They didn’t ask to go viral
wired.com
They didn’t ask to go viral
1–10 of 234 posts
Re: They didn’t ask to go viral
#2[deleted]
Re: They didn’t ask to go viral
#3The "everyone:1" ratio of internet criticism also has had an interesting effect on politics. Given the sheer amount of vitriol directed at politicians no sane person would run for election. A plausible base-case scenario is a group of socially disabled internet dwellers dedicate their life to hounding you for imagined wrongs. Let alone the pressure of making any decision in a situation where large groups of people are in conflict. As a result I think we'll see detectable pressure for only risk taking narcissists to run for public office. Even beyond what is usual for politics.
I don't think we have a choice about allowing roving internet mobs - the cost of forcibly breaking groups up would be too high. But as always, the more protections we have to slow action down in the real world the better. Mobs make decisions that are foolish, fast and often final.
Re: They didn’t ask to go viral
#4Social media truly is the opioid of today's society.
While browsing /r/all, I ran across a post from a very popular sub which had an airport worker stripping in the airport, flailing on the floor, etc. No one knows why, could have been drugs, could have been a mental defect.
Yet many of the thousands of responses were laughing because they could see the man's flaccid penis.
While we don't know what caused the man to do this, imagine your next mental breakdown being posted to an insanely popular sub for everyone to gawk and laugh at.
Oh, and of course Reddit found that the post didn't violate the "no non-consentual nudity" which according to the guidelines does cover non-consentual public nudity.
https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/36004351341...
Re: They didn’t ask to go viral
#5The "everyone:1" ratio of internet criticism also has had an interesting effect on politics. Given the sheer amount of vitriol directed at politicians no sane person would run for election. A plausible base-case scenario is a group of socially disabled internet dwellers dedicate their life to hounding you for imagined wrongs. Let alone the pressure of making any decision in a situation where large groups of people ar…
Journalists can make a controversy out of anything, and find a clique of accounts with any given opinion on anything, and therefore portray Public Opinion in any way that the editorial board directs. The accounts don't need blue checks, they don't need to be notable, they don't need to be human, to find the next Antoine Dodson ranting with a memorable sound bite.
Re: They didn’t ask to go viral
#6It seems like existing laws could already cover some of these scenarios if judged correctly.
E.g. if a TikTok'er uploads a video lying about you, isn't that slander? The size of their audience and known effect of internet mobs makes it very clear to a reasonable observer that harm to the victim is expected/intended.
And gaslighting children or abusing the elderly is already illegal, right?
Re: They didn’t ask to go viral
#7Part of the power of social media, is that powerful people acting badly in public finally might face some public backlash or justice.
Banning this, will certainly protect the powerful, and will likely continue to be unenforced for the average person.
Re: They didn’t ask to go viral
#8The online shaming culture at tumblr, twitter and reddit was what convinced me that you need to stay pseudonymous on the internet at all cost.
There are so many people that participate in this and haven't realized yet that they are being an asshole to random strangers.
Re: They didn’t ask to go viral
#9Part of the power of social media, is that powerful people acting badly in public finally might face some public backlash or justice. Banning this, will certainly protect the powerful, and will likely continue to be unenforced for the average person.
Meh I've never liked this argument. It becomes a question of who is "blessed" and "unblessed" enough for you, subjectively.
Re: They didn’t ask to go viral
#10It seems like existing laws could already cover some of these scenarios if judged correctly. E.g. if a TikTok'er uploads a video lying about you, isn't that slander? The size of their audience and known effect of internet mobs makes it very clear to a reasonable observer that harm to the victim is expected/intended. And gaslighting children or abusing the elderly is already illegal, right?
>TikTok'er uploads a video lying about you
This is quite rare and any lawsuit is hard and likely not worth it.
>And gaslighting children or abusing the elderly is already illegal, right?
Depends. And then again, what are you going to do about it?