|
In social media there is a balancing act that must be done, between being able to share things candidly while still protecting your identity. In theory this is about common sense "stranger danger" logic. Don't give out your name and address to people, be careful who has your cell phone number, etc. But as we live in a progressively more intrusive panopticon, this checklist gets bigger and more abstract-use made up trivia for your security questions so you don't get phished, avoid using the real name of your pets, be careful about sending people pictures that might contain incriminating Metadata, etc. Places like Tiktok have become havens for people to share their thoughts and feelings on video, and people can often over share at times. The concern arises when that over sharing compromises their own safety and the safety of their peers. The notorious "Libs of Tiktok" Twitter group trawls Tiktok for embarrassing videos, and as of late gained notoriety for being notoriously transphobic in their content. When groups like them link a video with the caption, "this person doesn't deserve to live" it's easy to agree that they are calling for violence of the subject they linked. However, if they post it without comment or with basic information already disclosed by the subject, they can hide behind the ambiguity of their intent. Of course we all know why they would retweet such content-to get reactionary followers to be outraged and direct violence towards the subject. But in this form it becomes much harder to prove. They'll argue, "This person posted this publicly on Tiktok. They disclosed their real name and place of work. We are not doxxing them, only sharing the same information they already provided." which is a frustrating bullshit excuse, but what can we do about it? Someone not terminally online might see this issue and logically conclude,"It probably isn't safe to disclose such personal information. And if you're doing something that could be easily misconstrued by dangerous people you might want to avoid it". This is sensible advice, but it is problematic for two reasons. One, it puts the burden of safety on the most disenfranchised groups online. Two, it has a very pronounced chilling effect on those groups. Very media savvy right wing think tanks are probably aware of this. Related to that, there's also the subject of optics. If you represent a group of people, it can be vital to make a good impression. Not every member of your group could be in a position to handle backlash from your approach. A good example of this is the Redditor from Antiwork who went on Fox News. The individual had their hair in a sloppy ponytail, their room was visibly messy in the background, and they were fidgeting and rocking in their seat during the interview. It all helped to reinforce the stereotype of what the typical Antiwork Redditor must be like in real life-a disheveled lazy slob that still lived with their mom. Had you been an active union organizer trying to build coalitions and get people to organize, guess what? You get to be associated with the stuttering dork they saw on fox News last week. What's especially frustrating is that these issues don't cut the other way. For all the screeching about cancel culture most people on the right that commit or drive stochastic violence against minorities/leftists face little consequence. It feels good when they do get comeuppance but this feels like pissing down a volcano in the grand scheme of things. As such those on the right are under far less pressure to exercise discretion, which indirectly gives them a bigger platform overall. So what's to be done? How do people find the happy medium between opsec, Optics, and maintaining their voice online?
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 17:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 18:38 |
|
|
just shut down the internet
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 17:38
|
|
|
TLDR example of what I mean: Joe Smith is a social studies teacher in Florida. They are nonbinary and pansexual. They are also a person of color. They make a video on Tiktok with their name and workplace in the clip, and discuss their feelings of the Don't Say Gay bill and how it negatively affects them and their students. On its own, there's absolutely nothing wrong with any of this. They didn't say or do anything illegal. Unfortunately the subject matter is going to get them retweeted on Libs of Tiktok and other hateful spaces of the internet, and their candid talk makes it extremely easy for anyone to find them, where they work, where they live, etc. Should they have toned it down? Not posted the video? How do you protect this person from stochastic acts of violence prodded in their direction?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 17:40
|
|
|
post COVID posted:just shut down the internet 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 17:43
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 18:19
|
|
|
post COVID posted:just shut down the internet Is that really fair to the people who rely on the internet for what little platform they currently have?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 18:23
|
|
|
post COVID posted:just shut down the internet please for the love of god
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 18:34
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:Is that really fair to the people who rely on the internet for what little platform they currently have? Joe Smith has to contort their personality to somehow fit in with several other billion people and you shouldn't be surprised that this causes mental illness most of the time
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 18:37
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/MichaelRWear/status/1417138801386872842?s=20&t=yCFfvqnvG-JQmaYIMrVjrA
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 18:51
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:TLDR example of what I mean: What you've described is the system functioning as intended. What you're asking for is hacks that allow you to use a part of the system in unintended ways. These will inherently be temporary. If you can describe a method to achieve what you're hoping for, you can also likely imagine how that method will cease to be viable. There's no one right answer to your question, anything will likely require a number of tradeoffs. That doesn't mean it's hopeless. Oppressed people have always survived by creatively exploiting loopholes. We can't will those loopholes into existence, but systems are never perfect, so there will be some.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 18:54
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:Is that really fair to the people who rely on the internet for what little platform they currently have? Fair point. Let's abolish social media and redistribute the resources of every wretched silicon valley company to people who need it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 19:00
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:Is that really fair to the people who rely on the internet for what little platform they currently have? the only platform permitted to continue to exist is one that serves the interest of capital
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 19:17
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:In social media there is a balancing act that must be done, between being able to share things candidly while still protecting your identity. In theory this is about common sense "stranger danger" logic. Don't give out your name and address to people, be careful who has your cell phone number, etc. But as we live in a progressively more intrusive panopticon, this checklist gets bigger and more abstract-use made up trivia for your security questions so you don't get phished, avoid using the real name of your pets, be careful about sending people pictures that might contain incriminating Metadata, etc. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 19:17
|
|
|
sleeptalker posted:What you've described is the system functioning as intended.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 19:36
|
|
|
Yes, the "happy medium" shouldn't be your goal, because the rules are ultimately set against you and won't let that position stand. Try to think of ways to change the rules. Spitballing here, but maybe there's a way to push TikTok into using copyright law to stop TikTok content from being posted on other platforms. There's a lot of reasons why they might not want to do it, a lot of ways it might suck for people you're trying to help, but ultimately it could be worth trying if you really need something like Libs of TikTok to be disrupted.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 21:02
|
|
|
You see, actually, for two or three years now Chiquita and I have had this very unpleasant feeling that we really should get out. No, we really should feel like Jews in Germany in the late thirties. Get out of here! Of course, the problem is where to go, ’cause it seems quite obvious that the whole world is going in the same direction. You see, I think it’s quite possible that the nineteen-sixties represented the last burst of the human being before he was extinguished. And that this is the beginning of the rest of the future now, and that from now on there’ll simply be all these robots walking around, feeling nothing, thinking nothing. And there’ll be nobody left almost to remind them that there once was a species called a human being, with feelings and thoughts. And that history and memory are right now being erased, and soon nobody will really remember that life existed on the planet! Now, of course, Björnstrand feels that there’s really almost no hope. And that we’re probably going back to a very savage, lawless, terrifying period. Findhorn people see it a little differently. They’re feeling that there’ll be these “pockets of light” springing up in different parts of the world, and that these will be in a way invisible planets on this planet, and that as we, or the world, grow colder, we can take invisible space journeys to these different planets, refuel for what it is we need to do on the planet itself, and come back. And it’s their feeling that there have to be centers, now, where people can come and reconstruct a new future for the world. And when I was talking to Gustav Björnstrand, he was saying that actually, these centers are growing up everywhere now! And that what they’re trying to do, which is what Findhorn was trying to do, and in a way what I was trying to do…I mean, these things can’t be given names, but in a way, these are all attempts at creating a new kind of school, or a new kind of monastery. And Björnstrand talks about the concept of reserves, islands of safety, where history can be remembered, and the human being can continue to function in order to maintain the species through a dark age.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 21:36
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:Fair point. Let's abolish social media and redistribute the resources of every wretched silicon valley company to people who need it. give me their video cards i need to upgrade my posting rig
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 22:48
|
|
|
Look if you need to make tik toks about something people will try and murder you for, just become a vtuber.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2022 05:57
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:Should they have toned it down? Not posted the video? How do you protect this person from stochastic acts of violence prodded in their direction? they should definitely 100% not post the video. not even a question to me. just don't do it!
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2022 06:04
|
|
|
queer and marginalized people are not responsible for the violence that gets directed their way, but I want all teachers everywhere to stop recording tiktoks, period. I cannot stand it when I see some schmuck being like "I work in New York District 37 at Gene Wilder Elementary and my username is my real name. Here are my opinions: ____" truly, just don't do it!
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2022 06:07
|
|
|
It's "You don't know if your neighbors will turn you in" crowd sourced and expanded.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2022 06:10
|
|
|
NeatHeteroDude posted:queer and marginalized people are not responsible for the violence that gets directed their way, but I want all teachers everywhere to stop recording tiktoks, period. I cannot stand it when I see some schmuck being like "I work in New York District 37 at Gene Wilder Elementary and my username is my real name. Here are my opinions: ____"
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2022 07:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 18:38 |
|
|
pandy fackler posted:the only platform permitted to continue to exist is one that serves the interest of capital
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2022 09:26
|
|
