7 ms·

How can we fight online shaming campaigns?

28 points by arundelo 12y ago

jensen123 12y ago
I think the most dangerous people in the world are self-righteous idealists who wants to do good. They often end up causing lots of harm. Although, I do see that idealism can be good in some situations.
qq66 12y ago
It seems like an individually game-theoretic optimization to the online shaming problem is to abstain from discussing any controversial or potentially controversial issue, offline or offline, at any time, for any reason.
- hga 12y ago
  Talk to anyone who's lived in a totalitarian, Stalinist regime, or read things like Nineteen Eighty Four and you'll find this is a very unhealthy thing to do, mentally and emotionally. It's also strictly impossible, for things that are safe today become unsafe tomorrow, because this is more about power and broken people than anything rational. Its also dyscivic. Much, much uglier things will happen if you cede to one faction the public sphere, the "soap box" in the sequence of "soap box, ballet box, bullet box".
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
iwwr 12y ago
People are starting to realize social media is not that friendly. Every statement made in public gets recorded and attached to your real identity forever. Kids who say stupid shit get that held against them forever from employers, associates or even random stalkers. All for the need of some targeted advertising. Hopefully, the generation coming after that would learn and be more privacy-aware.
- DanBC 12y ago
  > Kids who say stupid shit get that held against them forever from employers, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22083032 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22083032
Elrac 12y ago
South Korea, as I understand it, has this principle of ensuring that the author of anything Internet can be personally identified. This kind of accountability might help even the odds between what is otherwise a named individual vs. an anonymous mob. I honestly don't know if it's a good idea or not, though.
- cbd1984 12y ago
  That makes it very hard for some minority groups to talk freely. Trans people are a big example but even gays can be at risk. And then there are whistle blowers.
  - hga 12y ago
    And speaking of "minority groups", at least on the net, what about conservatives? Echoing my other comment about the totalitarian and most especially Stalinist nature of this arena, Brendan Eich was purged from Mozilla for holding the same position on gay marriage as Obama, "CEO" of the entire nation, officially did until May 9th, 2012, although in fairness to Obama, he said he changed his mind as opposed to always being at war with Eastasia. The Left has captured a whole bunch of fields like science where "No Irish or (open) Conservatives" applies, so to still be able to engage in the public sphere anonymity is required. And fortunately anonymity is enshrined in our lowercase and uppercase c/Constitutional order, e.g. The Federalist Papers. Compare to South Korea where they're still in a not quite hot but definitely not cold war with their northern Communist neighbor; I don't believe they can afford some of the civil liberties we enjoy.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > And speaking of "minority groups", at least on the net, what about conservatives? Conservatives aren't an underrepresented or disempowered group (the relevant sense of "minority"), even on the net. They are a group with disproportionate power (rooted in disproportionate economic power, extending to political and social domains), many of whose members have, or effect for propaganda purposes, an (unjustified) sense of persecution.
z3t4 12y ago
In the example she made fun of 1)black people 2) AIDS 3) White people. And possible offended all religious people in the world. What can possible go wrong? :P
- hga 12y ago
  Indeed, but does the punishment fit the "crime"? If not, how many orders of magnitude is the latter off by?
GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
Hasn't Scott Aaronson himself gotten salty at people he disagrees with?
m0llusk 12y ago
Altruistic punishment is a psychological phenomenon that yields status benefit and opportunities for bonding. This powers gossip which is enabled by networks. Exposing what people do can limit some impacts. Real justice requires charges and opportunities for refutation and representation. Competing networks including anti gossip gossip can to some degree deflect the problem or turn it on itself.

28 points by arundelo 12y ago

I think the most dangerous people in the world are self-righteous idealists who wants to do good. They often end up causing lots of harm. Although, I do see that idealism can be good in some situations.

qq66 12y ago

It seems like an individually game-theoretic optimization to the online shaming problem is to abstain from discussing any controversial or potentially controversial issue, offline or offline, at any time, for any reason.

hga 12y ago
Talk to anyone who's lived in a totalitarian, Stalinist regime, or read things like Nineteen Eighty Four and you'll find this is a very unhealthy thing to do, mentally and emotionally. It's also strictly impossible, for things that are safe today become unsafe tomorrow, because this is more about power and broken people than anything rational. Its also dyscivic. Much, much uglier things will happen if you cede to one faction the public sphere, the "soap box" in the sequence of "soap box, ballet box, bullet box".

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

iwwr 12y ago

People are starting to realize social media is not that friendly. Every statement made in public gets recorded and attached to your real identity forever. Kids who say stupid shit get that held against them forever from employers, associates or even random stalkers. All for the need of some targeted advertising. Hopefully, the generation coming after that would learn and be more privacy-aware.

DanBC 12y ago
> Kids who say stupid shit get that held against them forever from employers, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22083032 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22083032

Elrac 12y ago

South Korea, as I understand it, has this principle of ensuring that the author of anything Internet can be personally identified. This kind of accountability might help even the odds between what is otherwise a named individual vs. an anonymous mob. I honestly don't know if it's a good idea or not, though.

cbd1984 12y ago
That makes it very hard for some minority groups to talk freely. Trans people are a big example but even gays can be at risk. And then there are whistle blowers.
- hga 12y ago
  And speaking of "minority groups", at least on the net, what about conservatives? Echoing my other comment about the totalitarian and most especially Stalinist nature of this arena, Brendan Eich was purged from Mozilla for holding the same position on gay marriage as Obama, "CEO" of the entire nation, officially did until May 9th, 2012, although in fairness to Obama, he said he changed his mind as opposed to always being at war with Eastasia. The Left has captured a whole bunch of fields like science where "No Irish or (open) Conservatives" applies, so to still be able to engage in the public sphere anonymity is required. And fortunately anonymity is enshrined in our lowercase and uppercase c/Constitutional order, e.g. The Federalist Papers. Compare to South Korea where they're still in a not quite hot but definitely not cold war with their northern Communist neighbor; I don't believe they can afford some of the civil liberties we enjoy.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > And speaking of "minority groups", at least on the net, what about conservatives? Conservatives aren't an underrepresented or disempowered group (the relevant sense of "minority"), even on the net. They are a group with disproportionate power (rooted in disproportionate economic power, extending to political and social domains), many of whose members have, or effect for propaganda purposes, an (unjustified) sense of persecution.

z3t4 12y ago

In the example she made fun of 1)black people 2) AIDS 3) White people. And possible offended all religious people in the world. What can possible go wrong? :P

hga 12y ago
Indeed, but does the punishment fit the "crime"? If not, how many orders of magnitude is the latter off by?

GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago

Hasn't Scott Aaronson himself gotten salty at people he disagrees with?

m0llusk 12y ago

Altruistic punishment is a psychological phenomenon that yields status benefit and opportunities for bonding. This powers gossip which is enabled by networks. Exposing what people do can limit some impacts. Real justice requires charges and opportunities for refutation and representation. Competing networks including anti gossip gossip can to some degree deflect the problem or turn it on itself.