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

Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’

pewinternet.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 89 posts

Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’

#31

Post by xienze »

LordKano wrote: post #6

I'm concerned that it's only going to get worse. Look at Brendan Eich, no matter what we think of Proposition 8, I think it's crazy that his support of a political position that was also supported by a very narrow majority of his fellow Californians could cause him to have to leave his job six years later. It's entirely possible that Eich could become a verb, like Bork. Any one of us could support one side of a conte…

> If I disagree with you, I'll challenge your ideas. I'll challenge your thinking. I'll debate you. I will not attempt to silence you.

The fact that fewer and fewer people online think this way is what makes me think twice about saying anything. Once you say anything slightly outside the accepted progressive viewpoint on Touchy Subject X, here comes the downvote and "you're a horrible human being" brigade. Online debate is effectively dead, and it's a shame.

Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’

#32

Post by vezzy-fnord »

danielweber wrote: post #22

It's amazing: 20 years ago, we went online to debate at will with people we would never see and who had no power over us. Now online we have to be super careful about everything we say lest someone who can make a decision over us be offended.

I actually think this illustrates an interesting evolution in our attitudes towards anonymity on the Internet.

It was only quite recently in the grand scheme of things that, particularly in school computer labs, one of the major things that we ingrained in children's heads was basic web safety etiquette: never reveal your real name, street address, phone number, etc.

With the advent of popular social media, holy shit has that completely turned around in the opposite direction. Now such things have been completely normalized, and we've started to talk about the "nymwars". There's also a reasonably influential segment that thinks all online communications should be done using personally identifiable information, lest someone gets trolled and has their sensibilities hurt.

Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’

#33

Post by tbrownaw »

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #15
LordKano wrote: post #6

I'm concerned that it's only going to get worse. Look at Brendan Eich, no matter what we think of Proposition 8, I think it's crazy that his support of a political position that was also supported by a very narrow majority of his fellow Californians could cause him to have to leave his job six years later. It's entirely possible that Eich could become a verb, like Bork. Any one of us could support one side of a conte…

My main beef with the Eich case wasn't the fact that people protested his decision, it was how they did it. The main method of protest was to boycott Firefox. Yet this was a stupid thing to do, because Firefox is the result of over a decade of wide-scale community effort, all done on a non-profit basis, and has been instrumental in advancing web standards. Firefox was also the initial spark that got us out of the sta…

My main beef with the Eich case wasn't the fact that people protested his decision, it was how they did it.

Causing indiscriminate collateral damage (and using various arguments to deflect blame onto your enemies) until people submit to your whims is a long and time-honored tradition (for example, terrorists).

Vicious attacks against those who (appear to be about to) "leave the fold" are also long and time-honored tradition (for example, apostasy in religious-ruled countries).

Given that They (the people doing the protesting) decided that Eich's political actions made him a "them", and that They considered Mozilla to be an "us", it was perfectly reasonable for Them to (1) attack Mozilla for associating with Eich, and (2) attack anyone associated with Eich until Eich was forced to submit to Them (in this case, to Go Away).

So no, the problem is that people decided to suddenly target one individual for protest over a years-old used-to-be-majority political opinion.

Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’

#34

Post by angersock »

drhayes9 wrote: post #19
dba7dba wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eich was silenced. And not only that, OTHERS were taught a lesson to be silent on that issue and other issues as well. Nothing is more effective to silence someone or groups of people than threatening someone's livelihood.

Except for threatening someone's life? Let's not get too hyperbolic here. A rich, white guy was forced out of a CEO position and he was "silenced"? He could have given interviews about his position at any tech magazine he could reach by phone. He could publish a blog post on his site. None of this suggests that he was silenced. Let's save the powerful terms for bigger travesties is all I'm saying.

You do realize, of course, that exact same argument goes for a lot of QUILTBAG folks, right?

What happened to Eich should be considered at best an embarrassment to the otherwise progressive image of folks seeking sexual respect--at worst, it's a fine example of the same sort of bigotry they've fought against themselves, in some ways justifying many of the petty accusations made against their ilk.

It was not a good time to be an ally in tech.

Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’

#35

Post by drhayes9 »

defen wrote: post #26
drhayes9 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody silenced Brendan Eich. He is free to say whatever he wants about his political affiliations and his personal ideals. With that freedom comes the concomitant responsibility for the consequences of that speech. In fact, I think it's admirable that he didn't back down from his position or try and weasel-word his way out of a difficult situation. He stuck to his guns in the face of a firestorm of controversy.

Here's what I don't understand - we're continually told that the Hollywood blacklist in the 40s and 50s was a terrible thing, a shameful episode in America's history. But how is it different? No one has a right to work as a screenwriter, actor, director, etc. I'm genuinely curious and not trolling, how is the Hollywood blacklist different from what happened to Eich, and why is one ok and the other something that need…

I'll risk more downvotes, I guess, what the heck.

Here are the main differences I see: the power dynamic at play, the scale of the effort, and the availability of concrete proof of action.

The Hollywood Blacklist was an attempt by studios and directors and some in the US government (those in power) to ban those underneath them based on, largely, unfounded allegations of Communist sympathies. It also had anti-union motivations, but I might be wrong? It took down dozens of actors, directors, and producers. No concrete "anti-American" actions were proven (that I know of).

Brendan Eich stepped down after his customers (and some of his employees) found proof that he'd donated to a cause supporting Prop 8, a piece of legislation that would have removed previously granted rights to homosexuals trying to marry. The donation was a specific action that Eich took that his customers disagreed with.

I think the power dynamic is the telling one. Oligarchic vs. grassroots, etc.

Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’

#36

Post by angersock »

ianstallings wrote: post #9

I was going to sternly object, and then I remembered how a friend deleted me on facebook because I liked a certain politician. Then my work friended me so I went back and pruned every semi-controversial topic from my feed and "unliked" a ton of subjects. And now I keep it all to myself. I probably reveal more here in my writing than I do on those outlets. And to say I edit my thoughts here on HN would be an understat…

Fuck'em and post'em, is what I say. Just try to make sure that, if you're going to get flamed, it's a post you'd be proud getting flamed for.

They can only downvote you once per post (though the admins and mods may hellban/slowban you if you are enough of a gadfly).

Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’

#37

Post by seiji »

LordKano wrote: post #6

I'm concerned that it's only going to get worse. Look at Brendan Eich, no matter what we think of Proposition 8, I think it's crazy that his support of a political position that was also supported by a very narrow majority of his fellow Californians could cause him to have to leave his job six years later. It's entirely possible that Eich could become a verb, like Bork. Any one of us could support one side of a conte…

his support of a political position

The problem is his support was for an anti-human rights issue, not just another "either side has valid points" political argument.

Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’

#38

Post by drhayes9 »

angersock wrote: post #34
drhayes9 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except for threatening someone's life? Let's not get too hyperbolic here. A rich, white guy was forced out of a CEO position and he was "silenced"? He could have given interviews about his position at any tech magazine he could reach by phone. He could publish a blog post on his site. None of this suggests that he was silenced. Let's save the powerful terms for bigger travesties is all I'm saying.

You do realize, of course, that exact same argument goes for a lot of QUILTBAG folks, right? What happened to Eich should be considered at best an embarrassment to the otherwise progressive image of folks seeking sexual respect--at worst, it's a fine example of the same sort of bigotry they've fought against themselves, in some ways justifying many of the petty accusations made against their ilk. It was not a good ti…

I disagree.

The strict definition of bigotry is viewing other groups with suspicion, hatred, whatever. So, yes, I'm okay with being bigoted against people who kick puppies.

I think the more meaningful definition of bigotry within the context of social equality is an expression of power that flows from those with power to those without it. In this case, the one with power (rich white guy) trying to remove previously granted rights from marginalized folks (gays wanting to get married).

The fact that the rich white guy, in this case, was the newly minted CEO of a corporation that strives to bring "Internet equality" added a spice of irony to the whole thing.

Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’

#39

Post by tbrownaw »

drhayes9 wrote: post #35
defen wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's what I don't understand - we're continually told that the Hollywood blacklist in the 40s and 50s was a terrible thing, a shameful episode in America's history. But how is it different? No one has a right to work as a screenwriter, actor, director, etc. I'm genuinely curious and not trolling, how is the Hollywood blacklist different from what happened to Eich, and why is one ok and the other something that need…

I'll risk more downvotes, I guess, what the heck. Here are the main differences I see: the power dynamic at play, the scale of the effort, and the availability of concrete proof of action. The Hollywood Blacklist was an attempt by studios and directors and some in the US government (those in power) to ban those underneath them based on, largely, unfounded allegations of Communist sympathies. It also had anti-union mo…

And yet both are meant to stifle/punish dissenting political opinions. Are the only differences really who is doing the stifling and how flimsy their evidence is?

Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’

#40

Post by maxxxxx »

dba7dba wrote: post #17
dba7dba wrote: post #4

I don't want say to I am ahead of the curve or anything but yes I already have started not saying nothing on my social network that's related to politics/religion/social-issues/etc. I don't say yes or no on any of those on social network. I have decided silence is the best option. I do have a real world example too. I used to work with a manager over me who was really cool and worked with me well. Felt he was looking…

@maxxxxx I believe religion/politics are not discussed on US navy ship officer dining rooms because they are stuck with each other for months at a time. I am sure they let their views known in other arenas.

I know why it's not being discussed. It's because US citizens have been trained by the parties to think that anybody with a different view is a bad person you can't even talk to without getting angry.

This is not good for a healthy democracy.

Post reply on HN