Author warns about 'epidemic of self-censorship'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63797087

by pmoriarty • 4 years ago

110 163 4 years ago

bbc.co.uk

thefounder6• 4 years ago

I think there will be a push back against the current censorship and coercion. After a while people just get fed up. The longer it takes the bigger the swing. I wouldn't be surprised to see DeSantis president or someone even "worse".

raxxorraxor2• 4 years ago

I believe Trump was voted in by people who were fed up with the new sanctimonity, especially on topics like sexism and racism. Their defense was to vote for vulgarity and Trump seemed to be a master of that if nothing else.

ilyt• 4 years ago

And the current one is definition of "anything but the last guy" too.

throwaway290• 4 years ago

I suspect most of who supports him are not less sanctimonious, just in ways that preserve their status quo. They are not objecting self-censorship but objecting who and what gets self-censored.

lapcat5• 4 years ago

Trump received 46% of the vote in 2016, which is less than Mitt Romney's 47% in the previous election, but squeaked by in the electoral college against an extremely unpopular opponent.

The Republican share in the last 6 Presidential elections is 47%, 46%, 47%, 46%, 51%, 48%, the outlier being Bush's reelection in 2004. There's nothing special about Trump, electorally speaking. Republicans vote Republican.

SyzygistSix4• 4 years ago

I prefer vulgarity to censorship, regardless of whether it comes from the left or right. Trump's issue was his complete incompetence, not his vulgarity. Not that I liked his vulgarity, which was hardly presidential.

naasking3• 4 years ago

Didn't we already get that with Trump who is immune to criticisms of this sort? The swing has already started.

thefounder6• 4 years ago

Yeah but Trump was too much of an unstable clown to do anything meaningful. Trump made the whole thing about his persona. I think people like DeSantis are more on point(i.e policy not cult).

dfxm12• 4 years ago

If you're pushing back against censorship & coercion, why would vote for the guy who worked with his state legislature to pass a bill (stop woke act) that was all about limiting what teachers could teach? Luckily, a judge blocked the bill on First Amendment grounds.

Because despite all their saber rattling, the MO for US Republicans is to do things like ban books, sue teachers for teaching history, shun journalists, etc.

Georgelemental• 4 years ago

Public school teachers are paid with taxpayer money, that private citizens are forced to give to the state whether they want to or not. And because of compulsory education, many of the students are forced to be in the classroom, whether they want to or not. It is completely expected and not at all "censorship" for the people's elected representatives to have a say in what employees of the people's government do with the people's children and the people's tax dollars. There is literally no other way to run a public school system.

nine_k4• 4 years ago

Sadly, both of the major US parties are highly interested in grabbing power, even if it damages the the values of freedom :(

SyzygistSix4• 4 years ago

DeSantis is more of the same, perhaps even worse, just from a different political perspective. A swing towards tolerance would be nice though.

thefounder6• 4 years ago

I think we are past tolerance

nicbou2• 4 years ago

I don't expect any. The reason people self-censor is that the fight just isn't worth it. They just want to carry on with their lives and not get dragged into a fight by people who care way more than them.

poszlem• 4 years ago

I am both happy to hear BBC talking about this, and also can't help but feel like they (alongside with the rest of MSM) are the main source of that problem (even bigger than social media, as they shape what social media landscape looks like).

We just went through the most censorious (and self-censorship inducing) few years in my living memory (I am almost 40), where people who we "asking questions" were called all kind of names by all kind of news outlets.

djaychela2• 4 years ago

I'd disagree that the BBC is more responsible for a backlash than social media is. I'd suggest that it's social media that shapes the wider media landscape (particularly in recent years twitter), not the other way round.

There's also a huge difference between "just asking questions" and "just asking questions" - and there are a huge number of people who are doing so in a bad-faith manner.

All IMO, of course.

mantas• 4 years ago

A good chunk of social media is mainstream media, discussions around mainstream articles or driven by people working in mainstream media.

543g43g433• 4 years ago

I'd rather live in a world where raising certain questions is seen as "bad faith", than a world where the experts have decided that certain topics are "too important" to be discussed.

Also - if your point of view is threatened by people just asking questions, then you really should think some more.

kryogen1c• 4 years ago

There's also a huge difference between "just asking questions" and "just asking questions"

What is that?

Let's pretend I'm a card carrying jackboot wearing nazi. What question could I just ask, in bad faith? How come black people commit more crime? How come more black people are in prison?

Those are actually fantastic questions that, seriously considered, could lead to some significant societal change.

I can't think of an instance where the good/bad faith of the asker has any bearing on the question.

phpisthebest7• 4 years ago

Social Media is the root cause, the problem is Social media became the "Source of news" for most "journalists" who lazily just regurgitate the same info, using the same "sources" of twitter, facebook, etc.

thefounder6• 4 years ago

I highly doubt that. How did social media increase self censorship in the media?

543g43g433• 4 years ago

It's so true. The only people sad about Twitter's current state, are the journalists who (I assume) felt powerful and knowledgable thanks to constant scrolling.

35amxn35• 4 years ago

Bingo. Most so-called journalists should be hanged in public streets.

dang• 4 years ago

Can you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamewar comments? You've been doing it repeatedly, unfortunately.

It also looks like you've been using HN primarily for ideological battle, and that's a line at which we ban accounts, so please stop doing that.

https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.

eulgro• 4 years ago

I use uBlacklist to highlight results for good websites like reddit, stackoverflow, or official documentation. It also blocks hundreds of SEO websites and low quality stuff (quora, geeksforgeeks, clones of stackoverflow). You can even block stuff by title, like "\d+ (best|essential|...).*". Sometimes a get 2 results per page as a result of this.

ambicapter2• 4 years ago

Probably because "asking questions" or "just asking questions" is a known bad-faith tactic https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=JAQing%20off

tiahura• 4 years ago

Socrates deserved to die.

scandox• 4 years ago

Well as Ngozi Adichie says we must reestablish good faith as the default position. If we jettison good faith and always assume bad faith then indeed asking questions becomes impossible. But I'm sure that's not what people want.

She does seem to acknowledge that social media is not the best place for.good faith debate.

dbfx• 4 years ago

Urban dictionary is hardly a good enough source to do the heavy lifting you're trying to use it for.

543g43g433• 4 years ago

I'd rather live in a world where raising certain questions is seen as "bad faith", than a world where the experts have decided that certain topics are "too important" to be discussed.

Also - if your point of view is threatened by people just asking questions, then you really should think some more.

curtisblaine2• 4 years ago

It's a bit too easy to avoid all questions on the grounds that some people might be asking them in bad faith, though.

lapcat5• 4 years ago

The article talks about Salman Rushdie. The MSM didn't put a fatwa on Rushdie, and then stab him nearly to death. That was ultra-religious conservatives. Ultra-religious conservatives are also responsible for much of the censorship in the United States, especially in schools, refusing to allow kids to read certain books or be taught certain subjects.

Getting "called all kind of names" is not censorship, it's just criticism. That's actually an exercise of free speech by the name callers, don't you think?

[EDIT:] The irony of voting this comment down until it's effectively censored. Sigh.

HPsquared• 4 years ago

It was indeed mainstream in Iran though. I mean, the fatwa was issued by the Supreme Leader - can hardly get more mainstream than that.

Jarmsy6• 4 years ago

I'm guessing Rushdie is the only specific case referred to in the article because they can assume that the vast majority of their audience will consider what happened to him abhorrent.

However, they then slip into much more general terms, as though by induction any writers facing any kind of social consequences for expressing their bigoted views is the same as the fatwa.

That they neglect entirely to make any mention of Adichie's own case seems disingenuous.

robomartin4• 4 years ago

ultra-religious conservatives

As an atheist I have to object to this comment.

There's a vast difference between what you call "ultra-religious" across cultures and religions. For example, I have Born Again Christian friends who never miss an opportunity to try to bring me out of the dark side. I also have "ultra religious" Jewish friends. In both cases some of the nicest people you will ever meet.

We have to be careful not to classify-and-vilify. Every single one of us could easily fit into a classification worth of some level of vilification. That only serves to create further division and friction and does not make for a better society.

RickJWagner• 4 years ago

Yes, exactly.

Especially in some work settings, where 'approved' thought is rewarded and 'discouraged' thought is punished.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, you can find it in places like Reddit. Post something nice about a politician from one side of the political aisle. Then post something nice about a politician from the other side. You'll see pretty quickly what it's about.

Jarmsy6• 4 years ago

"There is a difference between valid criticism, which should be part of free expression, and this kind of backlash, ugly personal insults, putting addresses of homes and children's schools online, trying to make people lose their jobs."

That conflates some very different things.

Of course posting someone's children's schools because of something they wrote is unacceptable.

There are absolutely things that people can write which they should be removed from their job for though, and where it is appropriate to campaign for this as a response.

djaychela2• 4 years ago

I think she's talking about the level at which this campaign would occur. In the past it would have been at a far higher level. Now, almost any sentence can be taken in the worst-faith way, and a campaign be started based on that assumption.

phpisthebest7• 4 years ago

Outside the confines of them making official representation about their employer or actions they would take under their authority/power/employment or while on the job, I do not believe there is anything someone writes for which they should be removed from their job.

Jarmsy6• 4 years ago

To clarify - say a schoolteacher writes expressing their strongly held personal racist beliefs (without specific reference to how this relates to their teaching role) would you consider that a reason?

LightHugger• 4 years ago

Maybe they should be removed from their job if it's something related to their job, but it almost never is. It always comes down to "this person disagrees with me, therefore cause their employer a nuisance till its no longer worth employing them". There's not a moral court judgement or fairness, it's just some people harassing other people and insisting they deserve it.

jackmott• 4 years ago

But you forget to mention that the disagreements are things like: “I think you dont have the right to exist because you are gay or black or non christian “ or “nevermind democracy trump should be president even though he lost”

People aren’t getting cancelled because they think taxes are 5% too high

tablespoon2• 4 years ago

Maybe they should be removed from their job if it's something related to their job, but it almost never is. It always comes down to "this person disagrees with me, therefore cause their employer a nuisance till its no longer worth employing them". There's not a moral court judgement or fairness, it's just some people harassing other people and insisting they deserve it.

The problem is that anything can be "related to their job" if you're willing to stretch enough. For instance, by hitting PR notes like "do you want your company to be known as being associated with this kind of person."

concinds• 4 years ago

She's distinguishing between mob behavior (fundamentally emotional, with people trying to cancel someone they just heard of 2 minutes ago, likely without caring about any context or evidence), and intellectual criticism.

It's a reasonable distinction, since except for the past ~10 years, all well-educated people used to understand that mobs are dangerous, even the well-intentioned ones.

Ligma123• 4 years ago

There are absolutely things that people can write which they should be removed from their job for though, and where it is appropriate to campaign for this as a response.

It's really good to see you say the quiet part out loud, and I do hope some people start to become more aware of the friend-enemy distinction.

That's why when people who have the same stance as you get fired, specially when they have a history of trying to get other people get fired for something they said, always warms my heart.

Jarmsy6• 4 years ago

Who said anything about a friend-enemy distinction?

I'm talking about when someone writes things which reveal that they hold values or beliefs which make them unsuitable for a role they hold.

krastanov• 4 years ago

I am quite confused by your phrasing. What "quiet part"? This has never been a quiet part. There has always been a self-consistent view of the world in which employers have been asked to respond for perceived immoral behavior among their employees, even if that behavior has little to do with their job. Nothing here is new. You can argue whether that world view is itself moral, but it is silly to claim it is not a fairly standard or common world view that plenty of people consider "obvious and correct".

On the other hand, it is certainly worthwhile to discuss what actually deserves such heavy-handed treatment, but that needs to be an honest and polite and patient conversation.

trention5• 4 years ago

"There are absolutely things that people can write which they should be removed from their job for though"

No, there are not. Anything you say outside of your working time is not the business of your employer.

jfengel• 4 years ago

The "ugly personal insults" part really stands out. It seems inherently self-contradictory: "I should be able to say anything I want, but you should be restricted in the nature of your reply."

As you say, doxxing is much closer to violence, and there's every reason to forbid it. But she's attracting attention because of what many people see as "ugly personal insults" against them.

Similarly, right at the beginning, she talks about being "afraid to ask questions for fear of asking the wrong questions". There is already a term for this, JAQing off, where questions are not sincerely intended because you're not going to listen to the answers. They may be intended to sow doubt, spread misinformation, or simply waste time re-re-reexplaining the same point. Those are "wrong questions" because they're not really questions.

honeybadger1• 4 years ago

Great article, this hits at the heart of 'it's not okay to offend' and why it's just dribble.

tibbydudeza3• 4 years ago

If you offend society, you gonna end up in the village square tarred and feathered or worse thrown out into the woods - social harmony an all that.

The right of the individual overruling all else is a baffling Western concept.

philovivero2• 4 years ago

No-one believes in the right of the individual overruling all else. I'm not sure how you are coming to that conclusion.

If you offend all of society (or more realistically, most of it), then sure, you are going to have a bad few years. No-one really disagrees there.

But if you offend some tiny segment of socieety, a single malicious and persistent "villager," then you should not have to endure that person spending all their time trying to ruin your life.

If it's one person, you would get a restraining order.

What do you do if it's 10,000 people, in a world of 7 billion? Clearly that's even smaller an influence than a single person in a village. We need a modern day equivalent of a restraining order against those 10,000 so they don't get you fired from your job, divorced from your wife, estranged from your kids, and sent packing from your bank.

This is what everyone's upset about. No-one is defending the dictator wannabe who is advocating for murdering half the planet to get socialism to finally work. Everyone agrees that guy's a nut, and it's fine if he gets fired.

thathndude• 4 years ago

Such a good, and important, take on the state of affairs. Outright censorship is bad. But even worse is when an environment is fostered in which folks will preemptively self-censor. It’s terrifying.

EntropyIsAHoax2• 4 years ago

How so? I personally prefer to live in a world where expressing certain opinions in public is socially unacceptable and will make you an outcast. For example, I don't want to hear anyone's transphobic opinions, as is the case with this author. I really wish she would self-censor like she claims is such an epidemic, instead of being featured in the BBC doing the exact opposite.

Obviously in general I don't want someone to face violence for expressing an opinion, but I don't want to hear bigotry like this being echoed in the news, in social media, by my friends, etc... because I like living a peaceful life.

amanaplanacanal2• 4 years ago

Everybody self censors all the time. We learn to do it as children, as it is a normal part of human psychology. It is so automatic that evidently people have forgotten that they do it.

SyzygistSix4• 4 years ago

And spending some time as a young adult exploring that is crucial to a person's development. I'm reminded of a part in Illuminatus when one of the characters while high "...probably made a good argument for rape and murder while he was at it...".

Spending time radically deconstructing societal expectations was very good for my development as a young 20-something. Fortunately, from what I hear anyway, there is good quality LSD available and certainly no shortage of dicks to kick.

Kye4• 4 years ago

> "She continued: "Nothing demonstrates this better than the recent phenomenon of 'sensitivity readers' in the world of publishing, people whose job it is to cleanse unpublished manuscripts of potentially offensive words."

That's such a gross misrepresentation. Does the article improve at all past this?

senko• 4 years ago

According to quick googling, this is exactly on the spot. Here's a Guardian article that talks positively about those roles and describes them in exactly the same way:

A sensitivity reader is an additional editor [...]. This individual will conduct a very specific read of the manuscript, and offer notes on characters from marginalised groups, or elements which may cause offence.

(emphasis mine)

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/08/stop-m...

Looks like the article could've used a sensitivity reader itself, if it caused yout to get so offended you didn't read the rest of it.

Kye4• 4 years ago

> "Looks like the article could've used a sensitivity reader itself, if it caused yout to get so offended you didn't read the rest of it."

This is also a gross misrepresentation. This article is drawing such a poor discussion.

spoiler2• 4 years ago

Which part do you think it misrepresents specifically?

Also some other HN comments here mentioned regurgitating of opinions on social media and how that influences this issue; so in the spirit of that, I recommend reading the article and forming your own! Not trying to be snide btw.

Kye4• 4 years ago

The function of a sensitivity reader. A sensitivity reader would, for example, remind a writer that "Eskimo" isn't actually a tribe, and suggest a much improved story by representing an actual northern tribe like Inuit or Yupik. They're there to help writers see past stereotypes, and that makes for better writing.

bondarchuk• 4 years ago

What you react negatively to is not that the description is inaccurate (it's perfectly accurate), but that it omits the ideological justifications. Many proponents of sensitivity readers would probably answer the question "what is a sensitivity reader?" with something like: "a sensitivity reader is someone who protects marginalized people from systemic oppression and etc...", which is not just a description but also a justification with a whole lot of ideological baggage. If it makes you uncomfortable to see a phenomenon like this explained in a simple, factual manner, consider why that may be.

BaseballPhysics3• 4 years ago

If it makes you uncomfortable to see a phenomenon like this explained in a simple, factual manner, consider why that may be

That you think the phrase "cleanse unpublished manuscripts" is a purely factual statement, but "a sensitivity reader is someone who protects marginalized people from systemic oppression" is not, simply reveals your own politics.

Both are statements of fact and ideology. Both are deliberate framings meant to push a certain narrative.

"Cleanse" invokes ideas of removal and censorship, centering on specific outcomes.

"Protects" instead emphasizes the needs of marginalized groups, centering on intent.

Both are value-laden statements.

So let's not pretend one is more "objective" than the other.

EntropyIsAHoax2• 4 years ago

No it does not. Just another generic "person with huge public reach complains about being criticized for their bigotry" article from the BBC. Somehow these people never see the irony about articles like this being in the biggest news outlet in the UK.

incomingpain• 4 years ago

I disagree with the author. There might be some self-censorship but the epidemic is actual censorship. As the article says, some people call it cancel culture but it has become obvious it's more insidious.

The author is right, there are a ton of major consequences because of this censorship.

Such a climate could lead to "the death of curiosity, the death of learning and the death of creativity", the award-winning Nigerian author warned.

This is tip of the iceberg. The consequences are so much worse. They see it from an artistic point of view. I see it from a politics and economics point of view. The good news it looks like we're past the peak. The politics behind all this is about to become quite irrelevant, most likely end up as a new religion.

subpixel2• 4 years ago

How ironic! I considered linking to an interview with this author about the phenomenon of online swindlers in her home country when a debate about same sprung up in a company listserv. One side of the debate was offended that the topic was broached at all.

I self-censored, realizing a factual account from a prominent Nigerian author would probably be dismissed and I would be tarred for appearing to take a side in a debate where race and colonialism were being held up as reasons people like me just don’t understand.

baud1472582• 4 years ago

Do you still have that link? Could be interesting

subpixel2• 4 years ago

Argh, I have mistaken one Nigerian author for another:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-49759392

tibbydudeza3• 4 years ago

Just some plain common sense is needed.

Recently we had a spate of incidents of killings by pitbulls in South Africa prompting some people to call for the breed to banned and the dogs confiscated and put down.

So, one seemingly intelligent pitbull owner took it upon herself to record a voicenote on a pitbull owners forum that had members of all races calling for black men to be castrated instead because of racist tropes of dogs and black people.

She got arrested (we do have hate crime laws) and her landlord is busy evicting her from the rental property.

jongjong3• 4 years ago

There is both self-censorship and literal censorship.

When I was working for big corporations and SV startups, I was extremely careful about what I said online, including anonymously. I was even afraid to like or give a thumbs up to certain comments. After I joined the blockchain sector and started earning some passive income, I started posting every single thought that came to my mind.

My ex-colleagues don't post anything on social media. They don't even click like on anything... They just consume but never interact.

I'm not surprised why ESG narratives are so pervasive on social media; people are afraid to express any view to the contrary. There have been no negative career repercussions for liking or promoting ESG content; quite the opposite.

pjc503• 4 years ago

ESG?

jongjong3• 4 years ago

Environmental Social Governance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental,_social,_and_cor...

Wow, I thought everyone was aware of ESG by now (especially on HN). It seems that social media echo chambers keep getting worse...

ambicapter2• 4 years ago

I started posting every single thought that came to my mind

Uhhhh, is this a good thing?

jongjong3• 4 years ago

Good for society yes. It helps others feel more comfortable about expressing their own views when they see others doing it. Probably not that good for me personally but hey, Elon's doing it too.

The less people see others expressing themselves, the less comfortable they feel in doing so.

Elon Musk goofing has been valuable but my concern is that some people will think that only billionaires are allowed to do so. It shouldn't become a status thing that's why regular folks like me need to do it too.

IMO, anyone who isn't directly under the thumb of the big corporate oligarchy has a duty to express themselves publicly to show that it's OK.

The thing that left-wing neoliberals don't seem to understand (or maybe they are evil and actually want this) is that if the number of people who are willing to express themselves drops below a certain threshold, authorities may start literally locking us up (or worse) and then the entire world will be just like North Korea or worse.

pjc503• 4 years ago

Context for the author: https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/3/15/14910900/chimamanda...

public_defender• 4 years ago

Thanks. This is a good read.

notlukesky2• 4 years ago

The elites (and the corporate journalists of billionaires) often control what is “allowable” as speech with reach. Free speech is allowable so long as it doesn’t have reach. Once you pass that line you become a target for elimination like Assange. Look for allowable discourse from weathervanes like billionaire owned and controlled media like the NY Times, Washington Post, The Economist etc…

Remember when the FBI would target black authors:

https://amp.theguardian.com/books/2015/feb/09/fbi-monitored-...

The Overton window:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

thenerdhead• 4 years ago

And when they would police writers in general:

https://web.archive.org/web/20220821062432/https://www.newyo...

notlukesky2• 4 years ago

Soft power is enforced by hard power. Now the bidding for enforcement is outsourced to hall monitors on social media accusing even academics of being foreign agents or treasonous or some -ism.

BaseballPhysics3• 4 years ago

Fundamentally, the problem is its often very difficult to tell the difference between the brave iconoclast shining a light on sensitive issues, and the troll or worse, looking to cause harm to others.

Is David Duke a dangerous voice for bigotry, or a brave man speaking out against a system?

What about the famous Dutch cartoonist? Brave satirists, or racist firestarters?

What about Ilhan Omar? Defender of Palestinian rights or anti-Semite?

Is a sensitivity reader shining a light on an author's potential biases and blind spots, or are they a tool for censorship?

Are k-pop groups on Twitter posting into alt-right hashtags disrupting communication among hate groups, or censoring alternative viewpoints?

All of this is a matter of judgement.

Many would say that, hey, it doesn't matter, speech should be free and unfettered without exception. Sticks and stones, etc. The danger of censorship is too high.

Those in victimized groups, subject to harassment or worse, enabled by social networks and so forth, would profoundly disagree.

After all, it's easy to say that now after decades of progress for victimized groups. It reminds me a lot of anti-vaxxers today questioning the need for the measles vaccine. To them the disease is just a memory, the side effects are more dangerous.

And that's ignoring the fact that there's still unbelievable amounts of hate directed at victimized groups online.

This author may have a very valid point. Maybe self-censorship is happening at a rate above what is desirable.

But if my neighbor pops up online and advocates for white power and racial purity, you're darn right I want him to self-censor.

mschuster91• 4 years ago

Well yeah... you can be an asshole towards minorities or anyone else as long as you're not running afoul of libel and hate speech laws, that's called "freedom of speech".

"Freedom of speech" however, and this is what many of the "cancel culture" whiners forget, also runs the other way around: when you behave like an asshole, drop N-bombs or otherwise become commercially untenable,

- platforms like social media can decide they do not wish to be a platform for your speech - if not out of respect for their own brand, they have to take care to not threaten their relationships with advertisers as Twitter is finding out the hard way. The calculation is simple: the income from advertisers willing to show up next to Alex Jones-style crap is way, way lower than the income from advertisers that Twitter loses because the brands act proactively.

- same applies for direct contracts from sponsors. While this is less common with book authors, media stars are, with "Ye" being the perfect example.

- publishers and especially reviewers can decide they don't want to publish or review your books/media

- fans can decide that they don't want to buy and read your books/media

To sum up: You can be an asshole and claim you're just "asking questions" or "exercising your right to free speech", but you can't at the same time complain when actions have consequences and you're being held accountable.

And a side note regarding the popular "just asking questions" excuse: for literally every single question that LGBT people or PoC get "asked", there are tons of answers on Google, in interviews, in media, in scientific literature. You don't need to answer a random Black person if it hurts them personally if you're writing out the N-word or a Jew if it hurts them if you deny the Holocaust - even if the specific person says it does not, the overwhelming majority of evidence and opinions will be very clear.

trention5• 4 years ago

actions have consequences and you're being held accountable.

If there was no government-sanctioned affirmative action and if discrimination of the basis of race was not outlawed, all the consequences in the world would not change the fact that the "cancel culture whiners" (your own words) will rise in status (both social and economic) relative to minorities and liberals. So, yes - actions do have consequences, including for you.

upofadown• 4 years ago

"We are all familiar with stories of people who have said or written something and then faced a terrible online backlash," she said.

What proportion of these came out of Twitter? It seems to me at least that most of the abusive brigading comes from there. There seems to be something about how Twitter implements their "following" concept that creates arbitrary and pointless groups. Twitter is a bunch of virtual gangs fighting each other and any other discernible targets.

lakomen• 4 years ago

If you want to find truth, you have to post your unfiltered thoughts, or ideally speaking them to a friend or a group.

Valve's Steam is a complete censorship platform Everywhere where profits are in the game, you will be censored.

And let me tell you something else. The law or human rights don't end because it's "a private platform". This or those platforms are part of the areas law or human rights cover.

My freedom of speech ends where I insult or threaten someone, unless this person is insulting or threatening themself.

When I ask if there is a straight pride flag in Fallout 76 and get banned for that, that is unlawful and should be prosecuted. I'm part of the straight majority (95%), even asking why my sexuality isn't represented, but only gay and asexuality resulting in a ban? There is something wrong.

Everywhere where there's a profit interest censorship is happening. Steam is an awful place. You might say, who cares about a platform for games? Our kids grow up with this and we adults are also being treated like kids there. Steam has a feature where you get banned for even a year or two years or even permanently, just for speaking your mind if it's not in line with the company policy you will get canceled aka banned. Hundreds of years on the front, our ancestors fighting for the right to free speech and them some out of law company makes up their own oppressive rules, claims it doesn't have to follow the laws or recognize human rights. Valve should be sued and broken apart.

taolegal• 4 years ago

My freedom of speech ends where I insult or threaten someone

nice belief, but I've got foundational law protecting my right to freedom of speech

esparrohack2• 4 years ago

Oh yeah. Heterophobia. It’s all over the place now.

fallingfrog3• 4 years ago

Does the author want stronger moderation, or weaker moderation?

If you want stronger moderation, so people are more civil, well, that's a type of censorship, isn't it?

If you want weaker moderation, then you should expect a lot of people to yell at you when you say something unpopular.

You can't have it both ways.

fallingfrog3• 4 years ago

The sense that I get, as a side note, is that people who complain about cancel culture don't understand, or can't accept, how deeply unpopular their opinions actually are. They assume that everyone secretly agrees with them, but for some reason nobody is saying it, so there must be some conspiracy afoot to silence them. The actual fact is that, as I pointed out above, you can make people be civil, but you can't make them agree with you.

4bpp2• 4 years ago

"When all you have is a hammer..."

The problem doesn't seem to me like one that can be or should be solved (primarily) by turning the amount-of-moderation knob in one direction or the other.

I think that the philosophical basis of free speech, in the version I personally prefer and believe to have enabled the formation of Western liberalism, is the idea that society will be better off if more people are exposed to more different viewpoints. Translated into prescriptions for action, this means that you ought to minimise censorship of speech that will expose more people to viewpoints they have not encountered yet, but actually ought to censor speech that aims to prevent people from being exposed to certain viewpoints (or at least work to limit its impact; the viewpoint that you should prevent people from being exposed to certain viewpoint is also a valid viewpoint that more people ought to be exposed to ceteris paribus, but if you have to trade off between censoring the one idea saying that you should censor dangerous ideas and 100 ideas that proliferation of the one idea would result in being censored as dangerous, then the latter win by numbers).

"No censorship!" is a gloss of free speech that is catchy, but only really functions as a shorthand for the above version of it when addressed to people who already have the right mindset. An increasing number of people nowadays don't, as they are more driven by fear (of others, of uncomfortable ideas, and perhaps of themselves if they were to be exposed to those ideas) than intellectual curiosity, and this is the actual problem that we ought to be solving rather than just contemplating where to bring down the hammer of moderation.

fallingfrog3• 4 years ago

What kind of speech aims to prevent people from being exposed to certain viewpoints? If you say something and then 100 angry people respond back, are they silencing you, or is it just that you said something that made a lot of people very angry?

To a degree I think you're doing what I talked about in my other comment- you might be assuming that most people secretly have opinions that they're just too intimidated to express.

I don't think that's the case at all. I think many people underestimate how deeply unpopular their opinions are. So when they get shouted down, they can't explain it in any other way then some kind of conspiracy to silence people like them. Do you want people to stop yelling at each other online? Let me know how that goes.

helen___keller2• 4 years ago

young people were growing up "afraid to ask questions for fear of asking the wrong questions".

This is not a problem young people have, this is a problem old people have.

Young people grew up with social media and are very savvy about segmenting their public persona from their private one. Young people understand intuitively that asking an edgy question on your public persona is an act of edginess in itself.

If you want to know why, the answer is that technology has weaponized the concept of push polling to its extreme (now “concern trolling” and such). As such it’s become difficult to distinguish legitimate discourse from bad-faith concern trolling. Young people understand this easily.

Older people on the other hand I’ve seen struggle with these concepts.

Regarding publishing and self-censorship in literature I can’t comment; most people aren’t publishing literature and I’m among the majority so I have no experience with that.

trabant00• 4 years ago

Oh yes, the proverbial wise young people who understand the world better. Not being able to be genuine on social media when they spend a large proportion of time "socializing" there clearly can't do any harm. In no way can this bring about a distorted view of reality and of what people actually think. No, not a chance, young people are savvy about these things.

helen___keller2• 4 years ago

Every source of media is a distorted view of reality. This has been true since the printing press was invented to today. There is no crystal ball.

I’m saying that young people can navigate the environment they were raised in effectively.

You mention “understand[ing] the world better” yet I made no comment about young people being wise and understanding the world.

My only claim is that young people are capable of navigating between public and private personas such that they can satisfy their intellectual curiosity. We are not, as the author claimed, intellectually stifled by fear of asking the wrong question.

Feel free to state why you think this is not true, rather than just offering a mocking tone.

t-3• 4 years ago

It's not like people are genuine in real life though? Do you tell your coworkers about your politics, religion, or sex life?

philippejara2• 4 years ago

Young people grew up with social media and are very savvy about segmenting their public persona from their private one. Young people understand intuitively that asking an edgy question on your public persona is an act of edginess in itself.

While that is true to a certain segment, I'd argue that the young people are actually worse than the older ones. There is a gap of those that experienced the internet before things like facebook/twitter became the face of the web, those i'd argue do fit the mold you're describing, the generation after them however? Their entire lives seem to be on the internet, with no regard for anonymity or oversharing with complete strangers, many dazzled by the idea of getting fame through those interactions and often turning what should be personal relationships with real friends into exclusively virtual interactions, and it compounds when you get older and you're further incentivized to put yourself publicly out there with LinkedIn and such. Of course there is a bit of a hyperbole but the point still stands.

Kye4• 4 years ago

> "Their entire lives seem to be on the internet, with no regard for anonymity or oversharing with complete strangers, many dazzled by the idea of getting fame through those interactions and often turning what should be personal relationships with real friends into exclusively virtual interactions, and it compounds when you get older and you're further incentivized to put yourself publicly out there with LinkedIn and such."

This is exactly opposite of everything I've heard and seen. If anything, they're retreating from public places to Discords and private chats with friends to reduce the risk of becoming their school/community's main character. Opening up on public social media is seen as unacceptably risky.

edit: there's also the phenomenon where almost every weird, disingenuous, etc, callout in public is from someone under 20. It's fear-based performance. The action of someone still naive and inexperienced enough to think that if they seem virtuous, no one will come for them. It's been a huge problem on furry Twitter as the fandom gains more younger members with all the furry bait coming out of Disney, Pixar, and Netflix anime. It's how we got the sinful spine line and "any furry over 30 is sus" memes.

esparrohack2• 4 years ago

This is really gonna piss off the kids.

We’re self-censoring Even now cus We know it’s dangerous to ask uncomfortable questions. Believe it or not, everyone over 30 is not just an idiot or a criminal.

Massive backlash incoming. The USA is going to become very conservative again.

These pendulum swings are giving me whiplash

robomartin4• 4 years ago

We have been living a reality where you truly have to worry about your career and safety. This, in a western country where freedom is supposed to be the law of the land. Yet, that isn't reality today at all. Say the wrong thing and your career is over. Or worse.

And, yes, I am sorry to say, the blood is entirely, 100% on the hands of the ideological left.

Anyone who does not think the current status-quo is wrong and seriously detrimental should take a moment to imagine a reality where the right, rather than the left, has that level of dominance and control. That scenario would be just as horrific as the current reality. This isn't good for society, no matter which side has dominance. The public has the right to be well informed with facts and not to be subjected to constitutionally-protected indoctrination.

The problem with the vast majority of the MSM and social media being ideologically one sided is that they create ignorance and false narratives that permeate the population.

A simple example of this is what has been happening at the US southern border. People who only consume leftist MSM/social media material have absolutely no idea whatsoever that over five million people have effectively invaded the US in the last two years. No clue at all. Even beyond that, they have no idea that these people, who, by definition, are unemployed, are not counted in unemployment statistics. Or that a good number of them will likely take entry level jobs away from other --existing-- communities. They have no clue about just how badly this has expanded both human trafficking and the mass entry of dangerous drugs into the country.

The fact that these kinds of things are not covered at all by MSM/social media entities makes for a population that is utterly ignorant of quite a range of realities. When it comes time to vote, this amounts to voter manipulation. If every media outlet constantly lies and manipulates the message, well, you are manipulating votes. This, again, is objectively wrong. Would you like the right to have dominance of the MSM and do the same thing? Likely not. It's wrong.

The press is protected by the US constitution in order for them to inform the people, not lie, indoctrinate and polarize through constant pounding with unified one-sided ideological messaging.

Author warns about 'epidemic of self-censorship'

Related Stories