The difficulty is the scale and lack of transparency that comes with the internet. If, back in the day, someone felt the need to warn other people about someone, they had to put their own personal...
The difficulty is the scale and lack of transparency that comes with the internet. If, back in the day, someone felt the need to warn other people about someone, they had to put their own personal reputation on the line a little bit. Their warning was weighted based on their own personal trustworthiness. It was also often a warning about a given person, targeted at the moment when someone new entered the community when they wouldn't know about the missing stair.
As it is now, it's easy to rebroadcast stuff from a position of pseudo- or total anonymity, so any element of personal reputation in passing on the warning is stripped away. I was part of a community where the whisper network went into overdrive and did a mass email of a document with hundreds of character and abuse accusations sourced from who knows where. It got all the accusations out in the open, and meant that no one could confront their accuser for better or for worse. I don't think it was possible for any one person to know the truth of all of the hundreds of claims in there. Maybe they were all true. Maybe they weren't.
It's different, and that feels newsworthy even if the stripped down concept of "women are quietly sharing information about matters of concern" is still the same.
The scale and how those gossipping networks can cause harm and in the times of the algorithmic social network, have transformed to be much more toxic places. It's all pretty neatly explained in...
The scale and how those gossipping networks can cause harm and in the times of the algorithmic social network, have transformed to be much more toxic places.
A fantastic piece about something I have never heard of, probably cause I am a man.
What's the news? Women have been gossiping about men since the beginning of time.
The difficulty is the scale and lack of transparency that comes with the internet. If, back in the day, someone felt the need to warn other people about someone, they had to put their own personal reputation on the line a little bit. Their warning was weighted based on their own personal trustworthiness. It was also often a warning about a given person, targeted at the moment when someone new entered the community when they wouldn't know about the missing stair.
As it is now, it's easy to rebroadcast stuff from a position of pseudo- or total anonymity, so any element of personal reputation in passing on the warning is stripped away. I was part of a community where the whisper network went into overdrive and did a mass email of a document with hundreds of character and abuse accusations sourced from who knows where. It got all the accusations out in the open, and meant that no one could confront their accuser for better or for worse. I don't think it was possible for any one person to know the truth of all of the hundreds of claims in there. Maybe they were all true. Maybe they weren't.
It's different, and that feels newsworthy even if the stripped down concept of "women are quietly sharing information about matters of concern" is still the same.
The scale and how those gossipping networks can cause harm and in the times of the algorithmic social network, have transformed to be much more toxic places.
It's all pretty neatly explained in the video :]