De-escalating social media conflict • Hacker News Board

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#281

Post by foldr » Sun, Jul 05, 2020, 2:19 PM UTC

brigandish wrote: post #280

foldr wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 H…

>How long have you been on HN?

Considerably longer than you, as you can easily tell by looking at my profile to see when my account was created.

>"unwise" reads like a threat

No, it doesn't. Don't be silly.

>dare suggesting that BLM has been associated with violence or extremism

Most large-scale protest movements attract violent extremists. There are always some violent idiots out there. The point is that BLM is a mainstream political movement, not a violent extremist movement. (Most polls show a majority of Americans supporting the protests.)

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#282

Post by nl » Sun, Jul 05, 2020, 2:22 PM UTC

zozbot234 wrote: post #207

_tw9j wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt that is true. SV crowd may be loud but they aren't the majority on HN. Here's how I would group HN based on income, what keywords make them click and demography. 1. Old system admins, FOSS lovers , and retired due to age folks. Around median income. Keywords - vim, Emacs, firefox, awk, unions, inequality, privacy, new tech bad, linux, open source projects, go, haiku, history, and against-big-tech. 2. Fresh co…

I like how all of these groups have some reason to oppose big-tech and social media. It's like the one thing we can all agree on here at HN.

I don't agree with either of these things.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#283

Post by nl » Sun, Jul 05, 2020, 2:24 PM UTC

mdpopescu wrote: post #199

nl wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps, in the financial sense. But that's very different to the people who are typically refereed to as "the elites". That typically includes - for example - journalists - who aren't well paid at all.

Journalists aren't the elite. They're the PR people working for the elite.

I think the whole "elites" terminology is silly.

As a very broad generalisation it seems to mean "people who are richer or have a bigger voice than me who I disagree with.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#284

Post by asjw » Sun, Jul 05, 2020, 2:34 PM UTC

tomcooks wrote: post #248

asjw wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no way that something that is not enforceable will succeed though. Plus forgiveness works only on then forgiver side, nothing stop others to keep doing what they are doing after you forgave them. I would argue that the main reason we get along is laws, not forgiveness. Any society has written (laws) and unwritten (social rules) norms that regulate the interactions between members. People don't yell in public…

> People don't yell in public, usually How do I know you're certainly not from Southern Europe?)

Unfortunately for you I am exactly from southern Europe, from Rome in Italy to be precise.

I think you should visit here, I would show you how much noise people from other countries make, especially Americans.

I'm sure you made it as a joke and I don't mind it, but this stereotypes must stop, for a simple reason: there is more to Europe than jokes about southerners.

We simply spend more time outside in the open because the weather is usually better, but any country has its weirdos, sometimes public is a park or an open market, sometimes it's a pub.

Swedes scream from their windows at night

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

Finns sweat a lot

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

Danish leave their kids outside in the strollers in the cold while they are inside a caffè or buying groceries

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21537988

Germans wear sandals with socks

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

English are dunk and violent

https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/88/9/10-010910/en/

French are rude and the fact that they try to hide it behind "other people don't understand us" makes it even more obvious. Ironically they think the anglofones are the loud ones and I mostly agree on this with them.

And, of course, Americans are obese

https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019/11/share-of-adults-d...

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#285

Post by trekrich » Sun, Jul 05, 2020, 2:40 PM UTC

Lets just get rid of social media and be done with it. The world was a much better place before.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#286

Post by Fellshard » Sun, Jul 05, 2020, 2:54 PM UTC

oehpr wrote: post #125

Fellshard wrote: post #2

How will this play when a mea culpa acts as blood in the water for some groups of bad actors?

Currently I am liking the look of this proposal a lot! I've been trying to imagine some scenarios where it could be used or abused in a negative way but so far I haven't come up with any. Could you go into details on how you're thinking this would play out? I'm not sure how a bad actor would exploit a tweet with a mea culpa flag like this on it. But I am not as imaginative as bad actors.

Some people take it less as an apology, and more as an admission of guilt - a self-picked target for harassment and worse.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#287

Post by chinesempire » Sun, Jul 05, 2020, 2:56 PM UTC

sukilot wrote: post #257

chinesempire wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the Soviet Union was arguably fascist No, it wasn't. Fascism is not simply "what you don't like" If USSR was arguably fascist, so are the USA then. Do you think bombing other countries for their oil or to seize control of countries close to the enemy borders (like in Vietnam) looks more democratic or fascist? USSR has been at war in Afghanistan for 9 years, mainly because USA financed the resistance, creating and a…

We are long past the point of "fascism" meaning anything but "government that hurts people"

As Italian, with a grandfather imprisoned by the fascists and the other sent by the fascist regime to die in Russia, I can tell you what fascism is and what is not and I can tell you we never thought it meant "government that hurts people" like nazism is not just "people who wear swastikas", if you use it that way, you are wrong.

My grandmother died few moths ago, she was from 1922 and escaped from the fascists on one side and the Marocchinate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marocchinate) on the other side, while my grandfather was in jail even if he was ill with tuberculosis, my father house was occupied by fascists and he had to hide from the day he was born until he was five, and when the war ended his father never came back.

I think it's not long past when people that suffered from it are still alive, don't you think?

You're oversimplifying something that's been very hurtful for my country, the history of my continent and for my family.

But let me make a simple example for you: fascism was about separating people in classes, USSR was about eliminating classes.

Fascism was about colonialism and they did unspeakable things in North Africa, justifying their actions with he excuse that "black people are not humans, they are like animals"

USSR never did something similar, because of people's race.

Fascism was about individualism, USSR was about colletivism.

Etc. etc. etc.

Just to exemplify for you what fascism is and what is not: US is more fascist than USSR could ever have been.

And not because I like USSR, but because words have meanings and it's not for you to decide what fascism means when we are the ones who faced it, in our houses, fought it, defeated it, and rebuilt from the ruins and the trail of dead fascism left.

BL matters, Italian lives matters too.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#288

Post by blablabla123 » Sun, Jul 05, 2020, 3:20 PM UTC

noobermin wrote: post #57

I think this work is great and interesting, and I respect it. One of the things I feel like it lacks is a discussion of the broader context: we all sort of suspect that one of the reasons Twitter does not generally allow for de-escalation (like FB not censoring misleading news articles) is that such escalation is in fact part of their revenue stream (escalation=more engagement), so while I think ideas like this would…

Probably one should also see this less one-sided, de-escalation is not the answer to everything and escalation is not bad in every single case. Without ever escalating anything, everything that is hard to change is likely to stay the same. Too much escalation is of course a toxic thing but in moderation it's actually very useful and it wouldn't be so entangled in everyday lives if there was no use.

That said, admitting guilt does not work when the other person is actually hostile since it can be used against oneself. (Just imagine what would happen if the current protest movement in the US would apologize to Donald Trump...) Apart from that, there are still online forums which work very well and don't turn toxic despite occasional rants. Twitter should take that as an example...

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#289

Post by caffeine » Sun, Jul 05, 2020, 3:32 PM UTC

It's important not to apologize if you don't honestly believe you have done something wrong.

When faced with a mob claiming victimhood or hurt feelings, apologies can confer legitimacy to complaints that don't deserve it.

The forced submission and contrition gives the mob its payoff, and thus feeds it further. This appeasement encourages the runaway social media mobs which have now spilled into the real world, murdering and looting.

If you have done nothing wrong, do NOT give them the satisfaction of an apology. It is the first line of defense in beating back outrage culture.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#290

Post by TeaDrunk » Sun, Jul 05, 2020, 3:32 PM UTC

antepodius wrote: post #194

TeaDrunk wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think at the same time there are circumstances in which the acceptable outcome is indeed a loss of job. (And to some moral codes, a loss of life- see advocates for the death penalty.) EG. A Manager who pressured people into sexual favors for promotions should lose the job of being a manager.

Sure, but the point is that if people who want you to lose your job are screaming about you on twitter, it's bad advice to apologise in an attempt to appease them- because the twitter mob won't be happy till you're in the ground. Whether you would be in the mob if the circumstances were turned around is a striking, but secondary, question. Yes, my preferences may include that some people should lose their jobs. But i…

"Sure, but the point is that if people who want you to lose your job are screaming about you on twitter, it's bad advice to apologise in an attempt to appease them- because the twitter mob won't be happy till you're in the ground."

I haven't personally observed this nor have I witnessed studies about it. Could you link to me anything like that? I've seen people who have credibly discussed their abuses on twitter and people apologize. Criticism of the apologies are often 1) it is incomplete, 2) it is a non-apology, 3) it has not be followed up with action.

I haven't myself seen criticism outside of these things, which are valid critiques and not the sort of overdramatic spectacle you're describing. But I think it's valid that I just am in different circles than you, so I'm curious if you could educate me about this.

(Additionally, the legal system is inadequate to address nuanced power structures. Rape, sexual assault, and being a creep are extremely hard to gain redress for, and often make victims blacklisted from the industry. Why are we concerned about the careers of people who do bad things, and not concerns about the careers of people who are their victims? The victims often struggle to find work or are completely blacklisted from their industry.)