How can we betray each other less on the Internet?
I was thinking about having a general purpose thread about internet drama venting, but that seems like a very bad idea if all the top level threads are different gripes and one in particular gets out of control, so here's mine and this can be dealt with as needed.
There was this recent issue in left adjacent Twitter of a notable YouTube person inviting someone else to read a quote for a bigger project. Invitee had controversial views on gender dysphoria, the host defended their decision, and details aren't super important for what I want to talk about.
I get that this is all some of you are willing to talk about but I want to talk about the meta and the behavior here, so please pretend they're all Martians for the time being.
What I want to talk about is how the internet specifically reacted, asking the creator's circle to walk back any endorsement of them, holding them to a fire and how much it kind of fits in into a pattern of isolation featured earlier in Lindsay Ellis' presentation about being shamed online, and propose that what makes an internet outrage mob is kind of values neutral.
Obviously, your -ism of choice would factor into an internet hate mob and make it into the Eternal Tire Fire that the internet is known for birthing these days, but the key spark seems to be a betrayal of trust. You thought someone or something was in your corner/was values neutral/shared your politics and when that is not the case, you simply want it gone. It was kind of always in the discussion with "Cancel Culture Concern," but it hasn't really clicked until now for me that it's such a common thread.
So, assuming we can't nor want to make it impossible to betray one another or make the Internet a safe space for everybody and for all sensibilities, can we cut down on this outcome, is it incentivised through engagement metrics, and/or is it just something that comes with the ability to mass broadcast and mass response?
I think a lot of issues like this are rooted in a progression of questions that highlight latent and difficult tensions:
I realize this is abstract, so let me use myself as a hypothetical example. What follows is not real and the questions I ask are not leading questions. I cannot stress this enough: I'm not trying to be a didact here and quietly lead people to the answers I think are right. I'm simply trying to illustrate the very real dilemmas that are embedded in this type of thing the best that I can. I ask these questions not because I'm leaning towards a certain answer but because I genuinely don't know the answers to them. I can see the arguments for "yes" and "no" to all of them. I find that, when applied to the real world, my answers to them differ depending on the situation that caused them to come up in the first place!
So, the hypothetical: let's say that, amidst my postings on Tildes, I've said things that are seen as homophobic.
The first tension is between me as an individual and me as a portrait of my beliefs. Despite my many neutral/positive comments and contributions to the community, should I now be seen primarily as a homophobe because I've expressed those views? (Again, let me stress that all the questions I put in this are NOT leading. I am not implicitly advocating for either "yes" or "no" in this.)
The second tension arises when my social connections come into play. Let's say another user and I were collaborating on something or are good buds. Is this individual guilty of homophobia because of their connection to me? Should they be obligated to make a statement distancing themselves from me? If they make a post in support of me as an individual, are they outright endorsing my homophobia? Furthermore, these associations also extend to the platform/community itself: is Tildes a homophobic place for allowing me to post? Would Deimos be guilty of perpetuating homophobia should he choose not to ban me?
Up until this point in this hypothetical, the tensions have existed as they would in any community, even offline ones. The third tension is where this diverges, as it takes into account the idea that my actions and the actions of those connected to me are seen by a bigger audience than just ourselves. There are plenty of other users here who, despite not being involved or connected with me or anyone who knows me, still see what I and they post. Does the significance of my actions, identity, and beliefs change knowing that this audience exists? Does this audience also have a role or stake in this?
Tension four arises only in the circumstance that I'm not a lowly, everyday Tildes commenter. Let's say I'm famous enough to have thousands of followers on Twitter/Instagram/Wherever, so that my comments aren't seen only in a "pull" context (someone clicking on a desired thread and choosing to read what I've written) but in a "push" context (where my words become the content that people themselves subscribe to and spread). Does that change the significance of my actions? Does that change the role of the audience?
There's also a final question that doesn't really neatly fit into the progression: 5) when are/aren't people defined by what they've done in the past?
A year or two years from now, should I still be identified as a homophobe? What if I've apologized for my actions? What if I haven't, but no longer express those views? What if I continue to hold them?
I bring this up not so that people can argue about my hypothetical conduct (please don't!) but to highlight the tensions that drive these events. I genuinely believe that most people involved in issues like these (provided they're acting in good faith) genuinely believe they are doing good. I also believe that the aggregate outcome of a lot of people who believe they're doing good can sometimes be the opposite.
I also think a lot of friction also comes from the reality that we will never get large groups of people to orient themselves the same way regarding these tensions. If there is disagreement on the fundamental question of whether or not I should be viewed as a homophobe, then we'll never reach consensus or satisfaction on the things that build from that premise, for example.
I don't really have a great way to close this, other than that I'd love to hear the thoughts of others. This was a process post rather than a product post for me, so while I wish I had something more definitive to leave you with I instead am left with merely a lot to think about. Any perspective that others can bring to the conversation will be greatly appreciated.
Thank you!
How much would these tensions be resolved if you remove the identity out of the system? What if all your posts/comments are anonymous and they no longer define you? There are of course other problems you would have to deal with like abuse/spam or how can you "follow" or trust anybody if there is no identity attached.
3)I would say no because these are core truths. I don't think it matters if I'm in my room with friends or if I'm on CNN. A person is not their beliefs but their actions are informed by their beliefs. Breaking bread with the enemy is necessary for progress.
4)No. A great example would be Jesus. Now say what you want about Christianity or religion in general but we are no longer crucifying people and even the death penalty is getting a backseat at huge cost to the tax payers. We are improving as a people and I think a big part of that is "love your enemy" (whatever that means).
So, in my opinion, this abuse of boycotts when someone says something even slightly close to something you dislike (or talks to someone that you don't like) is bringing us closer to a kind of tyranny. To not be able to tolerate associating with people of different beliefs (especially for a belief like gender dysphoria) is like putting a big door less steel wall in front of everyone who isn't already a part of the club.
How can you expect to convert those who share different beliefs (or even begin to understand them so you can coexist with them) if you shut the door on them without thought or cause?
This kind of hypocrisy will be like a bullet in the foot for many movements. It's a little sad, in my opinion.
I'm going to argue that it's neither. From what I have read and experienced, social media serves to amplify and exacerbate an unrelated set of cultural norms and mobilize them toward the ends you describe as -ism-oriented hate mobs.
As far as I can tell, this is an indication of a broad culture of "wrong is bad, correct is good." In general we see people who have objectively wrong views as "worthy targets" of derision and aggression. This is a pervasive cultural norm that I think we pick up in school and translates to some generally toxic, unproductive online behaviors.
For many of us, school is an exercise in conditioning where we experience learning as the shortest possible path to the right answer and wrong answers as a personal failure. Cheating on tests homework is a good indication of this cultural tendency. It is more comfortable for some people to learn nothing and demonstrate competency by cheating than it is to experience the discomfort and failure of being wrong.
This is situation seems as embroiled in the puritanical tribalism of online spaces and is complicated by our larger culture of learning. A more healthy behavior would be to open a dialogue and together pursue greater truth while forgiving each other and ourselves for being wrong.
Instead what we get is massive doses of blame and shame and unless you can 100% dispossess a person of their ideas and be 100% correct, no one learns anything. Rather than having things to teach and learn from each other, our ideas become weapons in a battle to be the most right. We pick sides, bunker down and get ready to do battle.
In this space in particular, I can't entirely blame Wynn's adversaries since non-recognition is a real violence to trans and non-binary individuals.
And I get that, and Natalie is probably in the wrong and whatever go on, go on. But I guess I'm annoyed that we're in this kill our heroes/prisoner dilemma with our allies where they are encouraged to be acceptably flawed and openly broken but not that kinda flawed or we'll break them ourselves.
The forums I run could be a case study for this. It's centered around a tiny flash game that some dude made back in 2010 essentially as a demo for a networking service for games that he was creating. It kinda did well, but dude eventually went away and the game has been passed along from owner to owner. The forums attached to the game have kinda done the same, although I've been something of a common thread since 2011 and I've been owner of them for 5ish years now.
But after the game was passed to the community, it's gone through very rapid owner swaps. And it almost always starts with something like this. Usually there's some sort of irresponsible action on the part of the current owner but not always. But once the community gets the idea in their head that the current owner needs to go, it really doesn't stop until that happens. I think they might be building up to that right now actually.
I don't have the foggiest idea how to take things down a notch, just to say that it's a very common pattern.
I think the problem is that there is no agreed-upon source of authority to get a binding decision from. In real life, if people have a dispute they either come to agreement between themselves or they take the issue to an impartial third party. Online, the pattern is to take the dispute to the mob instead which responds to having its emotions stoked rather than any fair minded plea from various angles on the matter.
What's more, you can't just settle and issue and let it lie. As long as one single person still has an axe to grind about it the matter will keep getting raised again and again. It ends up being that the path of least resistance is to periodically burn out whoever the target is.
I don't have any advice other than maybe get better at ignoring the drama?