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

Agnes Callard’s theory of the uni-context

derekthompson.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 108 posts

Re: Agnes Callard’s theory of the uni-context

#51

Post by arjie »

inigyou wrote: post #44
arjie wrote: post #33

Like most of these things, one can bemoan it and say “oh it’s terrible that this is how it is” but I think it’s pretty easy to self-test this to see it’s adaptive for a reason. Brendan Eich was fired from Mozilla as CTO because of a small donation in favour of Prop 8. Fine? I think most people here would say yes. In fact people did say that. I think many people would say they don’t want to have a plumber who opposes…

It also works both ways. Yes a plumber can be more easily outed as anti-gay and fired, but the same uni-context makes the plumber more likely to be anti-gay and more strongly anti-gay in the first place. Being exposed to anti-gay propaganda all the time will do that. Otherwise you just have people who are like, their church told them it was bad to be gay, but they don't really care about it.

That’s a good point. We can truly create social change much more effectively through the uni-context and much of it is for good.

Re: Agnes Callard’s theory of the uni-context

#52

Post by MithrilTuxedo »

resters wrote: post #29

There are some of us (late generation-X / early millennial) who saw this coming and still maintain a variety of separate identities across many domains. I don't know why someone would want to have the same identity in the workplace as on internet forums, for example. Social media appears to have given many people the idea that they ought to cultivate their public identity from an early age as preparation for internet…

I'm not a neurotypical xenial, but I wasn't any good at compartmentalizing, or when I tried maintaining different identities it didn't feel honest, like I was pretending. I didn't like the thought of anyone ever seeing sides of me that were inconsistent with each other.

Re: Agnes Callard’s theory of the uni-context

#53

Post by Avicebron »

dontwannahearit wrote: post #47
thomastjeffery wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately that isn't a solution. When you keep separate identities, the only thing that can exist across platforms is your own participation. Everything you say and do is isolated to whichever identity and platform you are using in that moment. You still don't have the opportunity to exist completely, because your self has been fragmented. Even if you did manage to create a cross-platform identity, the product of…

I think this misses the point. As the article points out, people could and would act differently in different contexts: Home, the Church, the Bar. They weren't lacking opportunity to "exist completely". The whole point of the omni-context is that you are putting yourself in a space where you have to act in a way that is appropriate to all of those places. I would say things in the Bar that I would not want the revere…

> The uni-context discourages expression. It's like a dystopia where everything you say and do is recorded and can be recalled for judgement at any time. And yet people sign up for it.

It's a panopticon, where we self-censor because we fear unknown future reprisals. Did we really sign up for it? Or has Our (collective our) ability to reason and push back against it been curtailed by financial incentives to build it?

Re: Agnes Callard’s theory of the uni-context

#54

Post by extr0pian »

tedggh wrote: post #32

I’m in month 5 of not having access to any social network, and although the first weeks I felt tempted to reinstall X and Reddit, I’m at a point where I don’t think I’m ever coming back. There are still great spaces like HN where you can consume content and participate in debates. I do miss some of the fun stuff, but it wasn’t worth being exposed to all the other crap for a few laughs a day.

Is HN not a social network?

Re: Agnes Callard’s theory of the uni-context

#55

Post by xyzzy_plugh »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #40
resters wrote: post #29

There are some of us (late generation-X / early millennial) who saw this coming and still maintain a variety of separate identities across many domains. I don't know why someone would want to have the same identity in the workplace as on internet forums, for example. Social media appears to have given many people the idea that they ought to cultivate their public identity from an early age as preparation for internet…

If you keep them distinct unification is a weapon to be used against you. You're writing your own blackmail someone just has to call you on it. With prose fingerprinting, sophisticated tracking, now your identities are only separate by rapidly eroding social convention. Intentionally merging them allows you to have control over the process, and helps you maintain discipline about what you reveal where. If you don't d…

Prose fingerprinting is indeed worrisome, but it's a solvable problem once you are aware it exists. For example, if you contribute here anonymously, but don't contribute elsewhere, there is no corpus that can produce an accurate match.

Many people communicate differently in different contexts. It's common to try and match the style of the community in which you participate.

I am not convinced that having your identities merged for you is inevitable.

Re: Agnes Callard’s theory of the uni-context

#56

Post by sosodev »

jubilanti wrote: post #9

They cite "context collapse" and say this "uni-context" is deeper, but I still don't see how this "uni-context" is all that different than "context collapse", extensively studied since the 2000s. And which Goffman in the 1960s was writing about in the context of big mixed social gatherings like weddings, that bring together people who know you in quite different contexts.

I think the difference is asking what happens if all contexts collapse. In the 2000s or 1960s context collapse was something that would happen occasionally when opted into. These days everybody is hyper connected and living in a collapsed context every day. That's the uni-context and the implications of it feel very different than that of a wedding or old-school forum. A wedding wouldn't push people to permanently change who they are or how they perceive themselves for more favor in the collapsed context. They would only do it momentarily.

Also, the wedding or forum had very limited scope. As mentioned in the interview, the uni-context is about context collapse on a global scale.

Re: Agnes Callard’s theory of the uni-context

#57

Post by NostraDavid »

This doesn't seem very compatible with societies that have a Germanic majority as population. _Maybe_ the USA can be the pluriformity that adopts this, but I don't see this as an attractive idea for my society (Netherlands) at large. "Act normal, and you're already acting crazy enough", and all that.

I want to be able to discuss taboo ideas in private, without getting globally cancelled for something I that might be discussed out of my mind. No thanks to the uni-context.

context-bound > uni-context, for at least the Germanic-speaking world.

Re: Agnes Callard’s theory of the uni-context

#58

Post by derektank »

pphysch wrote: post #11

This is an interesting perspective on the concept of "atomization of the individual", which the interview interestingly does not refer to. Both atomization and the "uni-context" arise from the destruction of an individual's local contexts, like family and community, leaving them an individual in a global, maximally-large pool of individuals, the so-called uni-context. Atomization has clear motivations: increasing the…

Atomization of the individual seems much more driven by a cultural valorization of liberalism and personal freedom than market dynamics per se. If the individual is free to act on their own, without obligation to their family or higher social structures, such as by marrying whoever they choose or by refusing to share their personal wealth with other members, or by following a different religion, then these higher level structures will eventually wither away. Community can only exist as a real force if the individual has obligations to it and can be bound to it. This has tradeoffs for sure, but I would much rather live in a world with more personal freedom than one where I am bound to a social contract I had no hand in creating and limited ability to change.

Re: Agnes Callard’s theory of the uni-context

#59

Post by bensyverson »

inigyou wrote: post #42
bensyverson wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I just use my name… it also helps me dial in my tone when I know I’m putting my name behind a comment.

The "dialing in your tone" you're talking about is precisely context collapse.

Yes

Re: Agnes Callard’s theory of the uni-context

#60

Post by NostraDavid »

inigyou wrote: post #44
arjie wrote: post #33

Like most of these things, one can bemoan it and say “oh it’s terrible that this is how it is” but I think it’s pretty easy to self-test this to see it’s adaptive for a reason. Brendan Eich was fired from Mozilla as CTO because of a small donation in favour of Prop 8. Fine? I think most people here would say yes. In fact people did say that. I think many people would say they don’t want to have a plumber who opposes…

It also works both ways. Yes a plumber can be more easily outed as anti-gay and fired, but the same uni-context makes the plumber more likely to be anti-gay and more strongly anti-gay in the first place. Being exposed to anti-gay propaganda all the time will do that. Otherwise you just have people who are like, their church told them it was bad to be gay, but they don't really care about it.

> Yes a plumber can be more easily outed as anti-gay and fired

Why would I care if I don't notice? I'm paying them to fix my literal plumbing, not to proverbially suck my dick. If they do the job I pay them for, and they're not giving me shit for who I am, why would I want to get them fired?

This uni-context feels like a very silly idea in practice.

Post reply on HN