Our digital pasts weren’t supposed to be weaponized like this • Hacker News Board

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

#171

Post by donjon20on » Mon, May 31, 2021, 7:20 PM UTC

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…

My account also got suspended on Saturday. I have no alt account. I have no questionable posts whatsoever. Very confused. Said if was due to multiple content violations without any citation to which post it pertained to, and no previous warnings in over a decade of activity. I am very confused, to say the least. I don't even think I've used a swear word before on Reddit.

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

#172

Post by account42 » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 9:22 AM UTC

sundaeofshock wrote: post #115

mongol wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if it is illegal, then all the people working for cancelling the employee will know it is hopeless.

They won’t be able to get the person canceled, but they can still boycott the person’s employer. Said employer will be economically harmed, with no way to end the pain. Companies don’t like being harmed in this way, so they will most likely respond by digging very deeply into every job candidate’s past to avoid hiring someone who may be “canceled” at a future date. Here’s the thing: most people have done pretty shitt…

> Making “cancel mob” terminations illegal ends all that. Is this really the path we want to go down?

Yes? The problem with cancellation is that individuals are targeted which means that for most people it is not a problem and they have no incentive to stop it. The mob cannot go after everyone. Employers cannot filter out everyone - then they have no employees.

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

#173

Post by Zuider » Wed, Jun 02, 2021, 1:02 AM UTC

monkeydreams wrote: post #80

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…

> 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…

>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?

But we are not talking of a personal choice to boycott, or even to persuade others to boycott. That action is passive in nature and falls entirely within an individuals liberty to withdraw consent.

Cancel culture involves aggressive mobs that will use covert and unethical means such as targeting a company's advertisers, clients and suppliers, or relentlessly harassing the HR department in order to induce them to fire somebody.

As the OP in this thread noted, this is comparable to vigilantism.

>Good news! These laws exist.

Libel laws are hard to use against anonymous callers and letter writers calling you a 'Nazi.' It is most unlikely that the recipient of such a call will be persuaded you are a literal Nazi, but they will be influenced and intimidated by the strong hostility and disapproval expressed. It would be hard to prove in court that you had actually been libeled, even if you could bring that person to court, but you will still have been damaged.

>When "your side" starts advocating that people should not have, hold or act on opinions, you might start wondering who you're on side with.

But cancel culture is intolerant of other's right to freedom of conscience, and it goes beyond mere disapproval to active personal destruction.

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

#174

Post by Zuider » Wed, Jun 02, 2021, 1:05 AM UTC

rolandog wrote: post #160

monkeydreams wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, I recently was permanently suspended on Reddit, but I've been unable to determine why (also, no previous announcement). > The curious thing for me was that my alt account (the one I use to try to have some semblance of free speech) was also permanently suspended. That sucks, especially as there are few ways to appeal these bans. Perhaps you were banned for upvoting your own content from another account? This…

> Perhaps you were banned for upvoting your own content from another account? This will result in a ban for both accounts. If not, it could be a number of other reasons that have nothing to do with cancellation or governmental criticism. To be quite honest, there used to be a time in my life where I would've cared about getting up voted and having a popular opinion, but I don't think I've cared enough to cheat the sy…

Reddit has introduced a policy where you can be banned merely for upvoting an offending opinion. You may have fallen foul of that.

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

#175

Post by Zuider » Wed, Jun 02, 2021, 1:16 AM UTC

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.

On the small reddit clones, the far-right takes on the same role as the far left does on reddit. The Daily Stormtrooper gang, who comprise at most 10 people, will flood those sites with relentless racist material and will attack and deplatform anyone who complains or dissents.

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

#176

Post by Zuider » Wed, Jun 02, 2021, 1:39 AM UTC

ashtonkem wrote: post #90

AstralStorm wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Political speech, in particular, is supposed to be protected from this kind of treatment. Most importantly, accusations of bias are also not a valid reason to fire a journalist. There's also an intermingling of private and public sphere, and firing someone for private legal behavior because some internet hive mind started a smear campaign also should not be lawful. Of course, America has the coercive institution of a…

> Political speech, in particular, is supposed to be protected from this kind of treatment. No, it is not. It is supposed to be protected from the government punishing you over it, any other requirements are purely made up. > There's also an intermingling of private and public sphere, and firing someone for private legal behavior because some internet hive mind started a smear campaign also should not be lawful So yo…

>No, it is not. It is supposed to be protected from the government punishing you over it, any other requirements are purely made up.

The United States has an unusually robust legal protection of free speech in its constitution. It is the case that this only protects citizens from the state, and any other protections people imagine it provides are, as you state, 'purely made up.'

Even so, the First Amendment is based on a prior ethos of the value of free speech.

The philosopher, J.S. Mill, in his impassioned defense of freedom of speech saw both government and private actions as being threats to free speech, and advocated protections against both.

There is an adage which has been much repeated in recent years that freedom of speech does not imply freedom from consequences. That depends on what those 'consequences' are. One may disagree, argue back, or even block a person with whom you disagree, but it crosses a line when you respond by trying to destroy a person whose views you reject.

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

#177

Post by rolandog » Wed, Jun 02, 2021, 11:17 PM UTC

Zuider wrote: post #174

rolandog wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Perhaps you were banned for upvoting your own content from another account? This will result in a ban for both accounts. If not, it could be a number of other reasons that have nothing to do with cancellation or governmental criticism. To be quite honest, there used to be a time in my life where I would've cared about getting up voted and having a popular opinion, but I don't think I've cared enough to cheat the sy…

Reddit has introduced a policy where you can be banned merely for upvoting an offending opinion. You may have fallen foul of that.

Oh man, this could have been my case... I have sometimes accidentally up or down voted links or comments (switching hands to hold the phone, for example).

Now that I think about it, one of the last things I had upvoted was a comment that advocated for peace between the Israeli and Palestinian sides.

I wanted to reply, but I thought that my opinion would not be taken seriously if I used my alt account, so I switched to my real account to write a thoughtful comment.

I started writing it, then I saved it as a draft and decided to go to sleep and think things over so I wouldn't write something offensive, then I tried posting (on the 'RIF' app) and it kept failing to post. That's when, after logging in online, I realized I had been permanently banned.