[DrewADesign]

> I tried talking to my children about leaving as clean of a footprint on the internet as one can in anticipation of future people/systems taking that into consideration.

I don’t think you’re wrong, but the fact that people consider it inevitable we’ll all have an immutable social acceptance grade that includes everything from teenage shitposts to things you said after a loved one died, or getting diagnosed with cancer, makes me regret putting even a moment of my professional energies towards advancing tech in the US.

[monksy]

I think he's wrong and I'm willing to say that. The ability for people to move beyond the fundamental attribution error is well known and takes major resources to correct that. For anyone that posts a comment, assuming you want to have easy attribution later is that you must future proof your words. That is not possible and it is extremely suppressive to express yourself.

For example: "Ellen Page is fantastic in the Umbrella Academy TV show" Innocent, accurate, support, and positive in 2019.

Same comment read after 1 Dec 2020 (Transition coming out): Insensitive, demeaning, in accurate.

[JohnMakin]

> That is not possible and it is extremely suppressive to express yourself.

Also for the fact that you cannot predict how future powers will view past comments - for instance, certain benign political views 20 years ago could become "terroristic speech" tomorrow.

I operate by a simple, general rule - I don't often say anything online I wouldn't say directly to someone's face in real life.

[NetOpWibby]

> I operate by a simple, general rule - I don't often say anything online I wouldn't say directly to someone's face in real life.

More people should keep this same energy. I try to stress this to my kids and it feels like it's falling on deaf ears in regards to my teen. Alas.

[JohnMakin]

I can be a rude prick online sometimes, but I can be in real life too - basically though the reason I do this is I never want it to be some huge surprise IRL if someone sees what I write online and be like, "wow, I didn't know that about him." I'm pretty much what I am online and IRL the same. For some reason this seems to matter for me, at least in the past when people have tried to like, send employers stuff I may have written online. The reaction is like "oh, yea, we knew that already about him."

Nothing terrible, maybe slightly embarrassing, but you know how online spaces can be. just be yourself basically, at least I try to be.

[Imustaskforhelp]

This really hits a string with me, adding on to this, This is how I believe the same way but I would argue that I might be more nicer online than offline because I am better able to control any emotions imo when I give more thought to it.

Because I don't really appreciate flame wars and when that's the case, I like to take some time to find common ground and just have a respectable discussion when possible.

This approach is harder to work irl because those moments are also spontaneous & it does require significantly more discipline to control one's emotion within seconds rather than minutes, but its something that I think I can work upon as well.

But I would say that aside from that, most of my comments are pretty spontaneously written. I frame it as a question of being honest with myself at times, I think I am mostly pretty much the same IRL and online as well.

Another point but such forums also act like a journal to me for my future to read as well. I try to write comments in such sense that in future, I can read them and try to accurately remember what my mind was thinking during the time/days I wrote that comment for self-retrospection as well.

Edit: Although now that I think about it, there are definitely some subtle changes I might have online vs irl but I would still say that I feel like my accounts are pretty authentic fwiw (personally) but I am happy with my authenticity online but there's definitely a level of my thinking which worries about any comment being permanently available though.

[albumen]

Your framing is interesting. You may feel that you can’t change who you are in real life, but people have a choice on how they behave online (or choose not to engage at all). So you could choose to be nice (or at least not a jerk); I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t get people writing to your employer complaining. I’d argue that if you know you’re sometimes a jerk, it’d be less stressful for you and others if you didn’t bring that energy online.

[JohnMakin]

Sure, there is a choice. it’s rarely/never been stressful for me though, and I value being who I am for my own reasons as a strength and not a weakness. I always try to play by the moderation rules as I can possibly and realistically do. some of what I’ve written online has gotten me opportunities it wouldn’t have if i’d been more hesitant.

My point is if you have a good track record what you maintain online vs irl doesn’t matter as much to people as you’d maybe think as long as you are being true to yourself. I’m an elder millennial though, so that’s always been the case online for me and i dont think i often get out of pocket online anyway.

maybe that won’t be the case in the future. I could write a lot more than I’d care to publicly about personal and implied threats I’ve received based on my writings, but caving to that to me would betray my own values and I choose to consume the web how i choose knowing possible consequences - plus the fact moderation standards and what is “rude” drastically differs amongst platforms.

[qsera]

As someone who gets dopamine hits from downvotes on HN, I approve of your behavior!

>just be yourself basically

Yea, it is boring when everyone is the same. I would like a rude but interesting world (even if I might not survive long in one), than a nice, boring one.

[the_af]

"Just be yourself" seems to me a lot like the rightfully discredited "if you don't have anything to hide...".

Everybody has something to hide. Everybody has said things they regret, or meant to be heard by some people but not others.

[danilocesar]

This is very import: you don't know how the cancelation culture will be in 20 years.

I like to use the example of a guy who did a blackface in a party back in 2000's. Although reprehensible, was not commom-sense racism back then. Today society sees it as completely unacceptable.

Eventually that guy became prime minister of Canada and things went pretty bad when that photo surfaced decades later.

Is it far to judge someone's actions by the lens of a different culture? When the popular opinion comes, they won't care about historical context.

[cucumber3732842]

I think people forget that before about the 2010s plus or minus depending on who and where those sorts of overt bigotry were considered a "solved" problem, things were looking up and you and your buddies dressing up as Klansmen for Halloween was mocking the Klansmen more than anything else.

[brabel]

Only idiots don’t care about it historical context.

[DrewADesign]

That’s false if you consider an idiot to be a person that can’t understand why it’s important. In this context, we can see companies selling the exact service we’re talking about to hr departments. Every bit of data they can get from social media sites to data brokers of all stripes or whatever else and assigns generic employability scores.

I’ll bet most of the people in those companies have considered this problem more than nearly anyone else — because they need to figure out how to get people to buy it anyway, and try to spackle over the parts that give people pause. The reason they don’t care is because it’s what’s in between them and money. There are intelligent criminals out there. They aren’t idiots, they’re just assholes.

[lan321]

Your bar is too high in my experience. Most don't care about it and most of the ones that do, care only when it confirms their beliefs.

[fragmede]

Unfortunately they get just as many votes as everyone else.

[WorldPeas]

I think the problem with this, especially amongst younger people, is having spent so much time online, they don't know where to draw this line anymore.

[samastur]

Depends on what you want to say. It can be safer to say something directly to someone's face than online because it is transient and generally does not involve random passers-by.

I am not going to give examples, because I don't want them to be pinned on me as my views, but I'm sure most of us have enough imagination to come up with them.

[actionfromafar]

Interesting. You could probably get into trouble in those two places for extremely different things you said.

[JohnMakin]

of course, and it has happened, but I think authenticity is usually appreciated

[NooneAtAll3]

what two places?

[the_af]

> I operate by a simple, general rule - I don't often say anything online I wouldn't say directly to someone's face in real life.

I think this isn't enough for the digital age, simply because "comments you'd say to someone's face" can compromise you on the internet.

Some dirty joke, gossip or whatever you tell a friend, if posted online, could come back to bite you in the ass in the dystopian future, lose you your job, or worse.

[antonvs]

> Same comment read after 1 Dec 2020 (Transition coming out): Insensitive, demeaning, in accurate.

I genuinely don't understand this. Are you sure you're not imagining possible offenses against some non-existent standard?

[we_have_options]

well, how about "abortion legal" to "abortion murder"... possible to see this coming, but I know doctors in NY who are now afraid to travel to Texas.

How about DEI initiatives as good things in 2024 and a mark of evil in 2025? Lots of people were fired because in 2024 their boss told them to work on DEI and they did what their boss told them to do. Turns out this was a capital offense.

[oska]

> because in 2024 their boss told them

I am not commenting on your specific example of DEI but I want to make the general point that you are always responsible for what you do, irregardless of whether you were told to do it by your boss, or commanding officer, or whatever.

So again, I don't care about the specific example you used but if something is 'in fashion' and you go along with it, including at work, then you are ultimately responsible for that choice. Because it is always a choice, including being a hard choice that results in you losing your job.

[the_af]

But working on DEI on your boss' orders in 2024 wasn't reprobable, anymore than bringing your boss a cup of coffee to their desk was.

The point is that the shift in what is considered "a capital crime" is arbitrary, this is not the Nuremberg trials. You cannot protect yourself by being a decent person, whatever you do today can be a crime tomorrow, and AI can assist those looking for your flaws.

[anjel]

standards change over time. Grandfather clauses are a courtesy, not a right.

[heisenbit]

Society's legally double standard:

- people can create new standards that will be applied retroactively

- lawmakers can create new laws which can not be applied retroactively

[qsera]

This is easy. Have your own standards based on your own reason and navigate any arbitrary standards LCD majority of the society cooks up from time to time.

[anjel]

>lawmakers can create new laws which can not be applied retroactively Still a courtesy:

    Background: Mary Anne Gehris was born in Germany and came to the United States around age 1, growing up entirely in the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident (green card holder). 

The Incident: In 1988, during a quarrel over a man, Gehris pulled another woman's hair. She was charged with misdemeanor battery. No witnesses appeared in court, and on the advice of a public defender, she pleaded guilty. She received a one-year suspended sentence with one year of probation.

    Immigration Consequences: Years later, under the **Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 **(IIRIRA)—enacted during the Clinton administration but actively enforced during the Bush Jr. administration—her misdemeanor battery conviction was classified as an "aggravated felony" under federal immigration law. This made her deportable despite having no subsequent criminal record, being married to a U.S. citizen, and having a U.S. citizen child. 

Outcome: Gehris avoided deportation when the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles granted her a pardon in March 2000, which removed the immigration ground for her removal.

Source Coverage: The story was detailed in Anthony Lewis's New York Times columns:

    "Abroad at Home: 'This Has Got Me in Some Kind of Whirlwind'" (January 8, 2000)

https://www.nytimes.com/2000/01/08/opinion/abroad-at-home-th...

These columns highlighted how IIRIRA's broad definition of "aggravated felony" swept up many long-term permanent residents with minor, often decades-old convictions, separating families and deporting people who had lived nearly their entire lives in the United States.

The Gehris case became a frequently cited example in immigration advocacy and legal scholarship about the harsh consequences of mandatory deportation provisions for lawful permanent residents. If you'd like, I can search for the original NYT articles or additional reporting on her case.

[harvey9]

"If you'd like, I can search for the original NYT articles or additional reporting on her case."

No need but thanks for offering

[JimDabell]

> Grandfather clauses

This term itself is an example of what this thread is talking about. Are you aware that some people now consider this to be a racist term? It’s a reference to the disenfranchisement of black voters in America.

[DrewADesign]

I think it’s naive to assume the private companies selling these services will know, let alone care, let alone disclose when their black box models botch things like this. The companies currently purporting to provide this exact service to HR departments for hiring decisions clearly didn’t let that stop them.

[comex]

Not even the most extreme LGBT activist would accuse people who used the name Ellen Page in 2019 of having somehow been insensitive for failing to have a crystal ball. That is as absurd as it sounds. At most someone might be asked to change the name if they’re actively republishing the material in question.

Your point may be more valid when it comes to political attitudes, in cases where the issues were known at the time but the Overton window has shifted since.

[Nevermark]

That we identify social media as "tech" is very strange.

Yes, they have a lot of servers. But that isn't their core innovation. Their core innovations are the constant expansion of unpermissioned surveillance, the integration of dossiers, correlating people's circumstances, behavior and psychology. And incentivizing the creation of addictive content (good, bad, and dreck) with the massive profits they obtain when they can use that as the delivery vector for intrusively "personalized" manipulation, on behest of the highest bidder, no matter how sketchy, grifty or dishonest.

Unpremissioned (or dark patterned, deceptive, surreptitious, or coercive permissioned) surveillance should be illegal. It is digital stalking. Used as leverage against us, and to manipulate us, via major systems spread across the internet.

And the fact that this funds infinite pages of addicting (as an extremely convenient substitute for boredom) content, not doing anyone or society any good, is a mental health, and society health concern.

Tech scaling up conflicts of interest, is not really tech. Its personal information warfare.

[DrewADesign]

I didn’t say I hated technology, generally— I said I hate what the industry has morphed into in the US. What is or isn’t tech is immaterial. All of the odious things you listed are things that the ‘tech industry’ does, largely unquestioned, these days. Frankly, it’s sickening.

[Nevermark]

I am in complete agreement with you.

Except noting that it is crazy that we accept the framing of "tech firm" for what are really "psychology engineering" firms, simply because they use tech.

Their use of tech is only perceived as more glamorous than companies addressing far greater technical challenges, because they are making crazy profits. While the only problem they alleviate with any tech ambition, is making more money for themselves, through centralizing ad venues (maximum ad revenue extraction, blind eye to scams and other dark marketers) and social damage externalization (maximum psychological manipulation).

The negative downstream impacts of all this value extraction are many, including the vast sums of money being paid to attention-hacking social influencers. This destructive army is directly funded by social media, whose alibi is they don't want to be censors. But they are not neutral, as that framing would imply. They are very actively financing the dreck!

[cucumber3732842]

A huge amount of western society and the way we run institutions is based on pretending everything meets some quasi victorian moral standard and is all proper, everyone consents to and supports how everything runs and everything is fine and dandy when that is very much not the case and people put up with a lot of it because they have no better option.

In light of that what I see happening in the short term is that every institution will start screwing people based on information that basically doesn't matter since that's kind of what they're already set up to do with that information but don't except in exceptional cases since those are the cases in which that information makes it back to them.

Imagine some business owner opening a new location, some social worker renewing their license, some civil engineer creating plans on someone's behalf. All those people need to deal with institutions that in the "normal" case pretend to not have large discretionary components in order to get the public to put up with them, but do in practice have such ability. Now say those institutions pay for some LLM based "who am I dealing with" service that finds everyone's pseudonymous posts and whatnot.

Well, all of these people wind up getting given the run around because even though they do fine work that meets the rules, knowing how the sausage is made has made them jaded and given them opinions that make the institutions they have to deal with want to screw them. The business owner gets given the run around because it turns out he believes the institutions he's seeking permission from are a corrupt racket who's members ought to be hung from the overpass. The social worker gets denied because their career has turned them into a "defund it all and when faced with real consequences most of these people will shape up" type. The civil engineer's plans get rejected and he has to go around in circles because he's been posting about how in light of what corporations with good funding can get approved and the impact thereof it's unconscionable the stuff they try and enforce upon individuals and engineers ought to pencil whip anything that isn't clearly F-ed up.

And so, all these people have to waste time and probably a low five digit sum of money fighting the BS. This would be fine perhaps if these people's conduct was so egregious it made it back to the institutions on it's own (like say some doctor who's preaching quackery on youtube may get his license yanked if he amasses such a following the board hears about it, that's the kind of stuff institutional discretion was set up for) but no real good social interest is served having an LLM dig up petty dirt on everyone. However, the LLM service peddlers stand to make a buck. The institutions stand to make a buck while washing their hands of responsibility. The lawyers who'll fight on wronged parties behalf stand to make a buck. And in the process they can all pretend like society somehow benefits from this enhanced scrutiny when in fact they're just making mountains out of mole hills.