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

Our digital pasts weren’t supposed to be weaponized like this

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 177 posts

Re: Our digital pasts weren’t supposed to be weaponized like this

#31

Post by jsiepkes »

captainmuon wrote: post #27

Instead of self censoring and deleting our past, we should solve the problem on the recipient's side, and harden ourselves against this kind of attack. When someone is booted out of office for the wrong reasons (even though it is "the right person", i.e. someone who's views I don't agree with) I speak out against it. If I was a politician, I would pledge before elections to never step down due to anything that happen…

> if I had a company I would consider adding something into contracts that we cannot fire people due to past controversial statements.

It's not that people think you need to pay for your past "transgressions" (in their eyes). The problem is that people think they can extrapolate your future decisions, behavior, etc. based on a snippet from your past.

So it's not really about something that happened in the past. It's about something that people will think will happen in the future.

Re: Our digital pasts weren’t supposed to be weaponized like this

#32

Post by nicbou »

tjpnz wrote: post #26
nicbou wrote: post #22

I significantly scaled back my online presence this year. I deleted accounts, scrubbed information from my public profiles, and left many communities. Despite my very bening post history, I don't feel safe participating in the discussion anymore. I don't fear being cancelled, but I am terrified of Internet lynch mobs. They know no due process, no measure, and no limits. I've dealt with a lot of direct and personal ha…

I despise litigation but perhaps that's the best solution to solving this - especially when it also involves lies and blackmail. Maybe people will think twice if there are very real consequences involved.

That's not an option with throwaway accounts

Re: Our digital pasts weren’t supposed to be weaponized like this

#34

Post by comodore_ »

Are the journos finally feeling the heat themselves?

journos are one of the worst offenders in this toxic climate.

Weaponizing tweets only loses its power in only two ways, either by every reasonable person and institution realizing that this is stupid, or by mutual assured destruction.

Unfortunately I think we're well past the point of no return, so I'm looking forward to the latter. So let the cancelations continue until moral improves.

Re: Our digital pasts weren’t supposed to be weaponized like this

#35

Post by cornel_io »

kragen wrote: post #9

Ironic that this is being posted by the NYT (though not as an editorial, I guess), who fired Quinn Norton within 24 hours because she'd embedded herself in Anonymous and consequently used the word "fag", years earlier. The mob framed her as anti-gay despite her having had an outspokenly bisexual life partner around that time.

Right, there are only three consistent positions here: 1) this type of firing is unfair and bad, 2) this type of firing is fair and good ("consequence culture"), or 3) "I'm a partisan who just wants my enemies to burn"

Maybe 80% of the people that opine on this subject are in category 3), 19% are in 1), and only 1% actually believe this sort of thing is great even when it hits someone that's on their team. Unfortunately all of the category 3 hardcore partisans tell themselves that when they tear someone on the other side down it's different because they were really wrong.

Here's a good test: if >50% of people on each of the left and the right would agree that someone has done something so egregious that they should face consequences, you're probably dealing with a real problem person and not a case of awry cancel culture. If more than half of either party would say that what a person has said is OK, you're probably dealing with a partisan cancellation.

Edit: I should mention that I have more extreme feelings in favor of free speech than the above paragraph, in that I think even opinions that are outside the window for both parties deserve protection and shouldn't usually result in firings unless super duper out there and horrible. But my point is that at the very least, if something is a majority position in a major party, it's a mainstream position and it is extremely questionable (both morally and practically) to ever fire someone for expressing a common belief.

Re: Our digital pasts weren’t supposed to be weaponized like this

#36

Post by topspin »

jsiepkes wrote: post #31
captainmuon wrote: post #27

Instead of self censoring and deleting our past, we should solve the problem on the recipient's side, and harden ourselves against this kind of attack. When someone is booted out of office for the wrong reasons (even though it is "the right person", i.e. someone who's views I don't agree with) I speak out against it. If I was a politician, I would pledge before elections to never step down due to anything that happen…

> if I had a company I would consider adding something into contracts that we cannot fire people due to past controversial statements. It's not that people think you need to pay for your past "transgressions" (in their eyes). The problem is that people think they can extrapolate your future decisions, behavior, etc. based on a snippet from your past. So it's not really about something that happened in the past. It's…

> The problem is that people think they can extrapolate your future decisions

People aren't that noble. You excuse what is callous brutalism as well intentioned error. People aren't guarding against dangerous influences. They're abusing mob power.

Re: Our digital pasts weren’t supposed to be weaponized like this

#37

Post by cik »

The lack of nuance on this issue, in society is shocking. We expect people to change and grow over time. People change opinions, political parties, perhaps even ideals, yet we crucify people in the public domain for opinions they once opined, and possibly still hold.

At best this discourages dialogue. It discourages people from interacting in the public domain, vilifies their non-work lives, and unifies them in terrifying ways. Actions have consequences, and (from outside North America) it appears that the goal is to polarize society and then prosecute in the court of public opinion.

Re: Our digital pasts weren’t supposed to be weaponized like this

#40

Post by makomk »

kragen wrote: post #9

Ironic that this is being posted by the NYT (though not as an editorial, I guess), who fired Quinn Norton within 24 hours because she'd embedded herself in Anonymous and consequently used the word "fag", years earlier. The mob framed her as anti-gay despite her having had an outspokenly bisexual life partner around that time.

It's pretty obvious that the reason the NYT is doing this is that someone was fired who they saw as being on the same side as them, for online speech they were extremely sympathetic towards, due to stuff dug up by Republican supporters. This particular issue is heavily tied to the US political divide: supporting Palestine is seen as a left-wing thing, and labelling those people as anti-Semites a right-wing tactic.

Which, I think, probably says something about how likely it is that people genuinely believe the talking point invoked in this article that the right-wing is the real cancel culture. If it was, it wouldn't be so shocking that and news-worthy that it happened, and the sole other example in the article wouldn't be someone from 2004 who built a career in media thanks to the supposed cancellation - exactly the kind of thing the press would point to as proof "cancel culture" isn't real if the left were the ones calling for her head.

Post reply on HN