RIP Culture War Thread

#1

Post by whiddershins » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 7:50 PM UTC

RIP Culture War Thread
slatestarcodex.com

Re: RIP Culture War Thread

#2

Post by whiddershins » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 7:51 PM UTC

This is a long piece.

I am submitting it because particularly the second section, about comment moderation, seems to have wide-reaching implications for tech and conversations.

Re: RIP Culture War Thread

#3

Post by dang » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 8:08 PM UTC

Url changed from https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/02/22/rip-culture-war-thread..., which is broken.

Re: RIP Culture War Thread

#4

Post by denart2203 » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 8:18 PM UTC

"Fourth, I want anybody else trying to host “the national conversation” to have a clear idea of the risks. If you plan to be anything less than maximally censorious, consider keeping your identity anonymous, and think about potential weak links in your chain (ie hosts, advertisers, payment processors, etc). I’m not saying you necessarily need to go full darknet arms merchant. Just keep in mind that lots of people will try to stop you, and they’ve had a really high success rate so far."

Someone from the commentor community here should do a historical study on censorship like this (not exactly like this, of course, since the internet didn’t exist) under representative governments. Is it rare or unprecedented for voters to polarize into two tribes that will not communicate without the state falling into civil war? Or is it common and just feels like a coming civil war because we haven’t lived a large enough sample size?

Re: RIP Culture War Thread

#5

Post by pitt1980 » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 8:19 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #3

Url changed from https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/02/22/rip-culture-war-thread... , which is broken.

its broken because the author didn't want it shared in this fashion

Re: RIP Culture War Thread

#6

Post by whiddershins » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 8:22 PM UTC

pitt1980 wrote: post #5

dang wrote: post #3

Url changed from https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/02/22/rip-culture-war-thread... , which is broken.

its broken because the author didn't want it shared in this fashion

Did the author state that? Because I wouldn’t have shared it if that was stated.

Edit: the author states that the post is having technical issues. I don’t believe there’s any indication it shouldn’t be shared/discussed.

Re: RIP Culture War Thread

#7

Post by dang » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 8:30 PM UTC

pitt1980 wrote: post #5

dang wrote: post #3

Url changed from https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/02/22/rip-culture-war-thread... , which is broken.

its broken because the author didn't want it shared in this fashion

The current link is a long new article that seems fine to share, whether or not there was a second.

Re: RIP Culture War Thread

#8

Post by berberous » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 8:32 PM UTC

whiddershins wrote: post #6

pitt1980 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

its broken because the author didn't want it shared in this fashion

Did the author state that? Because I wouldn’t have shared it if that was stated. Edit: the author states that the post is having technical issues. I don’t believe there’s any indication it shouldn’t be shared/discussed.

I also assumed the broken link was an intentional way to avoid amplifying this post too much, given the context and some history, but Scott posted in the SSC subreddit that the technical issues on this post were not at all intentional. So should be all good to share.

Re: RIP Culture War Thread

#9

Post by BryantD » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 8:32 PM UTC

"On the last SSC survey, I asked who participated in the thread, and used that to get a pretty good idea of its userbase."

I think this is worth drilling into. Scott's data shows the user base, but he slips into "I took some random surveys" when he addresses the question of comment frequency. That data is not as high quality.

If I had the survey data, I'd use the Reddit API to figure out comment frequency by respondent type, and see if there's anything interesting there.

Re: RIP Culture War Thread

#10

Post by pitt1980 » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 8:33 PM UTC

whiddershins wrote: post #6

pitt1980 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

its broken because the author didn't want it shared in this fashion

Did the author state that? Because I wouldn’t have shared it if that was stated. Edit: the author states that the post is having technical issues. I don’t believe there’s any indication it shouldn’t be shared/discussed.

its tagged 'Things I will regret writing'

I implied it,

maybe I'm wrong