Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

De-escalating social media conflict

nickpunt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 350 posts

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#271

Post by garraeth »

wffurr wrote: post #238
thinkingemote wrote: post #213

Forgiveness. Rather than encourage better behaviours of those targeted by the mob, it would be better to encourage better behaviours of the mob itself. Forgiveness is absent in every social media or comment section and yet it's one of the crucial ways we get along with people. Having others visibly but perhaps silently forgive another would allow social proof that its okay to forgive this perceived offender. Forgiven…

The author goes into that in the next section of the article. Forgiveness starts with an apology.

Forgiveness requiring an apology isn't true forgiveness, it's more akin to revenge.

And if you wait for an apology, you'll never be able to forgive, remove that burden from yourself, from those who have wronged you who are dead. Many instances of anger and a lack of forgiveness are multi-generational - or even parent/child.

People can rightly forgive without the other party even knowing about it. In fact, I'd argue the best kind of forgiveness is done completely silently, personally, and the only way anyone could figure you that you have forgiven someone is through your subsequent behavior.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#272

Post by earthboundkid »

Viliam1234 wrote: post #200
earthboundkid wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capitalism is the paper clip maximizer, non-metaphorically. Science fiction is pretty much always just about things that already happened. “What if we maximized a non-human value?” is just a subconsciously repressed way of asking “Did anyone notice we’ve been maximizing non-human values for a couple hundred years?”

It happens in capitalism, and it happens in socialism, because it happens everywhere. It is like saying "entropy increases in capitalism"; technically true, but misleading. Things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law happen regardless of political regime or economical system. In different situations they take different forms: in capitalism, companies try to maximize (short-term) (perceived) shareholder…

There was a time before capitalism.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#273

Post by earthboundkid »

c3534l wrote: post #148
earthboundkid wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capitalism is the paper clip maximizer, non-metaphorically. Science fiction is pretty much always just about things that already happened. “What if we maximized a non-human value?” is just a subconsciously repressed way of asking “Did anyone notice we’ve been maximizing non-human values for a couple hundred years?”

This doesn't work because humans are the consumer. Humans purchase things based on their own person values. Capitalism has the instrumental goal of maximizing human values. In addition, humans engage in every stage of the process. Some of the biggest failures of capitalism are actually the results of human values: racism, sexism, nepotism. I can think of some issues with unregulated capitalism, but none of them seem…

Sexism, nepotism, and xenophobic predate capitalism, but racism does not. Racism was created as the explanation for why African slavery, which was much more brutal than prior slavery, was okay after all. African slavery in turn was because of mercantilism/capitalism. They were getting out of debt by ruining people’s lives. It was quite inhuman.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#274

Post by foldr »

sukilot wrote: post #253
foldr wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that white supremacists are off the end of the political spectrum, and that we shouldn't worry too much about what offends them. But the issue isn't just the comparison, it's the suggestion that BLM is inherently a violent movement (so that endorsing BLM would equate to endorsing violence). BLM is a broad movement. It's not only people on the left - and certainly not only people on the far left - who support…

No matter how much you detest them, how can the members of the ruling party, in a country that until very recently had their views enshrined in law, be off the end of the political spectrum?

I mean that white supremacists are outside the range of reasonable political debate.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#275

Post by BaronSamedi »

andrepd wrote: post #89
ssalazar wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Engagement" is the "paper clip maximizer"[1] of the modern software industry, or more generally an example of "instrumental convergence." Optimizing engagement without regard for negative externalities is a catastrophic ethical failure of the major players in the software industry, and we are finally seeing a backlash both from mainstream advertisers and widespread public outcry. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In…

Why should a for-profit enterprise have any kind of ethical consideration at all? It seems that's your mistake.

Since this is a widely held view, it is worth debating. I would argue for a contrary position: 1) every organization has an ethical responsibility, and 2) corporations not only do have an ethical responsibility but have a higher one. A few, abbreviated reasons are as follows.

Every member of a physical grouping (e.g. neighborhood, community, city, state, etc.) has an ethical responsibility to other members of that group. Organizations, like individuals, are members of a physical group. Therefore organizations have an ethical responsibility to other members of that group.

Those who are granted special privileges by the group have a higher obligation to the group as a result. Ethical responsibility represents one of those obligations. Corporations are granted special privileges such as limited liability, hence they have a higher obligation.

Similarly, those organizations that are granted disproportionate political and economic power, assume disproportionate obligations. With, again, ethical responsibility being one of those obligations. This is the "to whom much is given, much is required" principle. Also, since an organization with disproportionate political and economic power necessarily has a disproportionate impact on a given society, it is entirely reasonable for those granting that power to expect it to be used benevolently.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#276

Post by Y_Y »

foldr wrote: post #228
tomp wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. First, it’s not a comparison, just 2 examples. Second, I’m pretty sure that many on the opposing end of political spectrum (compared to you) might find it offensive in the other direction. But yea I did expect it to be badly received here on HN.

I think that white supremacists are off the end of the political spectrum, and that we shouldn't worry too much about what offends them. But the issue isn't just the comparison, it's the suggestion that BLM is inherently a violent movement (so that endorsing BLM would equate to endorsing violence). BLM is a broad movement. It's not only people on the left - and certainly not only people on the far left - who support…

I would really like to see less of this kind of content on hn.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#277

Post by JoeSmithson »

garraeth wrote: post #271
wffurr wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author goes into that in the next section of the article. Forgiveness starts with an apology.

Forgiveness requiring an apology isn't true forgiveness, it's more akin to revenge. And if you wait for an apology, you'll never be able to forgive, remove that burden from yourself, from those who have wronged you who are dead. Many instances of anger and a lack of forgiveness are multi-generational - or even parent/child. People can rightly forgive without the other party even knowing about it. In fact, I'd argue t…

I don't think there's anything unusual about being prepared to forgive someone who is contrite and has apologised, but not being able to if they are unrepentant. It's nothing like revenge.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#278

Post by Dumblydorr »

yodelshady wrote: post #244
wffurr wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author goes into that in the next section of the article. Forgiveness starts with an apology.

Forgiveness also requires our being right . That's not a given. If not, it's not an apology, it's shouting at someone until they're too exhausted to defend themselves any more. So, we should start by not assuming that. Especially when large numbers of people agree with us.

Forgiveness doesn't require rightness. Consider Dumbledore's analysis of Percy Weasley abandoning his family: "it is easier to forgive others for being wrong than for being right."

Unpacking, it means Percy knows he is wrong and it's much harder for him to swallow his pride because he is not right.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#279

Post by foldr »

Y_Y wrote: post #276
foldr wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that white supremacists are off the end of the political spectrum, and that we shouldn't worry too much about what offends them. But the issue isn't just the comparison, it's the suggestion that BLM is inherently a violent movement (so that endorsing BLM would equate to endorsing violence). BLM is a broad movement. It's not only people on the left - and certainly not only people on the far left - who support…

I would really like to see less of this kind of content on hn.

Me too, but it's a tough situation. There's a lot of 'nod nod wink wink' alt right stuff on the site, and since none of that is banned by mods, I think there ought to be a response to it too. What do you think we should do instead?

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#280

Post by brigandish »

foldr wrote: post #208
tomp wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No well known advertiser wants their brand associated with something unpopular or toxic. That's pre-historic thinking. No reasonable long-term user of Social Media would think that a Frozen ad showing next to some BLM/white supremacist content means that Disney endorses violence/racism. It just means that you've liked Frozen (or similar things) before. The dinosaurs will die out. They'll be replaced by social-media…

>BLM/white supremacist content means that Disney endorses violence/racism Are you trolling with this comparison? In a thread about de-escalation it seems a bit unwise to casually tie BLM to violence and suggest that it's somehow comparable to white supremacist extremism. I get that you were trying to choose one example from each 'end' of the political spectrum, but I think this particular choice was badly misconceive…

> Are you trolling with this comparison?

How long have you been on HN? Begin by assuming good faith, please.

> it seems a bit unwise to casually tie BLM to violence

"unwise" reads like a threat at worst and a warning at best but since I've invoked good faith I'll accept it's poor wording… but what do you actually mean? Is disagreement with your view something that should be avoided on HN? Will the mob (is this what HN readers have become?) descend on anyone for dare suggesting that BLM has been associated with violence or extremism?

Post reply on HN