[captainmuon]

Instead of self censoring and deleting our past, we should solve the problem on the recipient's side, and harden ourselves against this kind of attack.

When someone is booted out of office for the wrong reasons (even though it is "the right person", i.e. someone who's views I don't agree with) I speak out against it. If I was a politician, I would pledge before elections to never step down due to anything that happend in my past; if I had a company I would consider adding something into contracts that we cannot fire people due to past controversial statements.

I think we have a unified legal system for a reason, and would prefer if everything prohibited is handled there, after which you are considered innocent again. I don't like cases where someone is legally innocent but yeah he's an asshole and we don't give him a job anymore. You could argue different people have different standards, and it is a free market and people are allowed to choose who they work with and who they deplatform - but in practice, at least in the entertainment industry, the standards are rather monolithic. Companies don't want to offend anyone, and also don't want to get trouble with payment providers, so you get certain behavior. Don't kid yourself, the liberal Twitter bubble doesn't have the kind of power to "cancel" people on their own - big corporations and media companies decide what get's picked up, what get's scandalized, and what is acceptable. And I'd really rather have this decided democratically by some kind of parliament or council than by some companies.

[freebuju]

The moment Twitter finally went mainstream, that was the death knell for "free" speech. Your employer, government agencies, religious & community leaders are all now on Twitter. Self censorship is not obligatory, it is a requirement to use the platform. Same thing to those family Whatsapp groups.

I remember creating a Facebook account in my teenage years, most of my friends used nicknames on the account names. Why? Because the platform was so popular, the chances of your grandma finding your raunchy posts were also high. The same caution should apply to anyone before signing up for a social media account. Your misplaced, misunderstood caption/ viral post will reach your immediate social circles.

Can't turn back the tide of cancel culture. Believe me, you can't win this on a numbers level. You can only hope your ride is less bumpy. And wait for the wave to pick its next victim.

I think it is kind of stupid the whole world now lives on social media. People really do not understand what SM is at all.

[swiley]

Free speech isn't dead, you just need to segregate your online identities.

This has always been true even before the internet.

[tomjen3]

I don't think the family whatsapp groups really fit in here, because by default they contain only things you want with your family. You can also join other groups that are different and have different focuses.

Anyway reddit is as mainstream as the others and they not only permit account names, basically nobody uses their real names. Heck alt accounts are encouraged too.

[pjc50]

Interesting argument because it implies that launching more "free speech" platforms (e.g. Parler) is actually worse for free speech.

Note that twitter still allows pseudonymity that you're talking about.

[freebuju]

You may have misunderstood my argument. My contention is that a mainstream platform and free speech cannot co-exist. You can only choose one of the two options.

About Twitter allowing pseudonyms, it is out of the scope in this context as you cannot cancel a faceless person.

Am pro-free speech as I truly believe this was the original intention of the www and the communities that formed it. If the answer to this return in ideology is in more "free speech" platforms, then am personally more-than-ready to embrace the idea. No one should be policed in or victimized for sharing their opinions on the internet. I find it is so backward and cringy.

[jsiepkes]

> if I had a company I would consider adding something into contracts that we cannot fire people due to past controversial statements.

It's not that people think you need to pay for your past "transgressions" (in their eyes). The problem is that people think they can extrapolate your future decisions, behavior, etc. based on a snippet from your past.

So it's not really about something that happened in the past. It's about something that people will think will happen in the future.

[mhuffman]

>It's not that people think you need to pay for your past "transgressions"

Well we disagree about this. It often seems to be a certain amount of glee involved when someone posts something from someone's online past that might not have been a big issue back then but is a hot-button issue now. Or something that they might have childishly or ignorantly said back then. Or something that they have completely changed their view on now.

But it doesn't matter. They all seem to be immediately followed by calls of some sort of "punishment" to fit the past "crimes".

Who knows what hot-button issues of the future might be?

[topspin]

> The problem is that people think they can extrapolate your future decisions

People aren't that noble. You excuse what is callous brutalism as well intentioned error. People aren't guarding against dangerous influences. They're abusing mob power.