This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Why do people engage in culture war though? I mean in some cases it is necessary like literal wars or a group actively holding hostile views against another and opposes thier rights on the basis of prejudice. But much of the discourse I have seen is more about attacking the group and pulling down even normal members of the group ignoring that they are not some genocidal murderers. Even though they bear some responsibilities for their own group or country it ignores that normal people often avoid conflict rather than holding the same prejudiced beliefs themselves.
I don't really think culture war is the solution, because whether one side is right or wrong it ultimately makes a breeding ground for hatred and nobody here will be listening to the facts and work upon a solution. It is sort of like our race, color, wealth, institutions etc .. all make up our identity of who we are. Any attack on these are an attack on the person belonging to that said group (and I am not talking about criticism of the group). Will anyone sit to think about thier position? Of course not because human nature is reactionary and much of out actions are governed by feelings. It would be unrealistic to expect the person being attacked to be reasonable, especially if it is actively hostile. But it will lead to a never ending war with each other without any solutions.
The 21st century escalation of the culture war is largely driven by social media. So a large part of the answer is "People engage in culture war because a small number of for-profit businesses show them that all the cool kids are engaging in culture war." Note show, not tell - social media algorithms curate your feed in a way which is optimised for engagement and ad revenue, and as part of that they are going to give you a potentially misleading impression of the kind of content your peers are posting.
Mark Zuckerberg burned the democratic commons in order to get people to click on more adverts. I actually believe this.
Not commenting on you in either way but I think believing:
vs.
is the primary division that makes somebody either 'centrist' or 'populist/far-/alt-/whatever-you-want-to-call-it'.
I think it's a bit more complicated than that.
Last week I started writing an effort post that was in part a response to @SneedNibba's post on the closure of the internet and some of the replies to @Lizzardspawn's post on the French Freezer hack only to loose it to a negligent refresh.
The post was about how a "high trust" environment turns into to a "low trust" one and the transitional phases in between. When @Lizzardspawn says that "there was never trust which could be betrayed" I know that they are wrong, because I saw it with my own eyes. I'm not quite old enough to be one of those "ancientfags" who pines for the days before the Eternal September but I am old enough to have watched the internet transition from open frontier to a collection of closed territories.
My first tax-paying job as a snot-nosed teenager at the electronics store back in the 90s was as much for access to the employee discount and manufacturers catalogs as it was for the money. I was one of those young BBS punks who, in the eyes of the ancients, was ruining the internet, and now with the benefit of hindsight I agree with them. While I may have been just one drop in a deluge, I did my part to make things worse, and recognizing that had a profound influence on the paths I would take later in life.
I have written before about how the thing that what made early LessWrong and the weekly discussion threads on SlateStarCodex.com special was that they were a neutral third space where genuine cross tribal communication could occur. While I can't really blame anyone deciding that they no longer wish to carry the burden of maintaining such a space, because make no mistake it is a burden, I can't help but feel like something of value has been lost. I am not angry, I am disappointed.
Where this comes back to you comment is that because as one of those young IRC/BBS punks turned "oldfag", I am conscious of the algorithm and it's nudges, I am aware that there is are entire internet eco-systems that might as well be made of dark-matter to the people who post here because the algo would never show it to them.
Point being that there are spaces online where Anime is discussed in Japanese, there are spaces where MAGA is the norm and any claim that "woke owns the discourse" would be met with derision and possibly a ban. The world (both online and off) is so much bigger than people know.
The website really should auto-save WIP longposts as cookies. It's one of those QoL features that's really mandatory nowadays.
Is this really true? There are little enclaves here and there, but nothing like what I'd expect from a movement that amounts to a majority of young tech-savvy men and half the country. T_D's remnant on communities.win is the biggest one I can find. It was commensurately huge in 2016, MAGA was as big on the internet as in the collective subconscious, but the total censorship of the internet seems to have returned it to universally-known-but-never-spoken-of status on much of the user-facing internet.
I've been looking around on Tor, at the "darknet", and it feels surprisingly like a ghost town. "Dread", the oft-spoken of darknet forum, has top posts with upvotes in the low dozens. There's a huge potential audience for a leet uncensored darknet cyberpunk hacker forum, but as far as I can tell, it doesn't exist yet.
Yes, but much like a Good Jazz club during prohibition, you're not going to find them unless you already have a notion of where to look or who to ask because they're not in the Yellow Pages.
Part of this is by their own design, and part of it is because the Obama and Biden administrations both collaborated with companies like Google and Meta to suppress red-aligned sites and stories.
Perhaps this is just nostalgia talking, but I feel like hacker/techie culture and the "open internet" peaked in the early 00s, it wasn't quite the wild west of the 80s and 90s where you could just remote in to Cal-Tech's network if you knew the socket address, but we had maps/discoverability and the internet was still generally a high-trust environment. Bots and spam were not really a thing yet. IRC and BBS were at their peak and the high degree of overlap between the hacker/tech scene and AM/HAM radio culture ensured a broad representation of cultures and backgrounds.
I won't try to claim that the four tribes lived in harmony until the Fire Nation attacked, but I do feel like there was a certain Understanding or Detente, where everybody kind of agreed "IDGAF who you are, show me the code".
Somewhere between 2006 and 2010 this changed. both the IRC and radio scenes were in decline and the scuffle for control of the Open Projects Network after Rob Levin's death in 2006 combined with "Big Short" in 2008 seems to have formed an inflection point where the neighborhood changed and people started locking their proverbial doors. "Codes of Conduct" and "Position Statements" proliferated while big names like Torvalds, Stallman, and ESR publicly started building walls and planning their exit strategies. Meanwhile less prominent users started to self-sort into their own spaces.
Reddit and Twitter briefly reversed this trend of self sorting by virtue of being so big, but both were explicitly west-cost liberal aligned spaces (until Musk bought twitter but that's a separate story), and thier moderation/norms reflected this. Contra a lot of posters here who will point to Gamergate as the pivotal moment in the culture war, I feel that by 2014 the different tribes had already mostly gone their separate ways. Gamergate was a intratribal skirmish amongst of Blues arguing about "ethics in games journalism" while what Reds who were paying attention watched on in bemusement. Imagine believing that Journalists have ethics
If my own experience is representative, such spaces tend to be "by invite only", and to the extent that they are not, finding them is the first test in the entrance exam.
These days I find that the bifurcation of internet spaces and by extension the echo chambers is increasingly amplified by algorithmic factors, as Google, X, TikTok, Et Al are businesses and their business is not "Truth" or "Communication" but rather "Engagement". They show you what they think you want, and what they think you want is based on who they think you are. There is "Youtube A" and "Youtube B", "X A" and "X B", and only rarely do the two meet. If you want to do a fun experiment, buy a new device and spin up a new google account on it, keep it on a separate network from your main device, ideally try to keep it in a completely separate room or building. Then either loan it to a friend's tween daughter or download a bunch of Lainey Wilson and Ella Langley, (or if you're already a country type download a bunch of K-pop instead) and note how your search results and twitter feed on the new device differs from your main one.
I don’t want to say it got corporatized but it was destined to change with the increasing complexity and expansion of digital technology. That “thrifty,” “clever,” aspect of the culture is still there but is no longer the majority condition in tech at large. Things have changed drastically in the digital landscape and hacker culture from the days of old. It just isn’t livable anymore that way. Even the nature of hacking itself has changed.
Compare and contrast the days when SoBig, and MyDoom, and NetSky, and Bagle, and Conficker, and Code Red, and Sasser were wreaking havoc across networks. Some of this was criminal activity from organized crime like the Russian Business Network, the others were lone actors who did it for the thrill and love of technology. Nowadays networks are completely different. Even basic concepts have evolved. One thing you’ll read about if you pick up any intro to infosec book is the idea of an “attack surface.” That’s been known to be antiquated now for quite awhile at the most sophisticated levels. Today it’s conceptualized behind the scenes as an “attack fluid,” a dynamic topological system that operates in a continuous space.
Gradient based path optimization is what killed the old view of a network as a static graph of nodes and edges. In the discrete world you think in terms of “if-then” conditional statements: “If I have local admin on host A, I’ll then be able to dump the credentials of user B.” This is the logic of a maze runner, and it’s the mentality a lot of hackers used to operate with. Gradient based thinking though is the logic of a hydrologist. When you turn the discrete components of your network into a high dimensional vector, you’re moving into the domain of calculus and the network gets treated as a continuous space; and every entity becomes defined by its proximity to others based on shared characteristics. This is similar to how a lot of hedge fund investment strategies work at the highest levels. They don’t view investment vehicles/instruments as separated categories between stocks and bonds, and CD’s, and options, etc. They view it all-together as one single, bounded, conditional risk pool where you buy undervalued risk and you sell overvalued risk. So today, an attack on a network may look something like this:
An agent will go in and will initiate a swarm wide credential harvest across a few dozen nodes, maybe even more. That ends up triggering a massive flood of low priority alerts that becomes visible to the SOC. When the analysts then go in and start triaging the spike in activity, the apex agent (call it node 36 or whatever you want) uses an already mapped, path of least resistance to perform a strike on the database server using a zero day or whatever payload on the backend. By the time that happens, the SOC realizes it was a diversion and the swarm’s already fragmented the data and is exfiltrating it out of different nodes; and so the network ends up getting turned against its own creators.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link