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 -
The Closure of the Internet
I recently started reading Arctotherium’s almost encyclopedic article titled The Closure of the Internet documenting the change starting in the mid-2010s from the internet being a free-speech zone to its current state as a censored environment. I only started reading the article since it is so truly extensive in its documentation, and then I skimmed through and read the highlights of the main article and some of the footnotes.
I was having 2 conflicting reactions: (1) this is not news – as anyone here who remembers the departure of this forum from Reddit or slatestarcodex can attest and (2) this is likely “the most important social phenomenon of the late 2010s” (Arctotherium's words) since it changed the dynamic so completely of the place where most people spend most of their free time and I, and most others, have never thought of it that way. In fact, many young people aren't even aware that it happened.
Why is it both not news and unknown? I think the article contains the answer to this question, without seeming to understand its importance - it doesn't have a name:
So I propose that we all start calling it the name Arctotherium used: the closure of the internet.
As a second note, I want to push back on the “Did it Work?” section in the article, which argues that the closure of the internet did not work since it failed at its goal of preserving confidence in traditional institutions. The section is true, as far it goes, but it leaves out that the closure of the internet was effective (at least in my view) on its object-level issues. I would argue there is more immigration and there was more compliance during COVID than there would be if discussion of these issues had remained open, but after spending their political capital on, for example, COVID, they have lost the public trust they need to fight, for example, measles.
Cause this is a problem for online people, not for the "touch grass" offline crowd.
In the real world, there also aren't many free-speech zones for people to truly unleash their most radical, dark, unsavory thoughts. The real reason free speech flourished in the internet is because of anonymity. If people can speak their mind anonymously in real life, you'll hear them much more often too. In the real world, unless you're crazy and just speaking to no one, you're speaking to an audience, and therefore, they know you. They can judge you, they can laugh at you, they can raise their eyebrows or makes visible that they think you're disgusting, they can think twice about doing business with you, and on and on and on.
I would like to add a second point about the internet is that people who champion it being a "free speech zone" is because not only of the anonymity, which protects them from retaliation, but also reach. If you're the guy shunned by the local community, it's unlikely that they would repeat or share your words with others. Yeah you still got free speech, alright, your speech just isn't landing. On the internet, be dark and edgy and you can go viral, and of course "a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes".
I think it was Frege who first considered what is now called the paradox of tolerance. Some community considers tolerance of paramount importantance, yet some new arrivals view it with disdains, mocking pluralism: "dark and edgy". If these new arrivals had their way, tolerance would be abolished, yet suppression of them would be intolerant.
One possible resolution is viewing tolerance as subordinate to continued existence of a society. Tolerating the intolerant is what is described in the linked substack post: those who wanted to eliminate dissent from their views on the internet, were not ejected when they revealed his goal, and were successful shortly after. "Fortified community", to adapt a phrase from the Germans.
I realize the irony in citing today's Germany in this context. But as Germany places other values that are not self-preservation as high or even higher than pluralism, such as "human dignity", it does not undermine my point.
Success is shown by this very website: how many persecution campaigns did this community have to endure, how many posters did it lose, due to attitudes which misstate the reality thusly:
The linked substack post describes many campaigns against free speech, by various actors, US domestic and foreign, state and private. Interferences into communication the speaker wants to emit, and the listener to capture. As if the reason why themotte went from reddit is that the readers did not like it, instead of third party inserting itself, in effect saying "Isn't there somebody you forgot to ask?".
I discovered TheMotte on reddit because I chanced upon one of the Quality Contribution thread and thought these ideas weren't my cup of tea at face value but they're sound and reasonable and I want to keep reading in case I change my mind. I think the problem TheMotte faces is lost opportunity for new mottizens, but not all sites need more audience (especially if it's the wrong audience), https://lobste.rs is just a smaller version of hackernews for example. I am not sure of what persecution campaign this community endured, I'm sure the mods and long term members of the site can speak more, and I am thankful for the work of those who made this site continually available. Personally, I make sure to not bring this site to too much attention and only share things from this site that is within the window of acceptability of the target audience I'm sharing to.
To make a more nuanced take, if the government is stepping in to suppress speech, I think there is a bar, a very complicated bar I hope, where they can do that. But if society/majority is making a call on you, there isn't much you can do than play the game (hide it), convert (if you can't beat them join them), take it (suffer the consequences), leave/get around it (find ways to make your own platform). And the beautiful thing about America I find is that I do think if one keeps speaking truth, yes there will be persecution, but reality will unfold in such a way that your truth can't be denied. And Americans are willful and passionate and brilliant and they have the constitution (assuming that is still respect) to protect them to find a way around suppression while waiting for the long archhammer of history to smite the censors.
Of course, there can be many pendulum swings along the way, much has been said about how the tech-right came to be because of how tech moguls were feeling the squeeze of the left and came running into the open arms of conservatives.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link