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

111–120 of 177 posts

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

#111

Post by matwood »

jimmydorry wrote: post #108
matwood wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How the lab leak theory was handled by the media was definitely botched, but at the time the full theory that I saw thrown around was more than an accidental leak. It also included items like purposely engineered to attack the west, and even included purposely releasing in order to attack Trump which afaik there has been zero evidence.

You shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water though. The existence of outlandish claims should not render all unsupported claims invalid. Even if those outlandish claims manage to garner the support of the masses.

I agree, which is why I said the coverage was botched. But even the person I originally responded to said the 'Wuhan lab hypothesis'. Which hypothesis? I thought an accidental lab leak always seemed like valid avenue to explore (my version of the hypothesis), but depending on who you say hypothesis to it means different things.

I think the whole situation highlights the challenges with communication in such a hyper us/them environment with the memeification of out of context quotes. The later is also commonly seen with experts who say something like "you don't need to do X, unless A, B, C occurs." The only thing shown to the masses is "You don't need to do X".

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

#112

Post by II2II »

ashtonkem wrote: post #89
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…

If you walk up to someone and punch them, it is reasonable for that person to press charges even though the repercussions may only last a few minutes. The consequence will be more-or-less immediate, even if it starts and ends with a discussion with a police officer.

If you slander someone, their recourse is to sue even though the repercussions may last for months or years. The consequence will not be immediate and the victim may not even have the means to pursue it.

I don't know if there is a good solution to the problem. You are perfectly correct in pointing out that the proposed solution can weaponize the power of the state. On the other hand, speech can, and has been, weaponized.

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

#113

Post by Udik »

dTal wrote: post #84
JackMorgan wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Companies fire such people pre-emptively, out of fear of such boycotts... Otherwise why would any company bow?

Because firing someone is cheap. It's not "damage control", it's virtue signalling, as costly as it is for others to express their outrage on twitter.

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

#114

Post by nonameiguess »

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…

It's really bizarre that you think this. Sexual preference still isn't a federally protected category. Neither is political affiliation. You're protected from the government arresting you for the views you express, but unless you have a separate contract or more protective local laws, a U.S. employer can fire you for being a Democrat or Republican.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-employers-discri...

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

#115

Post by sundaeofshock »

mongol wrote: post #103
hooande wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine you start a company and one of your employees says or does something reprehensible. Investors fear a boycott and threaten to pull out of a fundraising round. You either fire that one person, or the whole company goes under and everyone that works for you could lose their job (including you). If you make it illegal to fire that person, then any one employee could do considerable damage to dozens of other peopl…

But if it is illegal, then all the people working for cancelling the employee will know it is hopeless.

They won’t be able to get the person canceled, but they can still boycott the person’s employer. Said employer will be economically harmed, with no way to end the pain.

Companies don’t like being harmed in this way, so they will most likely respond by digging very deeply into every job candidate’s past to avoid hiring someone who may be “canceled” at a future date.

Here’s the thing: most people have done pretty shitty things in their past. However, most people don’t rise to a level of prominence that it ever matters. They are able to live normal, productive, happy lives.

Making “cancel mob” terminations illegal ends all that. Is this really the path we want to go down?

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

#116

Post by ttt0 »

nonameiguess wrote: post #114
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…

It's really bizarre that you think this. Sexual preference still isn't a federally protected category. Neither is political affiliation. You're protected from the government arresting you for the views you express, but unless you have a separate contract or more protective local laws, a U.S. employer can fire you for being a Democrat or Republican. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-employers-discri...

You're trying to apply current law to mere predictions of what the law might be in the future. He's saying that for example political affiliation might become a protected category. Nothing bizarre about it.

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

#117

Post by dqv »

matwood wrote: post #75
bumbada wrote: post #18

The NYT is extremely sectarian. They have been doing exactly what they now critizice for people in their right for a long time. And it is impressive what we are seeing today with corona and Wuhan lab, all those media were basically calling lunatics to those that believed in the Wuhan lab hypothesis,licking the boots of their Chinese masters, now suddenly it is ok to believe that. It is a huge problem for them, when l…

How the lab leak theory was handled by the media was definitely botched, but at the time the full theory that I saw thrown around was more than an accidental leak. It also included items like purposely engineered to attack the west, and even included purposely releasing in order to attack Trump which afaik there has been zero evidence.

It seems like that association was engineered. The question went something like "did the virus leak from the WIV?" to which the mass media responded "no, the virus was not man-made!"

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

#119

Post by ttt0 »

tomjen3 wrote: post #67
ben_w wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree that the status quo isn’t stable and must change, I don’t think what you’re suggesting will be stable either. The internet is one place where 99.9% compliance with a social norm or law isn’t good enough to prevent the remaining 0.1% from causing enough damage to be un-ignorable, even if you manage to get worldwide agreement on updating the law. (Consider that e.g. the UK does not have American freedom o…

Is there a standard way to convert an encryption key into a human readable name? Because then we could have a service where you signed everything with your key and then you were know as whatever the hash of that key is - and you can create a new identity with a new key, but your name won't be linked to any real world identity. I barely use Facebook or Twitter compared to reddit, and I suspect it is because of the rea…

GPG?

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

#120

Post by crocodiletears »

matwood wrote: post #75
bumbada wrote: post #18

The NYT is extremely sectarian. They have been doing exactly what they now critizice for people in their right for a long time. And it is impressive what we are seeing today with corona and Wuhan lab, all those media were basically calling lunatics to those that believed in the Wuhan lab hypothesis,licking the boots of their Chinese masters, now suddenly it is ok to believe that. It is a huge problem for them, when l…

How the lab leak theory was handled by the media was definitely botched, but at the time the full theory that I saw thrown around was more than an accidental leak. It also included items like purposely engineered to attack the west, and even included purposely releasing in order to attack Trump which afaik there has been zero evidence.

There were multiple theories of various levels of conspiracy thinking.

The 'deliberately released bioweapon' stance was niche by niche standards. It had a vocal base, and some initial inertia in January due to the HK protests. But the 'accidental lab leak' hypothesis always made more sense.

It was the weakest version of the argument, and the existence of that bathwater in need of being tossed hardly necessitated defenestrating the clean baby lying next to the tub.

Post reply on HN