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

Our digital pasts weren’t supposed to be weaponized like this

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 177 posts

Re: Our digital pasts weren’t supposed to be weaponized like this

#161

Post by rolandog »

monkeydreams wrote: post #153
commandlinefan wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a shame that every Reddit alternative (like voat and now ruqqus) turns into such a cesspool. I wish there was something like the Reddit of 10 years ago.

I am with you on that one but I think it is the product of the times and situation we live in. No one can agree on what constitutes free speech, everyone feels that they are the ones under attack (on the Right and the Left and the Centrists). No one can concede ground, everyone holds that they are absolutely correct in every case. So they leave for more tolerant grounds (i.e. where people agree with them and their se…

You're totally right.

It's like there are multitude Battlefields on a War of Opinion & Truth.

In my case I may have compared 1 year ago a certain world leader that was sending minority demographic to specialized facilities to a Disney character.

Though it certainly took quite a while for me to be labeled and permanently suspended.

I don't know why my alt account would be banned as well, though.

Re: Our digital pasts weren’t supposed to be weaponized like this

#162

Post by TechnoTimeStop »

JackMorgan wrote: post #51

In the future I suspect cancelling will be illegal: the same way vigilante justice is illegal now. Causing a person to be fired/doxxed by a mob for an action that isn't even illegal (free speach) is no more morally noble then going and beating them up over a suspected crime. If a person commits a crime, then let courts decide, otherwise it's just mob rule and vigilante "justice". That said, I think it's going to take…

Except that its in the China Russia KGB CCP interest to hurt American industry wherever and whenever they can. Who actually goes around sifting through all of these peoples content? Its honestly pathetic. Fix social media now. We're all under attack!

Re: Our digital pasts weren’t supposed to be weaponized like this

#163

Post by rolandog »

commandlinefan wrote: post #151
rolandog wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I recently was permanently suspended on Reddit, but I've been unable to determine why (also, no previous announcement). I haven't been permanently banned from any subreddit (no message in my 14 year old history indicated this)... but I've been unable to get any human to tell me what exactly I did was against the Reddit Content Policy. The curious thing for me was that my alt account (the one I use to try to hav…

It’s a shame that every Reddit alternative (like voat and now ruqqus) turns into such a cesspool. I wish there was something like the Reddit of 10 years ago.

Indeed. I've been trying to find or come up with solutions that don't jeopardize personal safety (think journalists, or citizens living under an authoritarian regime) but that also allow freedom of speech (but not democracy of truth, because then you get a fertile ground for propaganda and a rift in communities).

Re: Our digital pasts weren’t supposed to be weaponized like this

#164

Post by ergot_vacation »

There are pages of comments here now debating all the intricacies of this situation: Where free speech begins and ends, when firing is justified or not, how and if it's possible to solve the issue with the courts or congress.

The cold reality is that the solution to all of this is very simple:

1. Stop using your real name (and personal information) online.

2. Stop using social media sites (as they revolve around sharing personal information).

In situations when you MUST use real life identity online, only post the most bland, inoffensive things possible. The multitude of protests to this position are irrelevant: anonymity online is not an option, it is a NECESSITY because of the way the Internet works.

Clever people understood this from the beginning: this advice was mainstream Internet 101 in the 90s. But as time went on profit seeking companies brainwashed everyone into a new norm where we all go around with our clothes off and our dicks out. This is not a safe or sustainable situation. The net isn't like real life. It has MEMORY, vast and sticky. It's searchable. On the net, information is a weapon, and if you go around handing out loaded weapons to everyone you meet, eventually bad things will happen.

Reams of digital ink have been spilled in this comment section debating how best to keep people from firing the weapon at you. This misses the point. Stop giving it to them in the first place. If you do, you have no room to complain.

Re: Our digital pasts weren’t supposed to be weaponized like this

#165

Post by ben_w »

tomjen3 wrote: post #67
ben_w wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree that the status quo isn’t stable and must change, I don’t think what you’re suggesting will be stable either. The internet is one place where 99.9% compliance with a social norm or law isn’t good enough to prevent the remaining 0.1% from causing enough damage to be un-ignorable, even if you manage to get worldwide agreement on updating the law. (Consider that e.g. the UK does not have American freedom o…

Is there a standard way to convert an encryption key into a human readable name? Because then we could have a service where you signed everything with your key and then you were know as whatever the hash of that key is - and you can create a new identity with a new key, but your name won't be linked to any real world identity. I barely use Facebook or Twitter compared to reddit, and I suspect it is because of the rea…

Yes, but people are leaky with regards to OpSec even when they’re trained and motivated to be non-terrible at it, and most people are not trained at all.

Re: Our digital pasts weren’t supposed to be weaponized like this

#166

Post by cutemonster »

ashtonkem wrote: post #95
cornel_io wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, there are only three consistent positions here: 1) this type of firing is unfair and bad, 2) this type of firing is fair and good ("consequence culture"), or 3) "I'm a partisan who just wants my enemies to burn" Maybe 80% of the people that opine on this subject are in category 3), 19% are in 1), and only 1% actually believe this sort of thing is great even when it hits someone that's on their team. Unfortunat…

I’m a bit baffled why were treating “cancel culture” as one, monolithic thing, when it’s pretty clear that each case is a bit different. Someone losing their job for having a public melt down is not the same as a celebrity getting criticized, and that’s not the same as someone clearly losing some sort of nasty office politics war. Treating this as a monolithic block is silly.

Indeed. The humans, they tend to want things to be simple, grouping together things that are different, or group together people who are different just look the same on the outside

Re: Our digital pasts weren’t supposed to be weaponized like this

#167

Post by webmobdev »

JackMorgan wrote: post #51

In the future I suspect cancelling will be illegal: the same way vigilante justice is illegal now. Causing a person to be fired/doxxed by a mob for an action that isn't even illegal (free speach) is no more morally noble then going and beating them up over a suspected crime. If a person commits a crime, then let courts decide, otherwise it's just mob rule and vigilante "justice". That said, I think it's going to take…

Right to Privacy - specifically, the Right to Be Forgotten ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten ) - is also very important here. Americans are certainly behind EU on this aspect, as many European countries have successfully passed legislation that a person has the right to get his personal information deleted from internet services (mainly search engines).

Re: Our digital pasts weren’t supposed to be weaponized like this

#168

Post by webmobdev »

rolandog wrote: post #96
monkeydreams wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the future I suspect cancelling will be illegal: the same way vigilante justice is illegal now. Will it be illegal at the point of expressing an opinion online? Will it be illegal at the point of agreeing or liking an opinion expressed online? Will it be illegal at the point where one is purchasing a product or service and determines where their money will go based on an opinion they hold? People are allowed to…

Well, I recently was permanently suspended on Reddit, but I've been unable to determine why (also, no previous announcement). I haven't been permanently banned from any subreddit (no message in my 14 year old history indicated this)... but I've been unable to get any human to tell me what exactly I did was against the Reddit Content Policy. The curious thing for me was that my alt account (the one I use to try to hav…

Every sub-reddit is supposed to be an echo chamber for or against a topic, and if you participate in a sub-reddit, you are expected to echo the majoritarian views of that sub-reddit. Or else start your own sub-reddit that propagate your views.

Possible reasons for a Reddit ban include trying to post to a sub-reddit that has suspended or banned you using another account, doxing / harassment or vote manipulation / brigading.

Re: Our digital pasts weren’t supposed to be weaponized like this

#170

Post by pizzazzaro »

JackMorgan wrote: post #51

In the future I suspect cancelling will be illegal: the same way vigilante justice is illegal now. Causing a person to be fired/doxxed by a mob for an action that isn't even illegal (free speach) is no more morally noble then going and beating them up over a suspected crime. If a person commits a crime, then let courts decide, otherwise it's just mob rule and vigilante "justice". That said, I think it's going to take…

The answer is simple: nuke your social media. If you need them? Start from scratch once a year.

It isnt challenging. But privacy takes effort.

Post reply on HN