|
|
Â
|
| Quote: |
| Being a part of a mob that calls for someone else’s firing over old comments is sort of like throwing gasoline on your neighbor’s house while it burns and expecting the fire not to reach your door. We are all vulnerable to this mob fury. Twitter has 336 million active users, but it’s not just tweets that can get you fired. Everyone who has shared an opinion online — on a podcast, a blog or anywhere that can be screenshotted, copied or recorded — is a potential target. If you think you’re safe, think again. Sacco had just 170 followers; the tweet still ruined her life. No one is too anonymous. No tweet is too old. The more we make businesses pay attention to an online reaction, by directly calling for a firing or cheering on those who do, the easier it’ll be to get someone fired in the future. If a bunch of keyboard warriors out for blood can influence companies to ax employees over old jokes, then we’re all in jeopardy. If you’ve been online for any significant period of time, you’ve probably either said or will say something that, in or out of context, could be used to embarrass you in front of a potential employer. No one who helps build a guillotine imagines that one day their head will be on that chopping block. |
I tend to think it should be the latter. For the murky circumstances (woman calling police on the lemonade girl for instance), I think her getting fired was what upped the stakes of the story.
When a person in media, PR, corporate leadership, etc. says/said something wildly idiotic it's a little harder for the corporation to eat it.
I always tend to err on the side of open speech and the parallel responsibility to be brave and principled to overreacting.
Personally I think it's a social issue that starts with individuals being dedicated to being tempered, honest, open to learning, and open to patience online.
I know most people don't read the National Review and will consider me Hitler or a racist for reading it, but Jonah Goldberg had a great piece on Friday about a semi-related topic - mostly related to Jeong and racism - not limited to the internet mob. I linked it below for anyone interested.
This whole mob mentality/bloodlust issue has many layers.
1. the internet for the majority of people provides anonymity to embolden people in a way we've never experienced. I cringe when I imagine people saying face to face some of the things they'll type on social media (even here). I'm not anti-social media, I think it's valuable and useful but man it has a side effect of bringing out the unbridled worst in people.
2. the internet has a long memory. I don't think people should be completely free of responsibility for things they said or did when they were a teenager but is a teenager really the same as a grown person in terms of how their words are viewed in terms of public perception. I hope not.
3. this has become very political and outing people or getting them fired/shamed is almost like political revenge porn. People try and justify things like saying Roseanne deserved to be fired but Whoopi Goldberg or James Gunn do not or Joy Reid doesn't or [plug in name x who thinks like you] doesn't. it's all the same. it's identity politics and if anyone on here believes Roseanne was fired for a racial tweet you are willfully ignorant.
anyway, great topic for a Monday, hope it remains civil and lasts a while because we as a society need to be more tolerant and respectful of others and today you see more and more the opposite of that (from the people who preached it for so long especially.)
Link - ( New Window )
I tend to think it should be the latter. For the murky circumstances (woman calling police on the lemonade girl for instance), I think her getting fired was what upped the stakes of the story.
When a person in media, PR, corporate leadership, etc. says/said something wildly idiotic it's a little harder for the corporation to eat it.
I always tend to err on the side of open speech and the parallel responsibility to be brave and principled to overreacting.
Personally I think it's a social issue that starts with individuals being dedicated to being tempered, honest, open to learning, and open to patience online.
I definitely think it's the latter. Things happen too quickly these days, and it's concerning that decisions are made to satisfy the mob rather than understanding dealing with the actual issue at hand.
I know most people don't read the National Review and will consider me Hitler or a racist for reading it, but Jonah Goldberg had a great piece on Friday about a semi-related topic - mostly related to Jeong and racism - not limited to the internet mob. I linked it below for anyone interested.
This whole mob mentality/bloodlust issue has many layers.
1. the internet for the majority of people provides anonymity to embolden people in a way we've never experienced. I cringe when I imagine people saying face to face some of the things they'll type on social media (even here). I'm not anti-social media, I think it's valuable and useful but man it has a side effect of bringing out the unbridled worst in people.
2. the internet has a long memory. I don't think people should be completely free of responsibility for things they said or did when they were a teenager but is a teenager really the same as a grown person in terms of how their words are viewed in terms of public perception. I hope not.
3. this has become very political and outing people or getting them fired/shamed is almost like political revenge porn. People try and justify things like saying Roseanne deserved to be fired but Whoopi Goldberg or James Gunn do not or Joy Reid doesn't or [plug in name x who thinks like you] doesn't. it's all the same. it's identity politics and if anyone on here believes Roseanne was fired for a racial tweet you are willfully ignorant.
anyway, great topic for a Monday, hope it remains civil and lasts a while because we as a society need to be more tolerant and respectful of others and today you see more and more the opposite of that (from the people who preached it for so long especially.) Link - ( New Window )
The National Review is great. Smart writers there
That process hasn't started so far, and I doubt it ever will.
I know most people don't read the National Review and will consider me Hitler or a racist for reading it, but Jonah Goldberg had a great piece on Friday about a semi-related topic - mostly related to Jeong and racism - not limited to the internet mob. I linked it below for anyone interested.
This whole mob mentality/bloodlust issue has many layers.
1. the internet for the majority of people provides anonymity to embolden people in a way we've never experienced. I cringe when I imagine people saying face to face some of the things they'll type on social media (even here). I'm not anti-social media, I think it's valuable and useful but man it has a side effect of bringing out the unbridled worst in people.
2. the internet has a long memory. I don't think people should be completely free of responsibility for things they said or did when they were a teenager but is a teenager really the same as a grown person in terms of how their words are viewed in terms of public perception. I hope not.
3. this has become very political and outing people or getting them fired/shamed is almost like political revenge porn. People try and justify things like saying Roseanne deserved to be fired but Whoopi Goldberg or James Gunn do not or Joy Reid doesn't or [plug in name x who thinks like you] doesn't. it's all the same. it's identity politics and if anyone on here believes Roseanne was fired for a racial tweet you are willfully ignorant.
anyway, great topic for a Monday, hope it remains civil and lasts a while because we as a society need to be more tolerant and respectful of others and today you see more and more the opposite of that (from the people who preached it for so long especially.) Link - ( New Window )
You think Rosanne being fired was about politics? You think ABC wanted to fire her with her ratings? Cmon now. Not sure what you are getting at here. I guess I'm ignorant.
Well, I did try to post it on the original thread but it was archived and didn't allow me to do so. I thought it was an interesting discussion with a lot of participants so I shared the article.
Agree with many, the bigger issue is that it becomes a game of 'I disagree with this, and want the speaker to suffer consequences'...which is about as anti-free speech as you can get. The problem is, there isn't really a line where, this is ok, this isn't - it's entirely determined by the audience and the level of reaction.
Maybe I just think differently, but if ABC came out and said, look this isn't the first time you have tweeted something offensive, but ABC will not tolerate this, even for a top grossing show, this will be the last time you will tweet something like that or the show will be canceled. I think they'd have satisfied everyone - except the bloodthirsty twitter mob. And I have zero love for Roseanne. I read not one advertiser threatened to pull out of the show (granted her firing happened so fast maybe there wasn't time, but in either case, just like with Gunn the mob acted and the networks/company reacted) and I thought Gunn deserved some action or at least investigation because IMO there was potential criminal activity.
And you can find may cases of similarly exposed people saying similar things and not being fired (Joy Reid, Samantha Bee, Chelsea Handler, etc. etc etc.). So yes, politics played a role, if Roseanne was Jimmy Kimmel she would not have been fired for an awful, racist, joke, one which she apologized profusely for and even said she didn't know Valerie Jarrett was black (call her a liar if you want, and I knew, but no idea if Roseanne did).
Here is another example.
Candace Owens (a black conservative millennial - who says some pretty outlandish stuff - I hope for shock value - but no idea - some of what she says is relevant if you can filter through the BS) retweeted the same things Sarah Jeong tweeted but replaced the word "white" with Jewish and Black. Candace Owens was suspended by twitter for 12 hours for inciting hate and being insensitive in violation of twitter terms.
Sarah Jeong was never once reprimanded.
The tweet by Candace:
She also had one where she replaced White people in a Jeong tweet with Jewish people:
Think about that for a minute.
Would be nice to see corporations take a stand for once. Unfortunately, this goes against their sole purpose of making money.
Rose McGowan bitched about 20th Century Fox’s X-Men: Apocalypse poster showing Apocalypse choking Mystique during a climatic scene of the movie.
Fox immediately cowered, pulled the poster and begged for forgiveness. Grow a spine already.
Now, I don't read Infowars and I don't follow conspiracy theorist/loon Alex Jones, but this, on the surface, is a dangerous precedent.
Unless he or his minions are harassing Sandy Hook parents (which should be criminal IMO) I think this move in general should make people uncomfortable. Should Facebook, twitter, apple, etc. be the arbiter of what is or isn't hate speech?
"unspecified hate speech" (the reason Facebook used) is really wide ranging, nebulous, and ambiguous and allows for no specific infraction to result in removal or banning.
What's next Breitbart, The Blaze, Drudge, etc. They're all right wing fringy media sites, but why aren't they protected by the same first amendment rights as Slate or Vox?
Infowars maybe be bullshit, but like I said above, unless they're harassing people or committing a crime, no idea why they should be allowed to ban them from the platform based on their own interpretation of "hate".
In other words, Sarah Jeong, of Cal Berkeley and Harvard Law, is oppressed and must be given a pass. And the examples where one swipes out "white" for various minority groups are absurd because of course, white people have oppressed all of those groups, so anything goes.
The concepts of color-blindness, or everyone treating everyone else with dignity, respect and kindness regardless of background, are foreign concepts to the Sarah Jeongs of the world and her defenders. Sarah Jeong knew very well that she could say whatever she wanted and get away with it and it would never harm her career prospects - and it hasn't and it won't.
We should have one standard - either you can be insensitive, prejudiced and racist, or you can't, no matter who you are. To say the least, I much prefer the latter - but to have two standards depending on who you are and whose ox is being gored is absurd and maddening.
In other words, Sarah Jeong, of Cal Berkeley and Harvard Law, is oppressed and must be given a pass. And the examples where one swipes out "white" for various minority groups are absurd because of course, white people have oppressed all of those groups, so anything goes.
The concepts of color-blindness, or everyone treating everyone else with dignity, respect and kindness regardless of background, are foreign concepts to the Sarah Jeongs of the world and her defenders. Sarah Jeong knew very well that she could say whatever she wanted and get away with it and it would never harm her career prospects - and it hasn't and it won't.
We should have one standard - either you can be insensitive, prejudiced and racist, or you can't, no matter who you are. To say the least, I much prefer the latter - but to have two standards depending on who you are and whose ox is being gored is absurd and maddening.
Exactly - that is Candace Owens opinion that I agree with (we should follow the same standard of common decency and respect with all people), but read the Jonah Goldberg piece I linked it deals with your post head on.
Would be nice to see corporations take a stand for once. Unfortunately, this goes against their sole purpose of making money.
Rose McGowan bitched about 20th Century Fox’s X-Men: Apocalypse poster showing Apocalypse choking Mystique during a climatic scene of the movie.
Fox immediately cowered, pulled the poster and begged for forgiveness. Grow a spine already.
Given the ratings, how could Roseanne have been considered bad for business? The show was cancelled before you could see if the ratings dropped. And it's not like the viewers don't spend money. There really is a double standard.
Not an insensitive tweet or anything like that. Just because it was right-leaning. It was picked up by Fox, but the cancellation was completely political.
I can't even imagine the vitriol that would be said if a left-leaning show were cancelled based on politics.
...but the cancellation was completely political.
There's no proof -- or even evidence -- of that.
I doubt that. It is the young generation that is fueling it. Also, when you are young, you don't realize the significance of someone losing a career-type job. Young people switch jobs all the time, so its hard for them to empathize with someone having their career/life ruined just by losing a job.
They should be free to decide what they want to and don't want to carry on their private platform based on their own standard for content. So, yes.
I must have missed the news story about Breitbart, The Blaze, and Drudge having their 1st Amendment rights revoked. Link, please?
Not an insensitive tweet or anything like that. Just because it was right-leaning. It was picked up by Fox, but the cancellation was completely political.
I can't even imagine the vitriol that would be said if a left-leaning show were cancelled based on politics.
Actually, this is false. You could make the same argument for Brooklyn Nine Nine (both shows had 'meh' ratings), but both were canceled as business decisions. Older shows not making headway in the ratings, LMS with an older demographic (and advertisers don't like miserly middle aged or older people, as we apparently don't have any money to piss away).
Now - all the social media stuff aside, I have no idea how Jeong wasn't reprimanded. Her tweets were horrific - and the only explanation Vox or anyone else had to give was 'well, white people have done worse'.
So apparently, we can blame social media for some people not understanding the age old 'two wrongs don't make a right' logic.
Look at most with extremely strong opinions and start looking at actions, hurts your eyes.
Quote:
Should Facebook, twitter, apple, etc. be the arbiter of what is or isn't hate speech?
They should be free to decide what they want to and don't want to carry on their private platform based on their own standard for content. So, yes.
Quote:
What's next Breitbart, The Blaze, Drudge, etc. They're all right wing fringy media sites, but why aren't they protected by the same first amendment rights as Slate or Vox?
I must have missed the news story about Breitbart, The Blaze, and Drudge having their 1st Amendment rights revoked. Link, please?
So people want net neutrality or they don't because not allowing Infowars on your platform is truly in the purest sense AGAINST net neutrality. Yes, net neutrality focused on the carriers not providing fast lanes or promoting certain apps/content, it also protected against filtering out content, but if that filtering should be illegal for carriers why is it ok for platforms/apps? Facebook should be an arbiter of hate but not Verizon?
If you believe in it for the carriers you should really want it to apply to platforms like twitter, facebook, itunes, etc. as well. Otherwise you are struggling to justify prejudice. Confirmation bias at it's finest.
Kind of ironic isn't it? the people who said people would die if net neutrality was repealed are now reveling in "the platform should have a right to choose" Sure they should but Verizon and Comcast aren't private companies too?
Convenient.
LOL. Lemmings.
and I used the phrase "what's next..." to indicate that as of now, none of those other mentioned media outlets have had their rights infringed but it started with infowars and any of them "could" be next, so "link please" shows an utter lack of reading comprehension.
really bungled that one, Mr.
Quote:
The younger generation will understand the scope of their social media posts and either say little of consequence or avoid it altogether. It's pretty much the only way the witch hunts can be stopped.
That process hasn't started so far, and I doubt it ever will.
Facebook has been around for what, 15 years? Twitter less than that? We're just now seeing this deep digging of social media accounts to incite the mob.
I think you might want to give it some time before you say the next generation will "never" alter their usage.
And if these content providers should be expected to filter out copyright violations, they sure as hell should be able to filter out obvious hate speech. When Alex Jones goes around saying that the victims of Sandy Hook are paid actors and they're harrassed incessantly by his legion of idiots, that's hate speech.
And if these content providers should be expected to filter out copyright violations, they sure as hell should be able to filter out obvious hate speech. When Alex Jones goes around saying that the victims of Sandy Hook are paid actors and they're harrassed incessantly by his legion of idiots, that's hate speech.
I know. I said that. But it did have to do with ISPs filtering out content (for whatever reason).
And I fail to see how someone can say out of one side of their mouth that ISPs should not be allowed to filter out content, but social media platforms should.
I also mentioned that if Alex Jones is harassing Sandy Hook parents that should be a crime, but otherwise his words, should be protected. or people start making the first amendment convenient for them.
And if these content providers should be expected to filter out copyright violations, they sure as hell should be able to filter out obvious hate speech. When Alex Jones goes around saying that the victims of Sandy Hook are paid actors and they're harrassed incessantly by his legion of idiots, that's hate speech.
Couldn't agree more, plus, last time I checked, James Gunn was fired from one of the biggest blockbuster franchises out there. The standard was set, so why the big uproar? He got the same treatment.
And no offense, but I don't see how anyone can defend Alex Jones, what a piece of shit. I think calling InfoWars bullshit is being way to kind.
So people want net neutrality or they don't because not allowing Infowars on your platform is truly in the purest sense AGAINST net neutrality. Yes, net neutrality focused on the carriers not providing fast lanes or promoting certain apps/content, it also protected against filtering out content, but if that filtering should be illegal for carriers why is it ok for platforms/apps? Facebook should be an arbiter of hate but not Verizon?
If you believe in it for the carriers you should really want it to apply to platforms like twitter, facebook, itunes, etc. as well. Otherwise you are struggling to justify prejudice. Confirmation bias at it's finest.
Kind of ironic isn't it? the people who said people would die if net neutrality was repealed are now reveling in "the platform should have a right to choose" Sure they should but Verizon and Comcast aren't private companies too?
Convenient.
LOL. Lemmings.
and I used the phrase "what's next..." to indicate that as of now, none of those other mentioned media outlets have had their rights infringed but it started with infowars and any of them "could" be next, so "link please" shows an utter lack of reading comprehension.
really bungled that one, Mr.
First of all, you claim that you know that net neutrality has nothing to do with platforms like Facebook and Twitter. Yet you're trying to make an argument based on net neutrality applying to Facebook and Twitter.
But I'm the one who bungled it.
Second of all, your "What's next" nonsense is basically making an argument based on something that doesn't (at the moment) exist. Here's a fact about current reality: Breitbart, The Blaze, Drudge, etc. ARE protected by the same first amendment rights as Slate and Vox.
But, again, I'm the one who bungled it.
You're not making an argument, you're misusing terms and creating boogeyman hypotheticals. Everything you post on these threads is just the latest marching orders for the Internet Army of the Conservative Persecution Complex. Have you emailed Eric about the possibility of putting a red X next to your handle yet?
And you're calling me a lemming? That's rich.
Nobody wants to read that bullshit.
I did not reference her as an argument against social media mobs, but one to represent a double standard regarding "hate speech"
And if these content providers should be expected to filter out copyright violations, they sure as hell should be able to filter out obvious hate speech. When Alex Jones goes around saying that the victims of Sandy Hook are paid actors and they're harrassed incessantly by his legion of idiots, that's hate speech.
And Sarah Jeong's tweets weren't hate speech? I totally agree with you on Jones.
and net neutrality as written prevents ISP's from filtering out content. I don't see how someone can support net neutrality and also say that media platforms should be able to filter out content. It's the same thing done by a different corporation based on their interpretation of "hate" or "standards"
either you support the first amendment or you don't. People in the UK can now be jailed for "hate speech". But you don't get there in one step. It's starts small.
keep eating yourself, geniuses
Quote:
filtering out obscene, hateful or illegal content. Zero.
And if these content providers should be expected to filter out copyright violations, they sure as hell should be able to filter out obvious hate speech. When Alex Jones goes around saying that the victims of Sandy Hook are paid actors and they're harrassed incessantly by his legion of idiots, that's hate speech.
And Sarah Jeong's tweets weren't hate speech? I totally agree with you on Jones.
Not only that, that piece of trash's filth's words were defended by numerous morons around the world
and that goes for all sides
i would estimate that no more than 5% of America truly supports free speech
The guy who I think got a raw deal in all of this is James Gunn. His old tweets were arguably offensive, but they were clearly written with a tongue-in-cheek, absurdist tone.
Free speech does not begin or end with the First Amendment. People can complain about a chilling impact on free speech from a corporate decision or a boycott or even just a digital dogpile without any state action at all. The First Amendment is an indispensable safeguard of free speech, but (in my opinion) there needs to be greater social understanding of the far greater impact non-state actors can have in discouraging speech simply because they find it offensive.
Free speech certainly is a constitutional law, but hate speech laws have been around since 1940 and were even reaffirmed in 2017.
Effectively, the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms that there is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment.
Quote:
So, unless there's a popular movement to repeal the 1st Amendment of which I'm unaware, or the government is infringing upon 1st-Amendment protections, it doesn't really matter if and how people express or demonstrate "support" for it.
Free speech does not begin or end with the First Amendment. People can complain about a chilling impact on free speech from a corporate decision or a boycott or even just a digital dogpile without any state action at all. The First Amendment is an indispensable safeguard of free speech, but (in my opinion) there needs to be greater social understanding of the far greater impact non-state actors can have in discouraging speech simply because they find it offensive.
I think we're going to see a lot of litigation with respect to "shadow banning", along with complaints to the FEC and FCC in the next few years.
Roseanne the show, was great for business. Roseanne the person, was bad for business after her comments.
Advertisers know the viewers make the correlation between the person and the show for obvious reasons.
ABC was being "proactive" by canning the show outright. They wanted to prevent the social media mob mentality from further scrutinizing the network...which was clearly going to happen if ABC tried to extend the show further.
Personally, I think viewership would have increased (because bad exposure is still exposure) but advertising dollars would have plummeted. And in the end, it's all about the money.