The reputation economy is turning us into conformists (2017) [video] • Hacker News Board

Re: The reputation economy is turning us into conformists (2017) [video]

#151

Post by at-fates-hands » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 4:23 PM UTC

virgil_disgr4ce wrote: post #90

cm2187 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the worst is kids. If you think you can go off track and say dumb things as an adult, think of the 14yo self. I thank God I was a teenager before the modern internet. There is no forgiveness. The doors of college education can be shut on a whim for a bad joke. Where and when I grew up, your political opinion was irrelevant to your college admission. You didn't have to demonstrate your committment to the polical c…

Wait where do you have to "demonstrate your committment to the polical cause of the moment" to apply to college

Just had two nieces start college last year. Both in Large midwestern state colleges. These were not Ivy League or staunch liberal arts colleges.

Both put a huge emphasis on extracurricular activities which needed to be focused on social justice areas. Both were petrified they didn't have enough activities to get accepted.

In the end, they got accepted to where they wanted to go, but the shift to tow the line for social justice, inclusion and other hot topics of the day has been surprising to me. When I applied in the early aughts, the only thing my classmates were worried about were our SAT/ACT scores. Nobody cared at that point about your political leanings. Seems like today that is a greater focus than ever before.

Re: The reputation economy is turning us into conformists (2017) [video]

#152

Post by tqabx » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 4:24 PM UTC

silisili wrote: post #124

nixpulvis wrote: post #47

Let's use Gender as a quick example, why not? A few years ago, I couldn't have said I thought about it at all. For better and for worse, it wasn't part of the discourse. Now, I'm not all that different, yet it comes up again and again. I'm often forced to choose a side, even when it's all hypotheticals and virtues. I feel forced because online media is permanent, each statement is my closing argument. When the litiga…

Perhaps it's where I live, but for me - it's just the internet. It doesn't have any resemblance to my reality. As someone who's been on the internet since a teen, watched it evolve, etc, it makes me kinda sad. Because I feel forced out. But that's ok. As online communities, emboldened really by tech companies themselves, try to gain control by silencing dissent via mob behavior or 'canceling', I just find myself leav…

I also escape from the computer to reality like sports or walks. The people are real. Corporations like to install degenerate or mentally ill people in lower positions of power to humiliate the high performers and keep them under control.

The higher positions are still occupied by the jocks, who watch the whole theater with great amusement and joke about useful idiots (I have contact with a few of them).

Re: The reputation economy is turning us into conformists (2017) [video]

#153

Post by newbamboo » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 4:28 PM UTC

Historically speaking, this problem can be traced from me-too movement back through gamergate as its come to be known. Some will deny a uniquely gendered aspect to this phenomenon but that only speaks to the successful rebranding of cancel-culture from the original purveyors as they were known only a few year’s prior. The roots of this problem can be delineated even though we no longer seem to recognize the culprit, sjw’s as they were accurately described, indeed were self described as such. The warfare lives on but now we’ve allowed it to be rebranded as the reputation economy or some such foolish newspeak. Perhaps this is another example of history being rewritten by the victors but those of us who have aggregated more than a decade or so of experience on the net, know that this was a recent change and that things were not always this way. For sure there are people, a specific interest, that have brought us to this juncture.

Re: The reputation economy is turning us into conformists (2017) [video]

#154

Post by thescriptkiddie » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 4:29 PM UTC

cm2187 wrote: post #82

wonderwonder wrote: post #14

Social media has massively amplified the penalty for making a mistake or offhand remark. People used to make tasteless jokes all the time and it was treated as it was, just a joke and life continued. Now anything out of the pale that catches the attention of some sort of influencer spells doom. Anyone caught at a bad moment on camera is pilloried, made out to be the anti christ and have people actively seeking out th…

And the worst is kids. If you think you can go off track and say dumb things as an adult, think of the 14yo self. I thank God I was a teenager before the modern internet. There is no forgiveness. The doors of college education can be shut on a whim for a bad joke. Where and when I grew up, your political opinion was irrelevant to your college admission. You didn't have to demonstrate your committment to the polical c…

> Where and when I grew up, your political opinion was irrelevant to your college admission

I agree that people should be forgiven for mistakes they made as children, and that the internet should be more anonymous in general, but you lost me there. You sound like a right-wing conspiracy theorist decrying "Cultural Marxism".

Re: The reputation economy is turning us into conformists (2017) [video]

#155

Post by foofoo4u » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 4:29 PM UTC

enchiridion wrote: post #120

virgil_disgr4ce wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait where do you have to "demonstrate your committment to the polical cause of the moment" to apply to college

For grad school across fields a statement supporting “equity and inclusion” is becoming the norm. While this does not sound political, the use of the word “equity” vs “equality” is political. Specifically, equity explicitly entails redistributing resources based on lack of privilege. This is instead of equality, which entails providing everyone with the same resources and opportunity. Now we are left with question of…

I want to add from anecdotal experience that this conformist ideology spans beyond just university applicants. I have had to declare my views and positions on "equity and inclusion" at job interviews for software development positions here in the Bay Area. I'll call them out; it was DoorDash in SF.

Re: The reputation economy is turning us into conformists (2017) [video]

#156

Post by BeFlatXIII » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 4:34 PM UTC

spaetzleesser wrote: post #123

andrepd wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where and when I grew up, your political opinion was irrelevant to your college admission. You didn't have to demonstrate your committment to the polical cause of the moment to apply. And... is this the case today? Do universities exclude your application or scrutinise your political beliefs?

I have heard from interns that colleges want to see engagement for social justice or diversity causes during the application process. I have also heard that for research grants you need to show “diversity and inclusion” efforts. One guy I talked to from a Nevada school said these are often won by rich colleges who are almost purely white but know how to talk diversity whereas poorer colleges that are actually way mor…

> I have heard from interns that colleges want to see engagement for social justice or diversity causes during the application process.

It's been 15 years since I did the college admissions dance, but I do remember that most of the superstitions about the application process don't apply if you score above a 33 on the ACT (perhaps you'd need a perfect score to have the velvet rope lifted if you're applying for MIT). All the rules of thumb about taking at least three years of a foreign language and balancing between 2–4 extra-curricular activities are for the students who won't be immediately offered merit scholarships.

Re: The reputation economy is turning us into conformists (2017) [video]

#157

Post by rndgermandude » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 4:36 PM UTC

blueflow wrote: post #141

rndgermandude wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not agreeing with the tinfoil "controlled by the CCC president" rhetoric, but a lot of CCC events including their Congress indeed use an all female (identity) volunteer group calling itself "CrewCrew" as security. They are known to be a bit "paranoid" sometimes, can act "overly aggressive" sometimes and like to disguise their faces during "enforcement". That said, I did not have first hand interactions with them…

Until the escalation at 36C3, we thought the incident at 35C3 was: A random guy from the CrewCrew (new security persons) came to our assembly and got offended by VC's domain. They parted without reaching conclusions. Only after the escalation at 36C3 i learned that: - that guy at 35C3 was the CCC's president - seemingly being an exception of the "all-female" rule - the "CrewCrew" are not just some activists, but some…

>- the "CrewCrew" are not just some activists, but some sort of authorized force

Legally, they would be "Ordner"[1], and are thereby "authorized". It is perfectly legal for organizers of "assemblies" to recruit and use volunteers to keep order and peace, as long as these volunteers are unarmed (by law). The Gewerbeordnung does not come into play here. I am not quite sure they were up to snuff when it comes to identification, tho, as legally they have to wear a white armband saying "Ordner", and I do not think they did when I saw them (they did however have those t-shirts and other swag if memory serves right). But I might be wrong.

I am sure some people, maybe even the CCC president, were offended by Vincent's websites - to be offensive is a goal Vincent stated himself - and the CCC leadership then decided to ban him. We may debate if this was justified or free speech or whatever, but at the end of the day, the organizer of the Congress told him to fuck off. There might have been misunderstandings along the way, and/or the CCC may have changed their initial decision and/or fucked up their communication (they are human, after all). But the end result was a ban from the venue.

As I said in another comment, I find the assault of Vincent that then occurred extremely problematic, probably outright illegal assault (I see no evidence of justified self-defense by the security in the video). At the same time, I respect the CCC's decision to ban an "undesirable". The club members have to figure out for themselves who they want at their events and in their spaces.

And as I also said earlier, I find the lack of accountability of the security "crew" very disconcerting. You cannot have people running around playing police (their Congress-internal DECT phone number even is "110", same as the police has in the public telephone network) who beat up people and cover their faces to hide their identities, all the while the CCC which these security people represent runs campaigns to get laws changed to make police more accountable by having officers to clearly be identifiable (by a number on their uniforms), wearing bodycams and raising the limits on when police is allowed to use force.

[1] https://dejure.org/gesetze/VersG/9.html

Re: The reputation economy is turning us into conformists (2017) [video]

#158

Post by pythonb3sss » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 4:39 PM UTC

silisili wrote: post #124

nixpulvis wrote: post #47

Let's use Gender as a quick example, why not? A few years ago, I couldn't have said I thought about it at all. For better and for worse, it wasn't part of the discourse. Now, I'm not all that different, yet it comes up again and again. I'm often forced to choose a side, even when it's all hypotheticals and virtues. I feel forced because online media is permanent, each statement is my closing argument. When the litiga…

Perhaps it's where I live, but for me - it's just the internet. It doesn't have any resemblance to my reality. As someone who's been on the internet since a teen, watched it evolve, etc, it makes me kinda sad. Because I feel forced out. But that's ok. As online communities, emboldened really by tech companies themselves, try to gain control by silencing dissent via mob behavior or 'canceling', I just find myself leav…

Hi. I realize you're not looking for answers, but I would like to give my 2 cents. Now, this is just my opinion and I welcome constructive criticism.

> are these people even real? Do they live somewhere I'm just unfamiliar with? Or did the internet give them some loud voice that otherwise doesn't exist in person?

Yes. Most, but not all, of these "loud" influencers are real. Social media has become their platform to voice their opinions extremely loudly. And it has given them a reach that wasn't possible before. One public tweet on Twitter is instantly available to all the users and "lurkers". The algorithm pushes it based on engagement and it propagates through the filter bubble it "fits" in. Now they know that there are others who agree with them, but the only way to reach them is through social media. So most of them just keep their opinion online.

> Why are these voices the loudest - does controversy really sell this well? Is social media purposefully putting controversial things on the forefront because it increases engagement?

Yes. The main goal of Big Social (is that even a real term?) is to increase engagement and then sell ads. Fixing this "most engaged content goes to the top" approach will cut into their profits which will spook investors.

P.S This is my first comment outside of my own post (yes, only one post). I am a lurker

Re: The reputation economy is turning us into conformists (2017) [video]

#159

Post by refurb » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 4:39 PM UTC

silisili wrote: post #124

nixpulvis wrote: post #47

Let's use Gender as a quick example, why not? A few years ago, I couldn't have said I thought about it at all. For better and for worse, it wasn't part of the discourse. Now, I'm not all that different, yet it comes up again and again. I'm often forced to choose a side, even when it's all hypotheticals and virtues. I feel forced because online media is permanent, each statement is my closing argument. When the litiga…

Perhaps it's where I live, but for me - it's just the internet. It doesn't have any resemblance to my reality. As someone who's been on the internet since a teen, watched it evolve, etc, it makes me kinda sad. Because I feel forced out. But that's ok. As online communities, emboldened really by tech companies themselves, try to gain control by silencing dissent via mob behavior or 'canceling', I just find myself leav…

So this is my attitude - don’t mistake the discourse online by 1% of the population for how things actually work in the “real world”.

But then my company started encouraging you to put your “preferred pronouns” in your email signature.

Then suddenly it dawned on me those 1% reflect the beliefs of the leadership of my Fortune 100 company.

Re: The reputation economy is turning us into conformists (2017) [video]

#160

Post by 9980throwaway » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 4:40 PM UTC

throwaway9980 wrote: post #34

imgabe wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You draw the line at where it has an actual, measurable impact on other people. “Joe Schmoe has an opinion you don’t like” doesn’t impoverish anyone, it doesn’t prevent anyone from getting food or housing or any other need. It’s just a person having an opinion. Going into hysterics over trivial nonsense that ultimately doesn’t matter is not helping anyone. It’s not making the world a better place. Quite the opposite.

If enough Joe Schmoes have bad opinions it does in fact impoverish people and prevent them accessing necessary goods like food and housing. Many ideas are in fact wrong and if widespread terribly dangerous.

There are two issues being discussed here: the ability to speak/censor opinions, and the ability to control unspoken opinions.

First, every individual has what should be a rather obvious and fundamental right to think whatever thoughts and have whatever opinions they like. Nobody gets to decide what opinions an individual holds, except for that individual.

Now, as for the spreading of those ideas:

Power to censor is frequently used to silence good ideas and allow bad ones to flourish - see modern-day censorship in China, Russia, North Korea, India, and Australia, or older censorship around the Vietnam War and slave liberation (back when owning slaves was in fashion).

The fact that someone is silencing an opinion has very little to do with whether or not that opinion is actively harmful - and, at the very least, those in power have a strong tendency to use their power (including censorship, if available) to gain more power, and those in the public realm will use their own speech and censorship (including via "canceling" aka mob justice) to benefit their own group, regardless of whether their cause is just or their tactics are fair.

So, it's all well and good for you to say "this opinion is harmful", but that's not really well correlated to whether that opinion is actually harmful. Even when the majority of the country agrees that an opinion is harmful, that doesn't actually mean that it is - but, as a democracy, we choose an imperfect system that works most of the time. That system, however, involves passing laws that declare some speech harmful, based on representatives elected by majority vote of their constituents. Twitter-based outrage from a tiny fraction of the population defining "bad opinions" is so antithetical to the idea of democracy that it shouldn't even be considered in the first place.

tl;dr we have an existing mechanism for controlling "harmful speech" and it's the government, not social media mobs.