
Editing in an age of outrage - never-the-bride
https://www.ft.com/content/7d47be7e-4efb-11e9-b401-8d9ef1626294
======
lukifer
There are two types of social force: physical violence, and attack on
reputation (shaming). However imperfectly, we instantiated The State as a
monopoly on violence, subjecting violent force to The Rule of Law; while the
success of that enterprise is hotly contentious, it's fair to say it works at
least sometimes (exonerating some innocents who might simply be killed under
pure tribal dynamics; allowing some who are guilty to redeem themselves after
"paying their debt to society").

But we've never really conceived of an equivalent "Rule of Law" for
reputational attack: both epistemically, to decide whether someone is actually
guilty, and proportionally, to decide what is the proper social punishment and
the appropriate path to redemption.

What's more, the internet has vastly increased the power of reputation attack,
for better and worse: it's good that it's more difficult for an actual sexual
predator to skip town and offend again, but bad that someone unjustly accused
(including of lesser crimes) cannot restart their life. Instant world-wide
communication has introduced a super-weapon, like going overnight from spears
to aerial bombardment.

I frankly have no idea how we would go about constructing a Rule of Law for
shaming. The distributed, bottom-up nature of the phenomenon is one of its
strengths, able to act nimbly to respond to cases that the Law cannot; and
each person's ability to make their own assessment of the character of others
(including outsourcing that intelligence to the crowd) is a non-negotiable
component of individual freedom, the Liberal Enlightenment tradition, etc.

But none of that changes the fact that every tweet can now carry the social
equivalent of a tactical nuke. If we don't find a way to solve that problem,
however imperfectly, we'll have to learn to live with a certain degree of
unjust collateral damage, both to individuals and our social infrastructure.

~~~
elhudy
>If we don't find a way to solve that problem, however imperfectly, we'll have
to learn to live with a certain degree of unjust collateral damage, both to
individuals and our social infrastructure.

On the bright side, the collateral from such situations is not always entirely
negative. My (imperfect) words once fell "victim" to shaming on a popular
social media website; while there was a large downside associated with this,
I, much like the author, owned my opinion and clarified where needed. The
outreach I received from those who actually mattered turned out to weigh more
positively than the hatred from those who didn't.

~~~
povertyworld
There's a popular growth hacking and viral marketing book that talks about how
to leverage outrage mobs to create publicity for your releases. The tactic
described seems to be used regularly on many social media platforms, but the
author went the extra mile and helped organize physical protests against the
product he was tasked with marketing.

~~~
Miner49er
Companies have started to use this tactic in advertising. Nike and Gillette's
recent advertising are two examples.

------
Aloha
"Silencing people we don’t like will make it easier for others to silence the
people we do."

I think this is the entire message of this article, and its one I
wholeheartedly agree with too - suppression of speech, be it governmental or
by internet mobs is detrimental to a free society.

~~~
bduerst
What do you think about Popper's paradox? The reason I ask is because even the
philosophers behind free speech didn't see it as a blank check for every
expression, and agreed that there are situations where a free society
benefited from speech being curtailed.

~~~
deogeo
Paradox of tolerance? I think it's built on shaky foundations at best. It
assumes that tolerance is the highest value, to which other values (e.g. free
speech) can be sacrificed, if necessary. If you value freedom of speech
higher, you would not make that sacrifice.

Second, it's doubtful that allowing intolerant speech makes a society
intolerant. After all, the society became tolerant when intolerant speech was
allowed and accepted - why would this process now reverse itself?

And if it did reverse itself, perhaps there's a good reason for it - perhaps
voters aren't happy with the fruits tolerance bore. It's a bit undemocratic to
say that free speech philosophers know best how a society should be
structured, and if the populace disagrees, they'll be censored until only
permitted ideas may be expressed.

~~~
anoncake
Free speech is tolerance of other opinions.

> why would this process now reverse itself?

Are you trying to argue that the process never does reverse itself? Because
that does happen.

> And if it did reverse itself, perhaps there's a good reason for it - perhaps
> voters aren't happy with the fruits tolerance bore. It's a bit undemocratic
> to say that free speech philosophers know best how a society should be
> structured, and if the populace disagrees, they'll be censored until only
> permitted ideas may be expressed.

Thats what the makers of the Weimar Constitution thought.

~~~
deogeo
> Are you trying to argue that the process never does reverse itself? Because
> that does happen.

It does, but it is not guaranteed to - not even close. So to claim a tolerant
society can't exist without censorship is reaching.

~~~
anoncake
Maybe a tolerant society can exist without censorship. But censorship is no
the only way not to tolerate intolerance. If advocating against free speech
makes you a pariah, then society does not tolerate intolerance even though it
is legal.

Another possibility is that there are other mechanisms that can protect
tolerance, such as a constitution that is very hard to change. The paradox of
tolerance would not apply to societies that have such a mechanism, but still
would be valid for others.

~~~
Aloha
I'd argue there is a fundamental difference between tolerating intolerant
thought and tolerating violent (or even pseudo-violent) acts. People will
always have intolerant thoughts, they may not however, ever take that to
violent actions.

~~~
anoncake
We cant ban intolerant thoughts whether we want to or not since we cannot read
peoples minds. Besides people cant just change their believes at will.

The question is what we do about intolerant speech.

~~~
Aloha
Basically all intolerant speech should be allowed, so long as you're not
trying to call people to arms to act on that speech - the speech itself
probably doesn't matter much.

I'd rather be able to spot the hateful people, than not know who they are and
let them act on their hate in silence.

~~~
bduerst
>Basically all intolerant speech should be allowed, so long as you're not
trying to call people to arms to act on that speech

So all intolerant speech should be allowed, except for this speech that
shouldn't be tolerated?

~~~
Aloha
Generally, yes, provided you're not calling people to action, presenting an
imminent and present threat, it certainly should be allowed.

I have as much trouble with the government banning speech as I do with people
getting doxed for saying something unpopular.

------
neonate
[http://archive.is/TgXCv](http://archive.is/TgXCv)

------
RankingMember
> Silencing people we don’t like will make it easier for others to silence the
> people we do.

Well-stated, though in his particular case I think Ian might've done himself a
favor by publishing a piece by one of the accusers and their experience
alongside the piece by Ghomeshi. I'm conflicted because I understand his point
but I also understand the problem with giving someone in Ghomeshi's position a
platform, which is that some will interpret it as a show of support for that
person or even endorsement.

~~~
Udik
> some will interpret it as a show of support for that person or even
> endorsement.

I think people should take full responsibility for their own personal
interpretations. We worry way too much about how some people may interpret
something. There are interpretations that are legitimate and others that are
not, and we need to find the courage to state it clearly.

The problem is that we have granted a superior moral status to people who
proclaim themselves as victims; and stretching the interpretation of something
to claim the victim status has become extremely easy, because once you've
attained it nobody dares to question your interpretation anymore.

Example: I say "A", you interpret it as "B", claim you're the victim of an
offense. At that point I can't question your interpretation anymore because
I'd be questioning your victimhood. Checkmate.

~~~
RankingMember
I somewhat agree, though I would note that determining what constitutes a
"legitimate" interpretation is a whole other can of worms.

I think the current tendency to give self-identified victims more weight is
simply a result of a pendulum swing after a long period where victims were
given little to no consideration. That is to say, I think this is normal and
will again swing the other way before too long. Obviously, the preferred state
would be equilibrium, but I think we've got a ways to go before we reach that.

------
john-radio
> Silencing people we don’t like will make it easier for others to silence the
> people we do.

This is a very common refrain in the help-I'm-being-censored community, but I
wish Buruma had tried to introduce some sort of evidence for this idea.

Ghomeshi's story is the opposite of that, since he was enormously well liked
(including by me) prior to these several dozen accusations.

~~~
stronglikedan
Without getting explicit, there's plenty of historical evidence behind that
statement. Evidence that spawned the idea of freedom of speech in general, and
evidence later in history that inspired the Martin Niemöller poem _First they
came ..._ It _is_ a common refrain, not just by the "help-I'm-being-censored
community", but by those who are well versed in history.

It should also be noted that, while Ghomeshi may have been well liked
initially, he was not so well liked by the time he was "silenced", so the
statement still holds true IMO.

