Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

'Chilling Effect' of Mass Surveillance Is Silencing Dissent Online, Study Says (vice.com)

Posted by msmash on from the chilling-study dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a Motherboard article: Research suggests that widespread awareness of mass surveillance could undermine democracy by making citizens fearful of voicing dissenting opinions in public. A paper published in Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, the flagship peer-reviewed journal of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC), found that "the government's online surveillance programs may threaten the disclosure of minority views and contribute to the reinforcement of majority opinion." The NSA's "ability to surreptitiously monitor the online activities of U.S. citizens may make online opinion climates especially chilly" and "can contribute to the silencing of minority views that provide the bedrock of democratic discourse," the researcher found.

14 of 266 comments (clear)

  1. They already do. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Mass government and commercial surveillance already have a massive chilling effect on speech online. Employers check your online presence and commentary for controversial issues; I can't believe the security clearance process doesn't do the same thing. Many people I know avoid making many political comments online precisely because of this.

    This becomes more true as you enter fields intelligent people who understand policy may enter, such as law, finance, etc...

    1. Re:They already do. by neilo_1701D · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would moderate you as insightful, but that means I'm agreeing with your position and thus inviting the government to monitor me more closely to see what other heretical beliefs I may have...

    2. Re: They already do. by Corwyn_123 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Moderating insightful it's not necessarily agreement, merely acknowledging the view as well thought out and with intellectual merit. You can see it as insightful and still disagree.

    3. Re:They already do. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, its not really the government surveillance I'm most concerned with. I know enough to express my opinions in such a way as to not give the government any evidence to do me harm (or at least to 'want to do me harm'). I'm far more concerned over my employer knowing my opinions. If I was independently wealthy (not robustly so just so I could live free of having to be employed) or was self-employed in a business where I could support myself I would have 0 problem removing my anonymity online. Heck I used to robustly debate all kinds of things on-line (long before the 'internet' became what it is today), it was fun, a 'sport' if you would, it was intellectually gratifying. But with employers & especially SJWs running amok that can threaten my livelihood I have taken to express my views only to those people I already consider close family or friends & thus pretty much already know my opinions...they are smart people but its not nearly as gratifying.

    4. Re: They already do. by Qzukk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As the cost to monitor people decreases, more and more people will be put under watch for increasingly trivial reasons.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    5. Re:They already do. by NormalVisual · · Score: 4, Informative

      it does not matter because court cases cannot be brought using information gathered without warrant

      Yes they can.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    6. Re:They already do. by Sibko · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's one of the reasons 4chan is as popular as it is.

      I can go there, say whatever I want; "burn the gays!", "kill the niggers!", "Hitler did nothing wrong!", or even something as mundane as "Yeah, I actually support Trump" - anything and I won't be persecuted, ostracized, or otherwise attacked in real life for it.

      And you know what that enables?
      Actual political discourse. Because you no longer have to temper anything against the prospect of retributive action from people who oppose your political ideas. If someone thinks your idea is full of shit they can't just censor you, they can't just throw you in jail or even kill you. No matter how asinine (in fact, the more contrarian the post, the more visible it is due to the larger number of replies it will garner) someone will have to argue against your position in order to refute it.

      And it's absolutely fantastic. It and the few *chan copycats are the only places on the internet where actual political discussion can take place. Where, rather than posting in a hugbox of like-minded people who echo your thoughts, you put yourself in a hurt-box where everyone tells you you're a dumbfuck moron who doesn't know what he's talking about, and you're forced to actually defend whatever argument you've made.

      The only two issues the format has are: [1] signal-to-noise ratio; as there is a very large amount of spam that takes place due to the free-speech nature, and [2] moderation stepping in and censoring certain viewpoints/topics. (This doesn't tend to happen much on 4chan's popular boards just for the sheer number of posters that makes censorship almost impossible, but on the smaller sites as well as the smaller boards on 4chan itself, it's definitely an issue).

      If you want to get the pulse of what the political undercurrents and beliefs in present day western society actually are, without the politically correct censorship that takes place, you go to 4chan and get the whole ugly truth of it.

    7. Re:They already do. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Money is definitely speech in a situation today where you don't get a voice unless you can pay for ad time.

      Horseshit. You don't buy ad time, but you have a voice.

      Speech as defined in the Constitution does not guarantee you a mass audience. It guarantees you that nobody is going to prevent you from saying something. The speech can't be regulated. The money can and should.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  2. I've got an easier way to silence speech! by CajunArson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Go onto any college campus and commit a microagression. That'll shut things down real quick, no mass surveillance required.

    --
    AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
  3. I'm chilled by wcrowe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I was just having a conversation about this the other night with some friends. I said, "That's why I don't comment about a lot of stuff. It may be that one day all of those tweets and facebook comments will get sifted through, and someone may decide all you guys need to be in concentration camps." I was half-way joking... but only half-way. It certainly is chilling.

    It's not just mass surveillance, however. Social media being what it is, everyone is one bad joke away from becoming the pariah du jour, losing their job, and having their entire life ruined.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
  4. Protecting Democracy, or Breaking it Down? by surfdaddy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Under the guise of protecting the U.S., I'm sure plenty of well-intention ed people are serving their roles in NSA, FBI, Congress, etc. that in the short run are trying to protect, but in the long run are undermining our values. This is very dangerous and troubling for our future.

  5. I think it's the fear of future career-kills by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >> widespread awareness of mass surveillance could undermine democracy by making citizens fearful of voicing dissenting opinions in public

    That's part of it, but the bigger part is that many people see how something stupid or controversial someone says now could bite them in the ass twenty years from now. That exact thing is playing out now with a state supreme court justice in Wisconsin (http://www.jsonline.com/news/rebecca-bradley-called-gays-queers-who-opted-to-kill-themselves-b99682686z1-371276861.html), but I think it will probably be 10x bigger in ten years when even more people's careers or positions in their communities get torpedoed by drunk/ignorant comments they put on Facebook before they grew up.

    That plays out into political speech too - I'd say MOST people are afraid to sign their name to their beliefs today, not because they don't want to be challenged, but because someone could try to nuke them for speaking their mind down the road. (e.g., http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/04/mozilla-ceo-resignation-free-speech/7328759/ or http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417155/wisonsins-shame-i-thought-it-was-home-invasion-david-french)

    FWIW, it's also part of the reason for Trump's popularity - I think a lot of his supporters remember a time when you could speak your mind without getting fired/sued/ruined because someone thought you were "microaggressing" or not supporting the right cause at the right time, and they identify with him as a politically incorrect old schooler.

  6. Re:Sure does not seem like it by Moof123 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Precisely, the nutters are the only ones crazy enough to use their free speech rights anymore.

  7. Its true even on slashdot by JustNiz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I find it very depressing that even here on Slashdot where the readership is apparently meant to be more "deep thinking" than the average, if you post anything that questions current mainstream thinking, no matter how polite, rational, justifiable and sincere your post is, you will inevitably incur the obligatory crop of -1 troll moderations.

    If you are one of those people that moderates rational, polite posts as "-1 Troll" just because it is making a point that is contrary to your own beliefs, you need to realize what you are actually saying about yourself.