Slashdot Mirror
Mass Surveillance Silences Minority Opinions: Study
Reader sittingnut writes: According to a study by Elizabeth Stoycheff from Wayne State University -- which was also referred to in the Washington Post, "knowing one is subject to surveillance and accepting such surveillance as necessary, act as moderating agents in the relationship between one's perceived climate of opinion and willingness to voice opinions online." In other words, knowledge of government surveillance causes people to self-censor their dissenting opinions online. This study adds to the well-researched phenomenon known as "spiral of silence", of people suppressing unpopular opinions to fit in by explicitly examining how government surveillance affects self-censorship. Participants who claimed they don't break any laws and don't have anything to hide and tended to support mass surveillance as necessary for national security, were the most likely to silence their minority opinions.
I doubt that. Even ACs are being logged, both by Slashdot (IP address) and by the NSA/GCHQ/Chinese etc. You can bet anything you post as AC ends up in your file at those agencies.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The mass crushes beneath it everything that is different, everything that is excellent, individual, qualified and select. Anybody who is not like everybody, who does not think like everybody, runs the risk of being eliminated...
Published in 1929
Nevermind the NSA, I think slashdot's moderation system probably does a better job at suppressing minority opinions. Or at least, I've had a lot of posts of mine modded flamebait or trolling for i.e. being critical of Bernie Sanders, even though there was no trolling or flaming going on. Likewise I've avoided painting what is IMO a realistic picture of what a Sanders administration would look like (the Francois Hollande government in France) because I know it will just get buried.
The ability for pseudonyms is something really important I think for freely expressing your opinion, without the fear that some of your future bosses won't like something you said in some forum five years ago.
Rather obviously, surveillance by the NSA, GCHQ and others does not serve to make anybody more secure, as it is now exceptionally obvious it does not help against terrorism or the other "Horsemen of the Infocalypse" at all. So why do it? Sure, one aspect will be the fundamental desire of any bureaucracy to increase its size and to absorb (i.e. waste) as many resources as possible. Look at the TSA for a text-book example of that happening. But that is not enough to explain what is going on.
I have by now come to the conclusion that these people have either completely lost their minds (unlikely) or that they know exactly what they want (likely) and that is the chilling effects that general surveillance causes: They want "troublemakers" to keep silent and self-censor and to not rock the boat. They want to be sure they have some dirt on anybody that may ever come into political power so they can prevent that if they do not like the ideas of that person. Unlike the publicly stated motivations for universal surveillance, _these_ goals are rational (if utterly despicable and evil) and achievable.
It used to be an all-seeing all knowing-god that served this function. People would "confess their sins" (i.e. do self-surveillance and report to their case-officer on themselves) and would be told what was acceptable to think and what was not. Now, even most religious people do not fall for that anymore and so a cabal of power-mongers has decided to implement a technical solution that replaces said god with technology. The mechanisms are a bit different, people now pay for being being spied and provide the hardware (e.g. cellphones) instead of doing it themselves manually. The direct feedback from the confessor has been replaced by general guidelines. The news are showing "bad people" being sent to prison and hint they are being tortured there, not so different from what the inquisition did, just adjusted to the information-age. And so on.
Universal surveillance is a direct, targeted and determined attack on free society. There really is no different purpose it could serve. Sure, it is carried out and furthered by a lot of "useful idiots" that do not understand what the actual goals are and why it is being done (and I expect quite a few of those would still go along if they knew), but those in control will know. It will be how we, as a still mostly free society, deal with this challenge that will determine how history remembers us.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
In a Perfect World, whenever anyone uttered the sickening phrase "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide", they would forcibly stripped of all their clothing and stuffed inside a glass cube on the public commons until they honestly realized the errors in their 'thinking'.
A free society is impossible without true privacy.
What part of
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "
...does our current group of "leaders" not get? Once upon a time, we the people considered that right to be so important that we made it a foundation of our system of law and government. That it has now been eroded that certain groups are silenced by fear is cause for deep, deep shame for us as a society.
But what is implicit in your statement that it makes people "think twice" before having an opinion? It is that they should be compelled by the threat of retaliation in the real world for what their opinion is. There is no purpose to requiring someone share their real name except to hang the threat over them that if they post something another human finds distasteful, they might be found in the real world and made to pay for it. And as we all know, it doesn't take much for someone in the internet to become unhinged. Something more or less innocuous could cause some whackjob to show up at your house.
It stifles the free exchange of ideas, and it's only intended to stifle the free exchange of ideas. There's no other purpose.
This is why I will never post in the comment section of anything that requires your name. You don't even need to be doing anything wrong for someone to become unhinged and start doxxing you or something.
You can't say anything there remotely non-PC, or have a dissenting voice on your beliefs if they go against the more politically correct liberal hive mind.
I saw on the news the other day, that students were saying they had been traumatized by someone writing in chalk "Trump 2016". I mean, I'm no Trump supporter, but seriously, traumatized?
If you aren't for the latest gay agenda, or if you raise the concern that a certain group does seem to have most of the terrorist problem coming from their ranks....well, you just cannot speak about that without repercussions. It isn't even just being shunned, but you are actively suppressed these days.
Look at how many comedians these days, won't do shows on college campuses anymore....
Theres major concern that any dissenting speech is being supressed, if it goes even remotely against the new social agenda.
Even what used to be common sense has no place in the public square these days. Sure some things change, and some things need to change.....but ALL speech needs to be protected, especially the uncomfortable speech, the fringe element speech....the minority speech.
But in addition to the privacy issues of the govt....other institutions are putting the clamp on speech that isn't pleasant.
At the very least...Freedom of Speech, preempts freedom from being offended, and no one should be censored by any means....govt or societal.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Your mother never told you, "If you have something bad to say, don't say it!"
No, because my mother wasn't deluded into believing that the world was all peachy.
It's called free speech. Yes, you do have to pay the price for that freedom.
If you have to pay a price, then it's not free. You really didn't think much before making that contradictory statement, did you?
It is that they should be compelled by the threat of retaliation in the real world for what their opinion is. There is no purpose to requiring someone share their real name except to hang the threat over them that if they post something another human finds distasteful, they might be found in the real world and made to pay for it.
Yes, it's simply impossible that any internet site might actually want to promote more civil behavior by causing people to tone down their comments. Instead, the ONLY reason must be that such sites would like people to go around attacking other people in real life for their views. [/sarcasm]
It stifles the free exchange of ideas, and it's only intended to stifle the free exchange of ideas. There's no other purpose.
Even if it were true that internet sites love encouraging people to go around attacking each other in real life, it's simply bizarre to assert that there could not possibly be another purpose.
For example, as I've already noted in another post, tracking your real name and attaching it to your comments, likes, and other online behavior is essential for businesses to build up a profile of you, which they can then use to sell to other businesses (e.g., for advertising etc.). If you post under various names, it's harder for them to track your identity and accumulate data across multiple sites.
This is why I will never post in the comment section of anything that requires your name. You don't even need to be doing anything wrong for someone to become unhinged and start doxxing you or something.
This may be a legitimate fear. But it's really NOT the reason why internet sites might propose a policy against anonymous comments. There are all sorts of other reasons for it too, like, say, spam filtering. Even the best comment filters for spam will require a lot of intervention with anonymous comments -- requiring a login and a real name can help a lot.
(By the way, I'm a strong proponent for allowing pseudonyms in most places online, and limited anonymous commenting where possible. But your repeated assertion that there's no other possible reason for requiring trackable names other than to encourage doxxing is utterly preposterous.)
No, because my mother wasn't deluded into believing that the world was all peachy.
My mother was the same way. But she taught me to be polite and respectful regardless of how bad life treats you. Politeness and respect are in short supply these days.
If you have to pay a price, then it's not free.
People are more likely respect something if they paid the price for it. Something given away for free can easily be toss away.
You really didn't think much before making that contradictory statement, did you?
You obviously haven't thought hard enough about yours.
,
But the trends online are all moving in the opposite direction, to making people attach their real names to comments - the sole purpose for which is to make retribution possible.
Retribution, or at least the expectation of actual or potential retribution, is the important factor. I don't worry about government surveillance at all, not because the government isn't evil or capable of harm but because I have never (knock on wood!) personally experienced such retribution or personally known anyone who faced such retribution. And because of my past personal experience, I don't expect future retribution.
In contrast, I expect potential retribution from friends and strangers on social media and from my employer for any non-conformist ideas. In those forums, I heavily censor what I say and write. But for government surveillance, I don't censor my expressions at all (at least not yet).
Yes, it's simply impossible that any internet site might actually want to promote more civil behavior by causing people to tone down their comments. Instead, the ONLY reason must be that such sites would like people to go around attacking other people in real life for their views. [/sarcasm]
Because censorship is civil behavior...
Yes, it is. It's pretty much the definition of "civil" behavior. Look at any traditional rules of "etiquette." It's all about requirements to act in certain ways in certain circumstances. You don't show up to a typical wedding or a funeral dressed in ripped jeans and a tee-shirt with profanity on it. That's not explicit "censorship," but it is self-censorship. You have other times and places to express yourself as you'd like, but the social norms may limit your behavior in certain contexts.
Now, you may choose to say, "I don't subscribe to that etiquette nonsense! I want to walk around swearing at everyone all the time!" That's your choice. In a public place, you can't really be censored for doing so. But that behavior most certainly would be considered "uncivil" by most. It's your choice to accept that judgment for your freedom to behave in such a way.
But to get back to websites -- they also are generally hosted by private individuals or corporations. And just like a private individual can say "leave my house" if they don't like your behavior, and a private corporation can say "leave the building" to get you off of their private property, so a site owner has the right to "censor" comments on their own site.
Now, you may object to such censorship -- in which case, you can choose to go to another site which has more lenient policies. That's your choice. Private people and companies censor stuff all the time when it comes to their private property: that's their choice.
And yes, frequently the times they censor people is to maintain the traditional definition of "civil" behavior. If a guy walks in off the street and starts urinating on the reception desk at a company, I fully expect him to be asked to leave to promote "civil behavior." Regardless of how mad he might be at the company, his behavior is "uncivil" by definition and subject to censorship on private property.
Whenever someone screams the loudest about political correctness, it usually because they want to say inappropriate and not suffer the consequences.
That's because the very concept of political correctness is about designating certain speech as correct or incorrect. Correct speech is protected from consequences, incorrect speech is not, with the implication that you could say/do horrible things to the speaker of incorrect speech without consequence.
To paraphrase Bill Maher...
"Women are smarter than men" *thunderous applause*
"Men are smarter than women" *Sexist chauvinist pig!*