't be consequences for those posts later. Age of post should just not be an automatic "but it was 10 years ago" get out of jail free card. If there's compelling evidence it was just a stupid thing someone did as a teen, then we can have that conversation. If it is a post from someone in some position of leadership that is 10 years old but was made in their 40s is not the same "I was an immature teen" situation.
  - DaSHacka 2y ago
    Ah, so you're who GGP's talking about.
II2II 2y ago
That second example pretty much demonstrates why it is so dangerous. There were attitudes that were commonplace 30 years ago that are now considered racist, in many cases because they were racist, that people don't subscribe to today. I imagine the same can be said about 10 years ago. People's values change. We should not be giving them life sentences when the have reformed their attitudes and behaviors, otherwise the incentive to reform is taken away.

exabrial 2y ago

It's a relatively new and novel thing for people your age to be able to look up anything online, to the point where it's scandalous. This card will be played over and over again by politicians, influencers, prosecutors, police, etc, until the smartphone-from-birth generation reaches office. At that point, it'll be so easy to dig up dirt on anyone, people will just stop caring (as they should anyway). We're just in a weird transition period right now.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
Im not so confident. Digital natives seem just as eager to apply purity tests as anyone, if not more so. Throwing rocks still feels good, even if everyone is living in glass houses. It was true in the 1300's when the saying was coined, and is still true today.[1] https://www.bookbrowse.com/expressions/detail/index.cfm/expression_number/333/people-who-live-in-glass-houses-shouldnt-throw-stones https://www.bookbrowse.com/expressions/detail/index.cfm/expr...

ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago

There was a story, a couple of years ago, about a teacher who got fired, because she posted a picture on Facebook, holding a margarita, or something. She was on a vacation in the Caribbean. One of the parents saw the post, and raised a stink. Now that I'm retired, it doesn't really matter that much, but I do my best to behave well (this joint is pretty much the only place I post much). In the past, I was not so circumspect. In fact, I was a troll. I remember once, signing up for Disqus, and they came back, and said something to the effect of "We found all these posts from around the Internet. Would you like to claim any as yours?" Included, were some of the worst troll posts I'd made, many years ago, under the [obviously mistaken] assumption that they were anonymous. I nuked the signup, and went and had a lie-down. Since then, I have never bothered to try being anonymous. I probably could, if I wanted to, but I'd rather just stay public, and not say stuff that I'd regret.

null0pointer 2y ago

> try to get people fired for things they said 10 years ago I assume the implication here is that the thing they said 10 years ago was less inappropriate back then. So how do you predict sensitivity changes 10 years in the future to limit your speech today? Even if you delete posts after, say 1 year, archives exist. Shouldn’t you just not say anything if you’re afraid of this? Maybe discussion of self-censorship like this will be taboo in 10 years and the ship has already sailed.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
I wasn't implying that it depends on sensitivity changes, although that is possible too. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. My thought was more about time and distance. Something can be unpopular or even wrong when it's first said too. People are dynamic and change over time. The mechanism of change is living their lives. Taboos can change as well, so there is a motivation to steer clear of controversial topics in recorded media. You can use discretion to judge risk. It's unlikely that someone's going to fire you for discussing ice cream in 10 years.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  Yea, that's also a big danger: A totally innocent or trivial comment written today might be taboo in 10 years, and some future justice warrior is sure to dig it up and use it against you, and you have no idea what is going to be taboo. Maybe in the far future, owning pets will be taboo, and all the pictures of me and my dog are going to be dug up and used to shame me for violating an animal's sovereignty or something. There is no way to know what people are going to get offended about in the future, but the clear trend is people getting offended about more and more things over time, rather than fewer and fewer things.

bjourne 2y ago

Herding is the best defense. If everyone who expresses opinions online do so non-anonymously it becomes much more difficult for the sleuths to target specific individuals. If everyone runs the risk of getting "sniped" for something taken out of context they wrote 10 years ago, the tactic becomes less effective.