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

51–60 of 89 posts

Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’

#51

Post by cgore »

seiji wrote: post #37
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.

In general, freedom of speech is one of the places where conservatives tend to do a lot better than liberals. You are making a really good example of that.

Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’

#52

Post by cryoshon »

bhauer wrote: post #21

While I find this research fascinating, and some of the findings conflict with the point I am about to make, I nevertheless want to object to the selection of Snowden-NSA as the particular topic used as the basis of this research. Although it does conveniently have a nearly-even split of opinion, the nature of the Snowden-NSA revelations carry very specific baggage for social media conversations precisely because the…

Yep, the chilling effect is real, and in action. Next (and critically, invisibly) people as a whole will actually think less about the NSA and having their online activity surveilled and what those two bits mean. Fewer people will be exposed to the circulation of ideas on these topics. This is the consequence of being afraid to speak freely in what used to be an open forum.

Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’

#53

Post by tbrownaw »

bhauer wrote: post #21

While I find this research fascinating, and some of the findings conflict with the point I am about to make, I nevertheless want to object to the selection of Snowden-NSA as the particular topic used as the basis of this research. Although it does conveniently have a nearly-even split of opinion, the nature of the Snowden-NSA revelations carry very specific baggage for social media conversations precisely because the…

The interesting part is being less likely to talk in real life if you're also active on social networks. Is it reasonable to assume this is also related to the topic being the NSA (say, more time online would feed your paranoia?), or should it be more independent of what's being discussed?

Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’

#54

Post by seiji »

flatdeviant wrote: post #43
seiji wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is hindsight bias. You can compare this to racism: back in the 18th and 19th centuries, racist and antisemitic people were in the overwhelming majority, and this only changed recently. And yet, applying 21st century moral values to the 18th century is completely meaningless, as every historian who studied these time periods will tell you.

This is hindsight bias.

Except Prop 8 was five years ago and not 200 years ago? I know I'm sure not absolved of my mistakes (or even debt) from five years ago. Public activism during one's lifetime is on the table as a factor for judging that someone.

Now, you can try to argue whether the decisions of the person are actually what the person believes or if they were just following to feel like they belong or feel important or be around their _other_ bigoted friends. Either way, it doesn't show great capacity for independent thought.

Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’

#55

Post by tedks »

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…

Trying to keep queer people out of acceptable models of life like marriage, having families, and being responsible is a literal attempt to silence and kill them. There is a straight line from homophobia to the effective genocide Reagan committed against queer people in the 80s by turning a blind eye to the AIDS crisis.

I think it's entirely correct that Eich was deposed and shamed for what he did. I wish that we had the Internet in the 60s so that we could have done the same to George Wallace.

Be on the right side of history or you'll inevitably end up on the wrong side of it.

Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’

#56

Post by dba7dba »

I find it ironic that the social media is effectively making average Joes and Janes (who generally dislike politicians) act like they are politicians, not saying what they really mean and worrying about how they are viewed by the public.

Weird I must say.

Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’

#57

Post by drhayes9 »

tbrownaw wrote: post #39
drhayes9 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, but don't minimize it.

Metaphorically, it's the difference between a guy with a big stick who makes stuff up so he can beat your face and a crowd of people voting on what court system to set up to give you a trial.

Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’

#58

Post by jdmichal »

xienze wrote: post #31
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 deb…

> Online debate is effectively dead, and it's a shame.

Debate in pretty much any form has been dead for a long time. Few people know how to debate properly, and simply introduce fallacy after fallacy into the discussion. For instance, you cited appeal to emotion, maybe more specifically appeal to pity depending on why "you're a horrible human being."

Alternatively, they just constantly move the target. As soon as you address one point, they just move on to another without even acknowledging the previous point. Any attempt to pin them on that point will be addressed that you have "misunderstood" them, and what they are stating now is what they meant the entire time.

The worst part is that this is all done, as best as I can tell, not even maliciously but almost subconsciously. Most likely, they have learned over their life that these methods produce results and so they continue to use them. (And by "results", I generally mean reinforcing their mental status quo, bonus points if they can vilify their opponent.)

Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’

#59

Post by seiji »

cgore wrote: post #51
seiji wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In general, freedom of speech is one of the places where conservatives tend to do a lot better than liberals. You are making a really good example of that.

Freedom of speech means the government (notably: federal government, though most states have similar rights) can't stop you from saying things or shut you down just because they don't like what you have to say.

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with private parties exacting revenge on you for saying, doing, or promoting objective wrongness.

Freedom of speech is not freedom of equality of validness of opinion.

Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’

#60

Post by drhayes9 »

LordKano wrote: post #47
drhayes9 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 g…

Is there any evidence of Brendan Eich engaging in any actual discrimination against anyone based upon their sexual identity? To borrow your metaphor, you are not being bigoted against someone who kicks puppies. You are being bigoted against someone who isn't bigoted against people who kick puppies.

No, I'm bigoted against people who send money to organizations who support kicking puppies. Just to stretch this metaphor to the breaking point.

EDIT: His donation is actual discrimination based on someone's sexual identity.

Post reply on HN