upvote

points

by DrewADesign6 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby monksy5 hours ago|
next
[-]
I think he's wrong and I'm willing to say that. The ability for people to move beyond the fundamental attribution error is well known and takes major resources to correct that. For anyone that posts a comment, assuming you want to have easy attribution later is that you must future proof your words. That is not possible and it is extremely suppressive to express yourself.

For example: "Ellen Page is fantastic in the Umbrella Academy TV show" Innocent, accurate, support, and positive in 2019.

Same comment read after 1 Dec 2020 (Transition coming out): Insensitive, demeaning, in accurate.

reply
upvoteby JohnMakin5 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> That is not possible and it is extremely suppressive to express yourself.

Also for the fact that you cannot predict how future powers will view past comments - for instance, certain benign political views 20 years ago could become "terroristic speech" tomorrow.

I operate by a simple, general rule - I don't often say anything online I wouldn't say directly to someone's face in real life.

reply
upvoteby danilocesar13 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
This is very import: you don't know how the cancelation culture will be in 20 years.

I like to use the example of a guy who did a blackface in a party back in 2000's. Although reprehensible, was not commom-sense racism back then. Today society sees it as completely unacceptable.

Eventually that guy became prime minister of Canada and things went pretty bad when that photo surfaced decades later.

Is it far to judge someone's actions by the lens of a different culture? When the popular opinion comes, they won't care about historical context.

reply
upvoteby NetOpWibby4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
> I operate by a simple, general rule - I don't often say anything online I wouldn't say directly to someone's face in real life.

More people should keep this same energy. I try to stress this to my kids and it feels like it's falling on deaf ears in regards to my teen. Alas.

reply
upvoteby JohnMakin3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I can be a rude prick online sometimes, but I can be in real life too - basically though the reason I do this is I never want it to be some huge surprise IRL if someone sees what I write online and be like, "wow, I didn't know that about him." I'm pretty much what I am online and IRL the same. For some reason this seems to matter for me, at least in the past when people have tried to like, send employers stuff I may have written online. The reaction is like "oh, yea, we knew that already about him."

Nothing terrible, maybe slightly embarrassing, but you know how online spaces can be. just be yourself basically, at least I try to be.

reply
upvoteby albumen2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Your framing is interesting. You may feel that you can’t change who you are in real life, but people have a choice on how they behave online (or choose not to engage at all). So you could choose to be nice (or at least not a jerk); I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t get people writing to your employer complaining. I’d argue that if you know you’re sometimes a jerk, it’d be less stressful for you and others if you didn’t bring that energy online.
reply
upvoteby WorldPeas1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
I think the problem with this, especially amongst younger people, is having spent so much time online, they don't know where to draw this line anymore.
reply
upvoteby actionfromafar4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Interesting. You could probably get into trouble in those two places for extremely different things you said.
reply
upvoteby JohnMakin4 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
of course, and it has happened, but I think authenticity is usually appreciated
reply
upvoteby NooneAtAll33 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
what two places?
reply
upvoteby DrewADesign5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
I think it’s naive to assume the private companies selling these services will know, let alone care, let alone disclose when their black box models botch things like this. The companies currently purporting to provide this exact service to HR departments for hiring decisions clearly didn’t let that stop them.
reply
upvoteby antonvs5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> Same comment read after 1 Dec 2020 (Transition coming out): Insensitive, demeaning, in accurate.

I genuinely don't understand this. Are you sure you're not imagining possible offenses against some non-existent standard?

reply
upvoteby we_have_options5 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
well, how about "abortion legal" to "abortion murder"... possible to see this coming, but I know doctors in NY who are now afraid to travel to Texas.

How about DEI initiatives as good things in 2024 and a mark of evil in 2025? Lots of people were fired because in 2024 their boss told them to work on DEI and they did what their boss told them to do. Turns out this was a capital offense.

reply
upvoteby anjel5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
standards change over time. Grandfather clauses are a courtesy, not a right.
reply
upvoteby heisenbit4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Society's legally double standard:

- people can create new standards that will be applied retroactively

- lawmakers can create new laws which can not be applied retroactively

reply
upvoteby Nevermark5 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
That we identify social media as "tech" is very strange.

Yes, they have a lot of servers. But that isn't their core innovation. Their core innovations are the constant expansion of unpermissioned surveillance, the integration of dossiers, correlating people's circumstances, behavior and psychology. And incentivizing the creation of addictive content (good, bad, and dreck) with the massive profits they obtain when they can use that as the delivery vector for intrusively "personalized" manipulation, on behest of the highest bidder, no matter how sketchy, grifty or dishonest.

Unpremissioned (or dark patterned, deceptive, surreptitious, or coercive permissioned) surveillance should be illegal. It is digital stalking. Used as leverage against us, and to manipulate us, via major systems spread across the internet.

And the fact that this funds infinite pages of addicting (as an extremely convenient substitute for boredom) content, not doing anyone or society any good, is a mental health, and society health concern.

Tech scaling up conflicts of interest, is not really tech. Its personal information warfare.

reply
upvoteby DrewADesign4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I didn’t say I hated technology, generally— I said I hate what the industry has morphed into in the US. What is or isn’t tech is immaterial. All of the odious things you listed are things that the ‘tech industry’ does, largely unquestioned, these days. Frankly, it’s sickening.
reply