Our digital pasts weren’t supposed to be weaponized like this • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by aboringusername » Sun, May 30, 2021, 12:43 PM UTC

throwaway512793 wrote: post #77

I recently went on trying to delete my old Facebook posts and the amount of hurdles and steps necessary and errors involved leads to the thought that without doubt Facebook does not want you to do this. In order to delete the posts you have to manually click on each and every one and then click on delete. Sometimes it throws an “unexpected error” and then you have to click on everything again, but then it often throw…

It's a disgrace the GDPR has not made it easier to delete content as easy as it is to generate it. I also think hackernews is a disgrace too, as you cannot edit nor delete your posts here and dang should immediately fix this (or whomevers responsible)

If I want to delete every piece of data from a companies storage (including backups, caches et al) I should be able to do that.

If it is ever proven that data still exists on an individual whose requested full deletion the CEO should be imprisoned for a minimum of one year.

But of course that will never happen and the GDPR is an absolute failure that has done more harm than good.

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

#82

Post by contriban » Sun, May 30, 2021, 12:43 PM UTC

nicbou wrote: post #32

tjpnz wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What I've been doing is stop saying anything remotely controversial or specifically related to people or society and definitely I don't interact with tweets by socially-aggressive people.

For everything else, I just use throwaways.

And I hate that my name is traceable back to my time in 2007 because it was so cool to use the same unique name everywhere. Nowadays Facebook, Instagram, LINE all are "serious" accounts but all have different IDs and lack my last name.

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

#83

Post by h0p3 » Sun, May 30, 2021, 12:46 PM UTC

emptyparadise wrote: post #65

Don't you miss anonymity online?

Anonymity comes in degrees and kinds, and, alongside radical decentralization, it can improve our ability to solve some problems of justice for which there are no other solutions. However, there are limits to what it buys us, and huge costs, too.

I hold anonymous giving and anonymized trust in high regard, nomad. Quite fallibly, I put my skin in the game on the wire like few ever have. I hope we learn to wear the Ring of Gyges without being unduly affected by it. Let us be the change we want to see in the world (https://philosopher.life/#Contact%20h0p3). Some say I'm a madman out here in the desert. It's a pleasure to meet you.

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

#84

Post by dTal » Sun, May 30, 2021, 12:47 PM UTC

JackMorgan wrote: post #66

dTal wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're going to sue me for running, in my head, the program "if misbehave, then boycott"? Because that's all it takes to be a member of a "mob". Or you're going to sue me for passing on information of , even if it's true, because you're afraid of being cancelled? That's a fairly horrifying dystopia you're painting. Nobody has to incite a mob. It just happens. It's collective action. There's no one to sue, unless you…

I was discussing an individual being attacked for personal thoughts posted in the past. If a company supports things you don't, sure, just don't support that company. But when a group tries to get a person fired for something unpopular that they said in the past, then using a mob to get them fired is vigilante justice.

Companies fire such people pre-emptively, out of fear of such boycotts. This is the only thing giving "cancellation" any teeth - otherwise, how could a mob "get someone fired"? Why would any company bow?

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

#85

Post by throwaway512793 » Sun, May 30, 2021, 12:52 PM UTC

aboringusername wrote: post #81

throwaway512793 wrote: post #77

I recently went on trying to delete my old Facebook posts and the amount of hurdles and steps necessary and errors involved leads to the thought that without doubt Facebook does not want you to do this. In order to delete the posts you have to manually click on each and every one and then click on delete. Sometimes it throws an “unexpected error” and then you have to click on everything again, but then it often throw…

It's a disgrace the GDPR has not made it easier to delete content as easy as it is to generate it. I also think hackernews is a disgrace too, as you cannot edit nor delete your posts here and dang should immediately fix this (or whomevers responsible) If I want to delete every piece of data from a companies storage (including backups, caches et al) I should be able to do that. If it is ever proven that data still exi…

Well you can delete your Facebook profile, which takes 30 days until all data is removed. But then you also delete your Friend List, the chats, the list of sites you subscribed to, the groups, the events and your Ad profile.

Don’t get me wrong, I actually find it useful sometimes to receive targeted ads. It worked for me often enough such that I noticed products, events or groups that really are interesting to me and which I otherwise probably wouldn’t have found. I recently started browsing YouTube logged in with my profile again and the recommended videos are much better than when I have an incognito browser.

Nevertheless, it must be possible to at least delete your public interactions with one click. I don’t see any business reason for Facebook and Twitter to keep year old posts public.

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

#86

Post by mensetmanusman » Sun, May 30, 2021, 1:01 PM UTC

I remember when a Brazilian teenager was killed after a stranger in front of him at a concert turned around suddenly and pointed at him saying he stole her phone.

Before he knew what happened, he was stabbed to death by a mob while the real thief got away.

Vigilante ’justice’ continues to be a scourge of society; think of the stoning episodes of millenniums past.

Social media removes the activation energy barrier to be a part of a mob - to feel the thrill.

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

#87

Post by ttt0 » Sun, May 30, 2021, 1:02 PM UTC

JackMorgan wrote: post #59

tobesure wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the situation is far more dire. The same types of political ideologues are taking over FAANG and other tech spaces, and other information outlets, like Wikipedia, where only "approved" or "authoritative" sources are typically accepted. Corporate and social culture have been hijacked by a sort of soft, insidious, growing authoritarianism and the consequences for the future of the west are severe, especially be…

Considering the Overton window, the argument could be made that today's "right of center" would have been considered dangerously extremist by the right a few decades ago, and that growing extremism is causing previously right leaning groups to apear to "change sides" and "ganging up" when they're not actually changing their stances at all, they're reacting to what they perceive as growing extremism. When a minority g…

> today's "right of center" would have been considered dangerously extremist by the right a few decades ago

Extremist in what, supporting LGBTQ?

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

#88

Post by kwertyoowiyop » Sun, May 30, 2021, 1:05 PM UTC

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.

Litigation is only for those who can afford the money, time, and aggravation required.

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

#89

Post by ashtonkem » Sun, May 30, 2021, 1:07 PM UTC

JackMorgan wrote: post #51

In the future I suspect cancelling will be illegal: the same way vigilante justice is illegal now. Causing a person to be fired/doxxed by a mob for an action that isn't even illegal (free speach) is no more morally noble then going and beating them up over a suspected crime. If a person commits a crime, then let courts decide, otherwise it's just mob rule and vigilante "justice". That said, I think it's going to take…

> In the future I suspect cancelling will be illegal: the same way vigilante justice is illegal now. Causing a person to be fired/doxxed by a mob for an action that isn't even illegal (free speach) is no more morally noble then going and beating them up over a suspected crime.

I’m incredibly dubious that you can write a law that accomplishes this that won’t run afoul of the first amendment. And honestly, I think that literally jailing attempted “cancellers” would have way more of a chilling effect than whatever “cancel culture” causes.

The solution for this is to change the culture, not to weaponize the power of the state to harm those you dislike. Please stop suggesting it, it will only make things worse.

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

#90

Post by ashtonkem » Sun, May 30, 2021, 1:09 PM UTC

AstralStorm wrote: post #53

blablabla123 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the future I suspect cancelling will be illegal: Which actions exactly should be illegal? I assume you don't want to make me force watching movies from certain producers that I don't like anymore. At the same time in some countries retail stores basically have to cater to everyone and already can be made liable if they don't sell something that they advertised for as long as customers stick to terms and conditio…

Political speech, in particular, is supposed to be protected from this kind of treatment. Most importantly, accusations of bias are also not a valid reason to fire a journalist. There's also an intermingling of private and public sphere, and firing someone for private legal behavior because some internet hive mind started a smear campaign also should not be lawful. Of course, America has the coercive institution of a…

> Political speech, in particular, is supposed to be protected from this kind of treatment.

No, it is not. It is supposed to be protected from the government punishing you over it, any other requirements are purely made up.

> There's also an intermingling of private and public sphere, and firing someone for private legal behavior because some internet hive mind started a smear campaign also should not be lawful

So you would use the power of the state to suppress speech in the name of free speech? I don’t think you’ve thought through the long term consequences of this.