4 ms·
If you're on the internet long enough, I think you learn that openness has plenty of downsides. You indirectly interact with tens of thousands of people and in
by nospice 10mo ago
If you're on the internet long enough, I think you learn that openness has plenty of downsides. You indirectly interact with tens of thousands of people and in that set, there will be people who don't wish you well, sometimes for reasons you can't even grasp. In the 1990s, I used to put my phone number in my .signature file. I've come to regret that. In the 2000s, I participated in relatively large online forums under my real name, and have gotten threats mailed to my family and employer. Etc, etc.
If you want others to broadcast their lives, I don't think that moralizing is enough; you gotta offset the negatives. Which basically means "positively engage", but we mostly don't do it on forums such as Twitter. Have you ever thanked anyone for a recommendation, a photo, an article? And how often do you do that, compared to posting to disagree?
- pinkmuffinere 10mo agoI think you’re right that it’s hard. But I think you’re implying that it could be less hard if we just behaved better à la “be the change you want to see”, and I believe you’re wrong about that. The people that send death threats do not read your advice, nor do they care enough to take it to heart. The people that _will_ listen were not sending death threats to begin with. And getting 500 thankyou-messages does not outweigh the handful of death threats
- nospice 10mo agoI think it does. Internet death threats are upsetting but you also learn they tend to be toothless 99.9% of the time. Most of it is just internet tough guys hundreds or thousands of miles away. A lifetime of small positive outcomes can easily offset that for many people.
- jamblewamble 10mo agoAlso 90% of the time when you finally manage to get someone to quote one of these "death threats" it turns out to be something like "I hope you die of cancer" or "You deserve to get shot" which are horrible but are not threats in any sense whatsoever. This is why when you see yet another article about someone getting "death threats" they don't actually say what the threats are: most of the time they aren't threats at all. On the other hand, sometimes people really do actually threaten people and if someone actually threatens you, the likelihood that he is 1000s of km away isn't particularly reassuring let me tell you.
- SXX 10mo agoThat is harmless 99.9% of the time until you get swatted. Takes a one phone call in the US to get you at gun point of a very trigger happy people.
- oooyay 10mo agoThe people who send death threats, call peoples employers, etc largely view themselves as very normal people that are fighting a just fight. Social media has had plenty of these folks, IRC before it, and probably BBSs before that. They probably do read that message, but they say to themselves, "Well when I did it it was for a good cause."
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- jay_kyburz 10mo agoI've been posing online with my real name since the 90's because if forces me to self sensor. I don't say things on the internet that I wouldn't say to people in the real world who know where I live. I think the internet would be a lot nicer place if people were held accountable for the things they say and do.
- phkahler 10mo ago>> I think the internet would be a lot nicer place if people were held accountable for the things they say and do. I agree. I've often advocated for zero anonymity by default. Everyone traceable by anyone. The thinking is that bad behavior (threats and such) could be reported. There was enough pushback to make me rethink that. People will still make threats when you know who they are - less often but they will. Offline (real world) harassment is still possible too without being identified, though thats getting harder every day. Verified identity online is not the same thing as being held accountable.
- SXX 10mo agoThe problem with no anonimity is that not all people are rational even if they're dont have shizophrenia or something worse. You can be a small guy doing your small thing and sharing it online. Unfortunately you never know when and why you gonna become a supervillain in eyes of craze.
- exe34 10mo agothe problem often in conflict is that the incentives aren't symmetrical. if you and somebody exactly like you are put in a ring with a knife each, you'd both have the same things to lose. but often times in real life, and much more so online, one of you has a lot less to lose. in a conflict in the street, if he gives you a brain injury, you might lose your job, mortgage, family, etc. it's just his next stay in prison, he has nothing more than his freedom to lose for the 5th time. if you give him a brain injury, you might lose your job, your mortgage, family, etc. he'll spend some time in hospital and then he'll be back on the street doing the same thing in a year. online, it's worse, because now you can be matched with the bum with the least to lose within a 50 miles radius.
- znpy 10mo agoA recent thing is also that you cannot predict what will be controversial tomorrow. This that are basic common sense today might be controversial tomorrow. Dumb example: gender. As early as twenty years ago it wasn’t controversial to say that women don’t have a penis. Today it is (i know I’m getting downvoted just for making this example). So yeah, being public is a dangerous game with huge margins for losing.
- bebb 10mo agoIt's a good example. People have been fired, reprimanded, blacklisted from their field, harassed and stalked for publicly objecting to the gender identity viewpoint. It somewhat reminds me of the tactics scientologists used to suppress dissent. I'm glad that era is starting to come to an end now.