I am both happy to hear BBC talking about this, and also can't help but feel like they (alongside with the rest of MSM) are the main source of that problem (even bigger than social media, as they shape what social media landscape looks like).
We just went through the most censorious (and self-censorship inducing) few years in my living memory (I am almost 40), where people who we "asking questions" were called all kind of names by all kind of news outlets.
I'd disagree that the BBC is more responsible for a backlash than social media is. I'd suggest that it's social media that shapes the wider media landscape (particularly in recent years twitter), not the other way round.
There's also a huge difference between "just asking questions" and "just asking questions" - and there are a huge number of people who are doing so in a bad-faith manner.
Social Media is the root cause, the problem is Social media became the "Source of news" for most "journalists" who lazily just regurgitate the same info, using the same "sources" of twitter, facebook, etc.
I use uBlacklist to highlight results for good websites like reddit, stackoverflow, or official documentation. It also blocks hundreds of SEO websites and low quality stuff (quora, geeksforgeeks, clones of stackoverflow). You can even block stuff by title, like "\d+ (best|essential|...).*". Sometimes a get 2 results per page as a result of this.
Especially in some work settings, where 'approved' thought is rewarded and 'discouraged' thought is punished.
If you don't know what I'm talking about, you can find it in places like Reddit. Post something nice about a politician from one side of the political aisle. Then post something nice about a politician from the other side. You'll see pretty quickly what it's about.
The article talks about Salman Rushdie. The MSM didn't put a fatwa on Rushdie, and then stab him nearly to death. That was ultra-religious conservatives. Ultra-religious conservatives are also responsible for much of the censorship in the United States, especially in schools, refusing to allow kids to read certain books or be taught certain subjects.
Getting "called all kind of names" is not censorship, it's just criticism. That's actually an exercise of free speech by the name callers, don't you think?
[EDIT:] The irony of voting this comment down until it's effectively censored. Sigh.
"There is a difference between valid criticism, which should be part of free expression, and this kind of backlash, ugly personal insults, putting addresses of homes and children's schools online, trying to make people lose their jobs."
That conflates some very different things.
Of course posting someone's children's schools because of something they wrote is unacceptable.
There are absolutely things that people can write which they should be removed from their job for though, and where it is appropriate to campaign for this as a response.
Maybe they should be removed from their job if it's something related to their job, but it almost never is. It always comes down to "this person disagrees with me, therefore cause their employer a nuisance till its no longer worth employing them". There's not a moral court judgement or fairness, it's just some people harassing other people and insisting they deserve it.
She's distinguishing between mob behavior (fundamentally emotional, with people trying to cancel someone they just heard of 2 minutes ago, likely without caring about any context or evidence), and intellectual criticism.
It's a reasonable distinction, since except for the past ~10 years, all well-educated people used to understand that mobs are dangerous, even the well-intentioned ones.
Outside the confines of them making official representation about their employer or actions they would take under their authority/power/employment or while on the job, I do not believe there is anything someone writes for which they should be removed from their job.
The "ugly personal insults" part really stands out. It seems inherently self-contradictory: "I should be able to say anything I want, but you should be restricted in the nature of your reply."
As you say, doxxing is much closer to violence, and there's every reason to forbid it. But she's attracting attention because of what many people see as "ugly personal insults" against them.
Similarly, right at the beginning, she talks about being "afraid to ask questions for fear of asking the wrong questions". There is already a term for this, JAQing off, where questions are not sincerely intended because you're not going to listen to the answers. They may be intended to sow doubt, spread misinformation, or simply waste time re-re-reexplaining the same point. Those are "wrong questions" because they're not really questions.
I think she's talking about the level at which this campaign would occur. In the past it would have been at a far higher level. Now, almost any sentence can be taken in the worst-faith way, and a campaign be started based on that assumption.
>There are absolutely things that people can write which they should be removed from their job for though, and where it is appropriate to campaign for this as a response.
It's really good to see you say the quiet part out loud, and I do hope some people start to become more aware of the friend-enemy distinction.
That's why when people who have the same stance as you get fired, specially when they have a history of trying to get other people get fired for something they said, always warms my heart.
> young people were growing up "afraid to ask questions for fear of asking the wrong questions".
This is not a problem young people have, this is a problem old people have.
Young people grew up with social media and are very savvy about segmenting their public persona from their private one. Young people understand intuitively that asking an edgy question on your public persona is an act of edginess in itself.
If you want to know why, the answer is that technology has weaponized the concept of push polling to its extreme (now “concern trolling” and such). As such it’s become difficult to distinguish legitimate discourse from bad-faith concern trolling. Young people understand this easily.
Older people on the other hand I’ve seen struggle with these concepts.
Regarding publishing and self-censorship in literature I can’t comment; most people aren’t publishing literature and I’m among the majority so I have no experience with that.
>Young people grew up with social media and are very savvy about segmenting their public persona from their private one. Young people understand intuitively that asking an edgy question on your public persona is an act of edginess in itself.
While that is true to a certain segment, I'd argue that the young people are actually worse than the older ones. There is a gap of those that experienced the internet before things like facebook/twitter became the face of the web, those i'd argue do fit the mold you're describing, the generation after them however?
Their entire lives seem to be on the internet, with no regard for anonymity or oversharing with complete strangers, many dazzled by the idea of getting fame through those interactions and often turning what should be personal relationships with real friends into exclusively virtual interactions, and it compounds when you get older and you're further incentivized to put yourself publicly out there with LinkedIn and such. Of course there is a bit of a hyperbole but the point still stands.
Oh yes, the proverbial wise young people who understand the world better. Not being able to be genuine on social media when they spend a large proportion of time "socializing" there clearly can't do any harm. In no way can this bring about a distorted view of reality and of what people actually think. No, not a chance, young people are savvy about these things.
How ironic! I considered linking to an interview with this author about the phenomenon of online swindlers in her home country when a debate about same sprung up in a company listserv. One side of the debate was offended that the topic was broached at all.
I self-censored, realizing a factual account from a prominent Nigerian author would probably be dismissed and I would be tarred for appearing to take a side in a debate where race and colonialism were being held up as reasons people like me just don’t understand.
I think there will be a push back against the current censorship and coercion. After a while people just get fed up. The longer it takes the bigger the swing. I wouldn't be surprised to see DeSantis president or someone even "worse".
If you're pushing back against censorship & coercion, why would vote for the guy who worked with his state legislature to pass a bill (stop woke act) that was all about limiting what teachers could teach? Luckily, a judge blocked the bill on First Amendment grounds.
Because despite all their saber rattling, the MO for US Republicans is to do things like ban books, sue teachers for teaching history, shun journalists, etc.
I don't expect any. The reason people self-censor is that the fight just isn't worth it. They just want to carry on with their lives and not get dragged into a fight by people who care way more than them.
I believe Trump was voted in by people who were fed up with the new sanctimonity, especially on topics like sexism and racism. Their defense was to vote for vulgarity and Trump seemed to be a master of that if nothing else.
Such a good, and important, take on the state of affairs. Outright censorship is bad. But even worse is when an environment is fostered in which folks will preemptively self-censor. It’s terrifying.
>"We are all familiar with stories of people who have said or written something and then faced a terrible online backlash," she said.
What proportion of these came out of Twitter? It seems to me at least that most of the abusive brigading comes from there. There seems to be something about how Twitter implements their "following" concept that creates arbitrary and pointless groups. Twitter is a bunch of virtual gangs fighting each other and any other discernible targets.
The elites (and the corporate journalists of billionaires) often control what is “allowable” as speech with reach. Free speech is allowable so long as it doesn’t have reach. Once you pass that line you become a target for elimination like Assange. Look for allowable discourse from weathervanes like billionaire owned and controlled media like the NY Times, Washington Post, The Economist etc…
Fundamentally, the problem is its often very difficult to tell the difference between the brave iconoclast shining a light on sensitive issues, and the troll or worse, looking to cause harm to others.
Is David Duke a dangerous voice for bigotry, or a brave man speaking out against a system?
What about the famous Dutch cartoonist? Brave satirists, or racist firestarters?
What about Ilhan Omar? Defender of Palestinian rights or anti-Semite?
Is a sensitivity reader shining a light on an author's potential biases and blind spots, or are they a tool for censorship?
Are k-pop groups on Twitter posting into alt-right hashtags disrupting communication among hate groups, or censoring alternative viewpoints?
All of this is a matter of judgement.
Many would say that, hey, it doesn't matter, speech should be free and unfettered without exception. Sticks and stones, etc. The danger of censorship is too high.
Those in victimized groups, subject to harassment or worse, enabled by social networks and so forth, would profoundly disagree.
After all, it's easy to say that now after decades of progress for victimized groups. It reminds me a lot of anti-vaxxers today questioning the need for the measles vaccine. To them the disease is just a memory, the side effects are more dangerous.
And that's ignoring the fact that there's still unbelievable amounts of hate directed at victimized groups online.
This author may have a very valid point. Maybe self-censorship is happening at a rate above what is desirable.
But if my neighbor pops up online and advocates for white power and racial purity, you're darn right I want him to self-censor.
We have been living a reality where you truly have to worry about your career and safety. This, in a western country where freedom is supposed to be the law of the land. Yet, that isn't reality today at all. Say the wrong thing and your career is over. Or worse.
And, yes, I am sorry to say, the blood is entirely, 100% on the hands of the ideological left.
Anyone who does not think the current status-quo is wrong and seriously detrimental should take a moment to imagine a reality where the right, rather than the left, has that level of dominance and control. That scenario would be just as horrific as the current reality. This isn't good for society, no matter which side has dominance. The public has the right to be well informed with facts and not to be subjected to constitutionally-protected indoctrination.
The problem with the vast majority of the MSM and social media being ideologically one sided is that they create ignorance and false narratives that permeate the population.
A simple example of this is what has been happening at the US southern border. People who only consume leftist MSM/social media material have absolutely no idea whatsoever that over five million people have effectively invaded the US in the last two years. No clue at all. Even beyond that, they have no idea that these people, who, by definition, are unemployed, are not counted in unemployment statistics. Or that a good number of them will likely take entry level jobs away from other --existing-- communities. They have no clue about just how badly this has expanded both human trafficking and the mass entry of dangerous drugs into the country.
The fact that these kinds of things are not covered at all by MSM/social media entities makes for a population that is utterly ignorant of quite a range of realities. When it comes time to vote, this amounts to voter manipulation. If every media outlet constantly lies and manipulates the message, well, you are manipulating votes. This, again, is objectively wrong. Would you like the right to have dominance of the MSM and do the same thing? Likely not. It's wrong.
The press is protected by the US constitution in order for them to inform the people, not lie, indoctrinate and polarize through constant pounding with unified one-sided ideological messaging.
Recently we had a spate of incidents of killings by pitbulls in South Africa prompting some people to call for the breed to banned and the dogs confiscated and put down.
So, one seemingly intelligent pitbull owner took it upon herself to record a voicenote on a pitbull owners forum that had members of all races calling for black men to be castrated instead because of racist tropes of dogs and black people.
She got arrested (we do have hate crime laws) and her landlord is busy evicting her from the rental property.
>> "She continued: "Nothing demonstrates this better than the recent phenomenon of 'sensitivity readers' in the world of publishing, people whose job it is to cleanse unpublished manuscripts of potentially offensive words."
That's such a gross misrepresentation. Does the article improve at all past this?
We’re self-censoring Even now cus We know it’s dangerous to ask uncomfortable questions. Believe it or not, everyone over 30 is not just an idiot or a criminal.
Massive backlash incoming. The USA is going to become very conservative again.
Well yeah... you can be an asshole towards minorities or anyone else as long as you're not running afoul of libel and hate speech laws, that's called "freedom of speech".
"Freedom of speech" however, and this is what many of the "cancel culture" whiners forget, also runs the other way around: when you behave like an asshole, drop N-bombs or otherwise become commercially untenable,
- platforms like social media can decide they do not wish to be a platform for your speech - if not out of respect for their own brand, they have to take care to not threaten their relationships with advertisers as Twitter is finding out the hard way. The calculation is simple: the income from advertisers willing to show up next to Alex Jones-style crap is way, way lower than the income from advertisers that Twitter loses because the brands act proactively.
- same applies for direct contracts from sponsors. While this is less common with book authors, media stars are, with "Ye" being the perfect example.
- publishers and especially reviewers can decide they don't want to publish or review your books/media
- fans can decide that they don't want to buy and read your books/media
To sum up: You can be an asshole and claim you're just "asking questions" or "exercising your right to free speech", but you can't at the same time complain when actions have consequences and you're being held accountable.
And a side note regarding the popular "just asking questions" excuse: for literally every single question that LGBT people or PoC get "asked", there are tons of answers on Google, in interviews, in media, in scientific literature. You don't need to answer a random Black person if it hurts them personally if you're writing out the N-word or a Jew if it hurts them if you deny the Holocaust - even if the specific person says it does not, the overwhelming majority of evidence and opinions will be very clear.
>actions have consequences and you're being held accountable.
If there was no government-sanctioned affirmative action and if discrimination of the basis of race was not outlawed, all the consequences in the world would not change the fact that the "cancel culture whiners" (your own words) will rise in status (both social and economic) relative to minorities and liberals. So, yes - actions do have consequences, including for you.
[+] [-] poszlem|3 years ago|reply
We just went through the most censorious (and self-censorship inducing) few years in my living memory (I am almost 40), where people who we "asking questions" were called all kind of names by all kind of news outlets.
[+] [-] djaychela|3 years ago|reply
There's also a huge difference between "just asking questions" and "just asking questions" - and there are a huge number of people who are doing so in a bad-faith manner.
All IMO, of course.
[+] [-] phpisthebest|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ambicapter|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eulgro|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RickJWagner|3 years ago|reply
Especially in some work settings, where 'approved' thought is rewarded and 'discouraged' thought is punished.
If you don't know what I'm talking about, you can find it in places like Reddit. Post something nice about a politician from one side of the political aisle. Then post something nice about a politician from the other side. You'll see pretty quickly what it's about.
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] lapcat|3 years ago|reply
Getting "called all kind of names" is not censorship, it's just criticism. That's actually an exercise of free speech by the name callers, don't you think?
[EDIT:] The irony of voting this comment down until it's effectively censored. Sigh.
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] 35amxn35|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jarmsy|3 years ago|reply
That conflates some very different things.
Of course posting someone's children's schools because of something they wrote is unacceptable.
There are absolutely things that people can write which they should be removed from their job for though, and where it is appropriate to campaign for this as a response.
[+] [-] LightHugger|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] concinds|3 years ago|reply
It's a reasonable distinction, since except for the past ~10 years, all well-educated people used to understand that mobs are dangerous, even the well-intentioned ones.
[+] [-] phpisthebest|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jfengel|3 years ago|reply
As you say, doxxing is much closer to violence, and there's every reason to forbid it. But she's attracting attention because of what many people see as "ugly personal insults" against them.
Similarly, right at the beginning, she talks about being "afraid to ask questions for fear of asking the wrong questions". There is already a term for this, JAQing off, where questions are not sincerely intended because you're not going to listen to the answers. They may be intended to sow doubt, spread misinformation, or simply waste time re-re-reexplaining the same point. Those are "wrong questions" because they're not really questions.
[+] [-] djaychela|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trention|3 years ago|reply
No, there are not. Anything you say outside of your working time is not the business of your employer.
[+] [-] Ligma123|3 years ago|reply
It's really good to see you say the quiet part out loud, and I do hope some people start to become more aware of the friend-enemy distinction.
That's why when people who have the same stance as you get fired, specially when they have a history of trying to get other people get fired for something they said, always warms my heart.
[+] [-] helen___keller|3 years ago|reply
This is not a problem young people have, this is a problem old people have.
Young people grew up with social media and are very savvy about segmenting their public persona from their private one. Young people understand intuitively that asking an edgy question on your public persona is an act of edginess in itself.
If you want to know why, the answer is that technology has weaponized the concept of push polling to its extreme (now “concern trolling” and such). As such it’s become difficult to distinguish legitimate discourse from bad-faith concern trolling. Young people understand this easily.
Older people on the other hand I’ve seen struggle with these concepts.
Regarding publishing and self-censorship in literature I can’t comment; most people aren’t publishing literature and I’m among the majority so I have no experience with that.
[+] [-] philippejara|3 years ago|reply
While that is true to a certain segment, I'd argue that the young people are actually worse than the older ones. There is a gap of those that experienced the internet before things like facebook/twitter became the face of the web, those i'd argue do fit the mold you're describing, the generation after them however? Their entire lives seem to be on the internet, with no regard for anonymity or oversharing with complete strangers, many dazzled by the idea of getting fame through those interactions and often turning what should be personal relationships with real friends into exclusively virtual interactions, and it compounds when you get older and you're further incentivized to put yourself publicly out there with LinkedIn and such. Of course there is a bit of a hyperbole but the point still stands.
[+] [-] trabant00|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] subpixel|3 years ago|reply
I self-censored, realizing a factual account from a prominent Nigerian author would probably be dismissed and I would be tarred for appearing to take a side in a debate where race and colonialism were being held up as reasons people like me just don’t understand.
[+] [-] baud147258|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pjc50|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] public_defender|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thefounder|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dfxm12|3 years ago|reply
Because despite all their saber rattling, the MO for US Republicans is to do things like ban books, sue teachers for teaching history, shun journalists, etc.
[+] [-] SyzygistSix|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nicbou|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] naasking|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raxxorraxor|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nine_k|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thathndude|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fallingfrog|3 years ago|reply
If you want stronger moderation, so people are more civil, well, that's a type of censorship, isn't it?
If you want weaker moderation, then you should expect a lot of people to yell at you when you say something unpopular.
You can't have it both ways.
[+] [-] upofadown|3 years ago|reply
What proportion of these came out of Twitter? It seems to me at least that most of the abusive brigading comes from there. There seems to be something about how Twitter implements their "following" concept that creates arbitrary and pointless groups. Twitter is a bunch of virtual gangs fighting each other and any other discernible targets.
[+] [-] honeybadger1|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notlukesky|3 years ago|reply
Remember when the FBI would target black authors:
https://amp.theguardian.com/books/2015/feb/09/fbi-monitored-...
The Overton window:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
[+] [-] BaseballPhysics|3 years ago|reply
Is David Duke a dangerous voice for bigotry, or a brave man speaking out against a system?
What about the famous Dutch cartoonist? Brave satirists, or racist firestarters?
What about Ilhan Omar? Defender of Palestinian rights or anti-Semite?
Is a sensitivity reader shining a light on an author's potential biases and blind spots, or are they a tool for censorship?
Are k-pop groups on Twitter posting into alt-right hashtags disrupting communication among hate groups, or censoring alternative viewpoints?
All of this is a matter of judgement.
Many would say that, hey, it doesn't matter, speech should be free and unfettered without exception. Sticks and stones, etc. The danger of censorship is too high.
Those in victimized groups, subject to harassment or worse, enabled by social networks and so forth, would profoundly disagree.
After all, it's easy to say that now after decades of progress for victimized groups. It reminds me a lot of anti-vaxxers today questioning the need for the measles vaccine. To them the disease is just a memory, the side effects are more dangerous.
And that's ignoring the fact that there's still unbelievable amounts of hate directed at victimized groups online.
This author may have a very valid point. Maybe self-censorship is happening at a rate above what is desirable.
But if my neighbor pops up online and advocates for white power and racial purity, you're darn right I want him to self-censor.
[+] [-] robomartin|3 years ago|reply
And, yes, I am sorry to say, the blood is entirely, 100% on the hands of the ideological left.
Anyone who does not think the current status-quo is wrong and seriously detrimental should take a moment to imagine a reality where the right, rather than the left, has that level of dominance and control. That scenario would be just as horrific as the current reality. This isn't good for society, no matter which side has dominance. The public has the right to be well informed with facts and not to be subjected to constitutionally-protected indoctrination.
The problem with the vast majority of the MSM and social media being ideologically one sided is that they create ignorance and false narratives that permeate the population.
A simple example of this is what has been happening at the US southern border. People who only consume leftist MSM/social media material have absolutely no idea whatsoever that over five million people have effectively invaded the US in the last two years. No clue at all. Even beyond that, they have no idea that these people, who, by definition, are unemployed, are not counted in unemployment statistics. Or that a good number of them will likely take entry level jobs away from other --existing-- communities. They have no clue about just how badly this has expanded both human trafficking and the mass entry of dangerous drugs into the country.
The fact that these kinds of things are not covered at all by MSM/social media entities makes for a population that is utterly ignorant of quite a range of realities. When it comes time to vote, this amounts to voter manipulation. If every media outlet constantly lies and manipulates the message, well, you are manipulating votes. This, again, is objectively wrong. Would you like the right to have dominance of the MSM and do the same thing? Likely not. It's wrong.
The press is protected by the US constitution in order for them to inform the people, not lie, indoctrinate and polarize through constant pounding with unified one-sided ideological messaging.
[+] [-] tibbydudeza|3 years ago|reply
Recently we had a spate of incidents of killings by pitbulls in South Africa prompting some people to call for the breed to banned and the dogs confiscated and put down.
So, one seemingly intelligent pitbull owner took it upon herself to record a voicenote on a pitbull owners forum that had members of all races calling for black men to be castrated instead because of racist tropes of dogs and black people.
She got arrested (we do have hate crime laws) and her landlord is busy evicting her from the rental property.
[+] [-] Kye|3 years ago|reply
That's such a gross misrepresentation. Does the article improve at all past this?
[+] [-] esparrohack|3 years ago|reply
We’re self-censoring Even now cus We know it’s dangerous to ask uncomfortable questions. Believe it or not, everyone over 30 is not just an idiot or a criminal.
Massive backlash incoming. The USA is going to become very conservative again.
These pendulum swings are giving me whiplash
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mschuster91|3 years ago|reply
"Freedom of speech" however, and this is what many of the "cancel culture" whiners forget, also runs the other way around: when you behave like an asshole, drop N-bombs or otherwise become commercially untenable,
- platforms like social media can decide they do not wish to be a platform for your speech - if not out of respect for their own brand, they have to take care to not threaten their relationships with advertisers as Twitter is finding out the hard way. The calculation is simple: the income from advertisers willing to show up next to Alex Jones-style crap is way, way lower than the income from advertisers that Twitter loses because the brands act proactively.
- same applies for direct contracts from sponsors. While this is less common with book authors, media stars are, with "Ye" being the perfect example.
- publishers and especially reviewers can decide they don't want to publish or review your books/media
- fans can decide that they don't want to buy and read your books/media
To sum up: You can be an asshole and claim you're just "asking questions" or "exercising your right to free speech", but you can't at the same time complain when actions have consequences and you're being held accountable.
And a side note regarding the popular "just asking questions" excuse: for literally every single question that LGBT people or PoC get "asked", there are tons of answers on Google, in interviews, in media, in scientific literature. You don't need to answer a random Black person if it hurts them personally if you're writing out the N-word or a Jew if it hurts them if you deny the Holocaust - even if the specific person says it does not, the overwhelming majority of evidence and opinions will be very clear.
[+] [-] trention|3 years ago|reply
If there was no government-sanctioned affirmative action and if discrimination of the basis of race was not outlawed, all the consequences in the world would not change the fact that the "cancel culture whiners" (your own words) will rise in status (both social and economic) relative to minorities and liberals. So, yes - actions do have consequences, including for you.
[+] [-] sn0w_crash|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] great_tankard|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]