7 ms·

Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’

53 points by e15ctr0n 12y ago

oesmith 12y ago
The last paragraph of the article: "Because of its sample size (1,801 people) and choice of topic, Pew’s study might not be a fully accurate example of social media’s silencing effects, but it’s definitely fodder for discussion – if you dare! – as well as further research." Sigh.
- mikehearn 12y ago
  Which of the following does your sigh indicate: a. You are sighing because you believe the study to be meaningless due to its sample size. b. You are sighing because the writer needlessly undermines the results of a completely legitimate poll (+/- 3.3% margin of error for the subgroups). c. You are sighing about poor comedy ("if you dare!").
rb2e 12y ago
Wouldn't http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/08/26/social-media-and-the-spiral-of-silence/ http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/08/26/social-media-and-the-s... be a better link as this article seems to just repeat what the study says.
- dang 12y ago
  Yes; thanks; changed. (Was http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/26/social-media-is-silencing-personal-opinion-even-in-the-offline-world/. http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/26/social-media-is-silencing-p...)
dba7dba 12y ago
I don't want say to I am ahead of the curve or anything but yes I already have started not saying nothing on my social network that's related to politics/religion/social-issues/etc. I don't say yes or no on any of those on social network. I have decided silence is the best option. I do have a real world example too. I used to work with a manager over me who was really cool and worked with me well. Felt he was looking out for me and my career advancement. We shared common interests on more than a few things too. And then one day I said something that rubbed him the wrong way (still don't know what exactly) and just like that, he pretty much stopped talking to me. And that led to the point where I was left out of projects, out of discussions, and eventually to the point where the upper management felt I was not needed. I had to leave the company. I still feel he was a great guy and smart dude. Btw, I read somewhere that on US Navy ships' officers' dining rooms, 2 topics are not discussed at all: politics and religion. I understand why.
- innguest 12y ago
  The reason politics and religion are discussion taboos is the same reason things are so slow to change in both of those realms.
  - maxxxxx 12y ago
    This is just crazy. To have a healthy society these issues should be discussed a lot but without the fear of being punished for your views.
- dba7dba 12y ago
  @maxxxxx I believe religion/politics are not discussed on US navy ship officer dining rooms because they are stuck with each other for months at a time. I am sure they let their views known in other arenas.
  - maxxxxx 12y ago
    I know why it's not being discussed. It's because US citizens have been trained by the parties to think that anybody with a different view is a bad person you can't even talk to without getting angry. This is not good for a healthy democracy.
- cryoshon 12y ago
  I'd chalk up those topics being forbidden as a fear of dissent. Can't have the cogs discussing things outside their design, after all.
danso 12y ago
LOL. > Of course, it’s worth pointing out that the choice to use the Snowden situation as the basis for this particular study could be flawed – after all, social platforms, including Facebook, were implicated as being among the places the government tapped to listen in on citizens’ conversations. Perhaps citizens didn’t want to publicize an opinion on this particular matter, but would be more willing to do so on others. LOL again. Have the Pew researchers never heard of the "priming" effect? As soon as you bring up Snowden as the topic, respondents may immediately think of the social network surveillance and of course, think that they may not want to talk about just anything -- Snowden related or not -- online.
LordKano 12y ago
I'm concerned that it's only going to get worse. Look at Brendan Eich, no matter what we think of Proposition 8, I think it's crazy that his support of a political position that was also supported by a very narrow majority of his fellow Californians could cause him to have to leave his job six years later. It's entirely possible that Eich could become a verb, like Bork. Any one of us could support one side of a contentious political fight today and in six years get Eiched because the winning side chooses to be vindictive and petty. I hesitated to bring this up because I thought about the last time I was moderated -4 for something I said here. In the end we need to decide, how serious we are about the marketplace of ideas. We need to decide if we really believe in the ideals that we claim to. If I disagree with you, I'll challenge your ideas. I'll challenge your thinking. I'll debate you. I will not attempt to silence you.
- seiji 12y ago
  his support of a political position The problem is his support was for an anti-human rights issue, not just another "either side has valid points" political argument.
  - obvious_throw 12y ago
    This is only accurate within the perpetually-expanding conception of "human rights" that many seem to assume is static.
  - flatdeviant 12y ago
    This is hindsight bias. You can compare this to racism: back in the 18th and 19th centuries, racist and antisemitic people were in the overwhelming majority, and this only changed recently. And yet, applying 21st century moral values to the 18th century is completely meaningless, as every historian who studied these time periods will tell you.
    - seiji 12y ago
      This is hindsight bias. Except Prop 8 was five years ago and not 200 years ago? I know I'm sure not absolved of my mistakes (or even debt) from five years ago. Public activism during one's lifetime is on the table as a factor for judging that someone. Now, you can try to argue whether the decisions of the person are actually what the person believes or if they were just following to feel like they belong or feel important or be around their _other_ bigoted friends. Either way, it doesn't show great capacity for independent thought.
ianstallings 12y ago
I was going to sternly object, and then I remembered how a friend deleted me on facebook because I liked a certain politician. Then my work friended me so I went back and pruned every semi-controversial topic from my feed and "unliked" a ton of subjects. And now I keep it all to myself. I probably reveal more here in my writing than I do on those outlets. And to say I edit my thoughts here on HN would be an understatement. People don't want true diversity. That would mean hearing something they dislike. Which would invalidate their life apparently.
- angersock 12y ago
  Fuck'em and post'em, is what I say. Just try to make sure that, if you're going to get flamed, it's a post you'd be proud getting flamed for. They can only downvote you once per post (though the admins and mods may hellban/slowban you if you are enough of a gadfly).
- DanAndersen 12y ago
  The common realization that things on the Internet are forever causes a terrible amount of sanitization of our opinions and beliefs. It seems like the great lie of social media was that it would open up and democratize communication, encouraging people to speak up and speak out on issues important to them. Instead what we ended up with is big companies getting even more of a megaphone than before, giving people the illusion of having a voice (only to find that when everyone has a megaphone, only the loudest and most attacking voices or the most hive-minded comments get perpetuated). And everyone has to constantly preen and groom their "social media presence" because it's all about cultivating a personal brand.
- potatolicious 12y ago
  Funnily enough Google was really onto something with the concept of Circles. We do not, and should not, want to share everything with everyone a la Twitter and Facebook. The execution of G+ was bungled disastrously, and ass-backwards policies like Real Names ran directly contrary to the original notion of having multiple identities/profiles to present to different people. But I do wish someone would run with this idea again. ... But maybe we don't need to. Social networks with segmented audiences/identities have existed since forever, they're called BBSes and Forums.
bhauer 12y ago
While I find this research fascinating, and some of the findings conflict with the point I am about to make, I nevertheless want to object to the selection of Snowden-NSA as the particular topic used as the basis of this research. Although it does conveniently have a nearly-even split of opinion, the nature of the Snowden-NSA revelations carry very specific baggage for social media conversations precisely because the revelations suggest a comprehensive and worrisome monitoring of all online activity. Those who wanted to talk about the NSA, especially critically on social media, may have refrained or at least paused to reflect on whether that was a sensible thing to do precisely because of the NSA dragnet. I personally initially paused and considered my action moreso than usual before I began retweeting and writing tweets of my own that are critical of the NSA's behavior and the laws that provide cover for its behavior. Irrational or rational as fears of later repercussions for communicating opinions may be, when the subject matter is a principal organization that will ensure that very communication is never forgotten, I believe there is a chilling effect. It would be like hesitating to criticize Twitter on Twitter—you can imagine less savvy users would wonder, "Will this get me into some kind of trouble with Twitter?" Even now having long since put aside my worry about being critical of the NSA's behavior in public (yes, based on the tired axiom: "why would they care about me?"), I still suspect that I have squelched at least 10% of what I would have otherwise said. Even as I write this now, it's impossible to not have a concern that in some (very unlikely) future, the NSA will put anyone who had been critical of their actions onto a "definitely will aid with all parallel construction requests" list. Irrational, sure. But difficult to put aside nonetheless.
- gregrata 12y ago
  Well said! I think this wasn't the greatest selection, as the subject is about NSA snooping and its dragnet. I personally have become very reluctant to talk about any of stuff on anything electronic - gawd knows what the NSA is pickuping, and how it will some day be used against me. Hmmm... I probably should just delete this post....
- cryoshon 12y ago
  Yep, the chilling effect is real, and in action. Next (and critically, invisibly) people as a whole will actually think less about the NSA and having their online activity surveilled and what those two bits mean. Fewer people will be exposed to the circulation of ideas on these topics. This is the consequence of being afraid to speak freely in what used to be an open forum.
danielweber 12y ago
It's amazing: 20 years ago, we went online to debate at will with people we would never see and who had no power over us. Now online we have to be super careful about everything we say lest someone who can make a decision over us be offended.
- vezzy-fnord 12y ago
  I actually think this illustrates an interesting evolution in our attitudes towards anonymity on the Internet. It was only quite recently in the grand scheme of things that, particularly in school computer labs, one of the major things that we ingrained in children's heads was basic web safety etiquette: never reveal your real name, street address, phone number, etc. With the advent of popular social media, holy shit has that completely turned around in the opposite direction. Now such things have been completely normalized, and we've started to talk about the "nymwars". There's also a reasonably influential segment that thinks all online communications should be done using personally identifiable information, lest someone gets trolled and has their sensibilities hurt.
MangezBien 12y ago
I've been consistently removing people from my facebook and twitter feed who disagree with me. Not because I don't want to hear their opinions, but because when I voice mine in response they are generally offended (I was usually just pointing out factual omissions). I needed to remove the temptation to engage with anyone in my social network who was prone to anti-intellectual discussions.
dba7dba 12y ago
I find it ironic that the social media is effectively making average Joes and Janes (who generally dislike politicians) act like they are politicians, not saying what they really mean and worrying about how they are viewed by the public. Weird I must say.

53 points by e15ctr0n 12y ago

The last paragraph of the article: "Because of its sample size (1,801 people) and choice of topic, Pew’s study might not be a fully accurate example of social media’s silencing effects, but it’s definitely fodder for discussion – if you dare! – as well as further research." Sigh.

mikehearn 12y ago
Which of the following does your sigh indicate: a. You are sighing because you believe the study to be meaningless due to its sample size. b. You are sighing because the writer needlessly undermines the results of a completely legitimate poll (+/- 3.3% margin of error for the subgroups). c. You are sighing about poor comedy ("if you dare!").

rb2e 12y ago

Wouldn't http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/08/26/social-media-and-the-spiral-of-silence/ http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/08/26/social-media-and-the-s... be a better link as this article seems to just repeat what the study says.

dang 12y ago
Yes; thanks; changed. (Was http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/26/social-media-is-silencing-personal-opinion-even-in-the-offline-world/. http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/26/social-media-is-silencing-p...)

dba7dba 12y ago

I don't want say to I am ahead of the curve or anything but yes I already have started not saying nothing on my social network that's related to politics/religion/social-issues/etc. I don't say yes or no on any of those on social network. I have decided silence is the best option. I do have a real world example too. I used to work with a manager over me who was really cool and worked with me well. Felt he was looking out for me and my career advancement. We shared common interests on more than a few things too. And then one day I said something that rubbed him the wrong way (still don't know what exactly) and just like that, he pretty much stopped talking to me. And that led to the point where I was left out of projects, out of discussions, and eventually to the point where the upper management felt I was not needed. I had to leave the company. I still feel he was a great guy and smart dude. Btw, I read somewhere that on US Navy ships' officers' dining rooms, 2 topics are not discussed at all: politics and religion. I understand why.

innguest 12y ago
The reason politics and religion are discussion taboos is the same reason things are so slow to change in both of those realms.
- maxxxxx 12y ago
  This is just crazy. To have a healthy society these issues should be discussed a lot but without the fear of being punished for your views.
dba7dba 12y ago
@maxxxxx I believe religion/politics are not discussed on US navy ship officer dining rooms because they are stuck with each other for months at a time. I am sure they let their views known in other arenas.
- maxxxxx 12y ago
  I know why it's not being discussed. It's because US citizens have been trained by the parties to think that anybody with a different view is a bad person you can't even talk to without getting angry. This is not good for a healthy democracy.
cryoshon 12y ago
I'd chalk up those topics being forbidden as a fear of dissent. Can't have the cogs discussing things outside their design, after all.

danso 12y ago

LOL. > Of course, it’s worth pointing out that the choice to use the Snowden situation as the basis for this particular study could be flawed – after all, social platforms, including Facebook, were implicated as being among the places the government tapped to listen in on citizens’ conversations. Perhaps citizens didn’t want to publicize an opinion on this particular matter, but would be more willing to do so on others. LOL again. Have the Pew researchers never heard of the "priming" effect? As soon as you bring up Snowden as the topic, respondents may immediately think of the social network surveillance and of course, think that they may not want to talk about just anything -- Snowden related or not -- online.

LordKano 12y ago

I'm concerned that it's only going to get worse. Look at Brendan Eich, no matter what we think of Proposition 8, I think it's crazy that his support of a political position that was also supported by a very narrow majority of his fellow Californians could cause him to have to leave his job six years later. It's entirely possible that Eich could become a verb, like Bork. Any one of us could support one side of a contentious political fight today and in six years get Eiched because the winning side chooses to be vindictive and petty. I hesitated to bring this up because I thought about the last time I was moderated -4 for something I said here. In the end we need to decide, how serious we are about the marketplace of ideas. We need to decide if we really believe in the ideals that we claim to. If I disagree with you, I'll challenge your ideas. I'll challenge your thinking. I'll debate you. I will not attempt to silence you.

seiji 12y ago
his support of a political position The problem is his support was for an anti-human rights issue, not just another "either side has valid points" political argument.
- obvious_throw 12y ago
  This is only accurate within the perpetually-expanding conception of "human rights" that many seem to assume is static.
- flatdeviant 12y ago
  This is hindsight bias. You can compare this to racism: back in the 18th and 19th centuries, racist and antisemitic people were in the overwhelming majority, and this only changed recently. And yet, applying 21st century moral values to the 18th century is completely meaningless, as every historian who studied these time periods will tell you.
  - seiji 12y ago
    This is hindsight bias. Except Prop 8 was five years ago and not 200 years ago? I know I'm sure not absolved of my mistakes (or even debt) from five years ago. Public activism during one's lifetime is on the table as a factor for judging that someone. Now, you can try to argue whether the decisions of the person are actually what the person believes or if they were just following to feel like they belong or feel important or be around their _other_ bigoted friends. Either way, it doesn't show great capacity for independent thought.

ianstallings 12y ago

I was going to sternly object, and then I remembered how a friend deleted me on facebook because I liked a certain politician. Then my work friended me so I went back and pruned every semi-controversial topic from my feed and "unliked" a ton of subjects. And now I keep it all to myself. I probably reveal more here in my writing than I do on those outlets. And to say I edit my thoughts here on HN would be an understatement. People don't want true diversity. That would mean hearing something they dislike. Which would invalidate their life apparently.

angersock 12y ago
Fuck'em and post'em, is what I say. Just try to make sure that, if you're going to get flamed, it's a post you'd be proud getting flamed for. They can only downvote you once per post (though the admins and mods may hellban/slowban you if you are enough of a gadfly).
DanAndersen 12y ago
The common realization that things on the Internet are forever causes a terrible amount of sanitization of our opinions and beliefs. It seems like the great lie of social media was that it would open up and democratize communication, encouraging people to speak up and speak out on issues important to them. Instead what we ended up with is big companies getting even more of a megaphone than before, giving people the illusion of having a voice (only to find that when everyone has a megaphone, only the loudest and most attacking voices or the most hive-minded comments get perpetuated). And everyone has to constantly preen and groom their "social media presence" because it's all about cultivating a personal brand.
potatolicious 12y ago
Funnily enough Google was really onto something with the concept of Circles. We do not, and should not, want to share everything with everyone a la Twitter and Facebook. The execution of G+ was bungled disastrously, and ass-backwards policies like Real Names ran directly contrary to the original notion of having multiple identities/profiles to present to different people. But I do wish someone would run with this idea again. ... But maybe we don't need to. Social networks with segmented audiences/identities have existed since forever, they're called BBSes and Forums.

bhauer 12y ago

While I find this research fascinating, and some of the findings conflict with the point I am about to make, I nevertheless want to object to the selection of Snowden-NSA as the particular topic used as the basis of this research. Although it does conveniently have a nearly-even split of opinion, the nature of the Snowden-NSA revelations carry very specific baggage for social media conversations precisely because the revelations suggest a comprehensive and worrisome monitoring of all online activity. Those who wanted to talk about the NSA, especially critically on social media, may have refrained or at least paused to reflect on whether that was a sensible thing to do precisely because of the NSA dragnet. I personally initially paused and considered my action moreso than usual before I began retweeting and writing tweets of my own that are critical of the NSA's behavior and the laws that provide cover for its behavior. Irrational or rational as fears of later repercussions for communicating opinions may be, when the subject matter is a principal organization that will ensure that very communication is never forgotten, I believe there is a chilling effect. It would be like hesitating to criticize Twitter on Twitter—you can imagine less savvy users would wonder, "Will this get me into some kind of trouble with Twitter?" Even now having long since put aside my worry about being critical of the NSA's behavior in public (yes, based on the tired axiom: "why would they care about me?"), I still suspect that I have squelched at least 10% of what I would have otherwise said. Even as I write this now, it's impossible to not have a concern that in some (very unlikely) future, the NSA will put anyone who had been critical of their actions onto a "definitely will aid with all parallel construction requests" list. Irrational, sure. But difficult to put aside nonetheless.

gregrata 12y ago
Well said! I think this wasn't the greatest selection, as the subject is about NSA snooping and its dragnet. I personally have become very reluctant to talk about any of stuff on anything electronic - gawd knows what the NSA is pickuping, and how it will some day be used against me. Hmmm... I probably should just delete this post....
cryoshon 12y ago
Yep, the chilling effect is real, and in action. Next (and critically, invisibly) people as a whole will actually think less about the NSA and having their online activity surveilled and what those two bits mean. Fewer people will be exposed to the circulation of ideas on these topics. This is the consequence of being afraid to speak freely in what used to be an open forum.

danielweber 12y ago

It's amazing: 20 years ago, we went online to debate at will with people we would never see and who had no power over us. Now online we have to be super careful about everything we say lest someone who can make a decision over us be offended.

vezzy-fnord 12y ago
I actually think this illustrates an interesting evolution in our attitudes towards anonymity on the Internet. It was only quite recently in the grand scheme of things that, particularly in school computer labs, one of the major things that we ingrained in children's heads was basic web safety etiquette: never reveal your real name, street address, phone number, etc. With the advent of popular social media, holy shit has that completely turned around in the opposite direction. Now such things have been completely normalized, and we've started to talk about the "nymwars". There's also a reasonably influential segment that thinks all online communications should be done using personally identifiable information, lest someone gets trolled and has their sensibilities hurt.

MangezBien 12y ago

I've been consistently removing people from my facebook and twitter feed who disagree with me. Not because I don't want to hear their opinions, but because when I voice mine in response they are generally offended (I was usually just pointing out factual omissions). I needed to remove the temptation to engage with anyone in my social network who was prone to anti-intellectual discussions.

dba7dba 12y ago

I find it ironic that the social media is effectively making average Joes and Janes (who generally dislike politicians) act like they are politicians, not saying what they really mean and worrying about how they are viewed by the public. Weird I must say.