Hacker News Reader

Comment by alexandercrohde | Hacker News Reader

I'm not seeing anybody else suggest what seems to me to be the obvious solution: opt out of twitter (which seems like a self-abuse platform) and filter your email.

Part of why communication works is because we can't hear everybody's opinion on everything. People earn the right to our ear through networking and earning our company. Twitter undoing this is not progress.

View on HN

When people call your place of business and complain to your boss about your methods and mental state, when they lobby the government to open investigations into your research under the accusation of child abuse, and when they use every available method to discredit your life's work, I don't think that simply opting-out of Twitter is likely to make a meaningful difference unfortunately.

What are they going to call and complain about if you don't have a social media account for them to dig through?

I think the idea is that these scientists are publishing their findings which are getting translated (poorly, more often than not) by the media outlets and thus its trivial for the activists to locate where the scientists live and work.

If you didn’t read the article, these activists are digging through research papers, finding the researchers’ contact info, and harassing them directly. On Twitter when they are on Twitter, but also on the phone and through the mail, and via their employers. This has nothing to do with whether or not the researchers themselves are on Twitter. The mob that’s harassing them uses social media to organize and recruit.

I did read the article. I guess I should have phrased it differently. The employers of these researchers already know what they're researching. They understood the risks involved so what would it matter if somebody calls in?

If the researcher removes themselves from social media they're insulated from the outrage in multiple layers. They don't see it, and they're not leaving any of their personal actions behind to be complained about.

Seems like scientists at that point have little choice but to bring legal action against those activists for slander. Unfortunately, and apropos of your point, most scientists likely won't be that aggressive in their action and I think the activists know it.

I don’t think slander charges would work here unless the activists are lying about the scientists. Are there anti-harassment laws that could come into play? Much of the harassment probably crosses jurisdiction boarders, so it may be difficult to bring charges in many cases.

> little choice but to bring legal action

Huh? A legal campaign would severely escalate the problem, cost time and money, and prevent the scientists from doing their work.

Besides, the international aspect of the issue:

"TARGET: Oxford University professor Michael Sharpe"

"INVESTIGATOR: David Tuller at his home in San Francisco": he blogs, sends hundreds of letters and emails, and travels the world giving speeches and holding meetings as supporters send him donations and praise for his CFS/ME campaign.

Imagine how f-ing annoying any city would be if everyone in the streets had a megaphone. Instead of a conspiracist standing on a box and shouting from a corner, now they can echo through the streets and draw other like-minded conspiracists together into a mob. That's what Twitter (and other social media) has allowed.

There's such little thought put into actions because action is immediate and satisfaction is self-served. A group dedicated to seeking action will always find something to nit-pick over to add fuel to the fire. If the desire is bad enough, emotion will surpass logic, which is like an addiction.

When people favor their actions over thinking, and neglect consequences, they will do things that make no sense or do more harm than good. But I suppose as long as someone gets their way, none of that matters to them.

Defamation law exists for a reason. Or harassment law.

> opt out of twitter (which seems like a self-abuse platform) and filter your email.

Putting on blinders doesn't always work. As it turns out, I was involved in an incident on LambdaMOO many years ago that rather famously illustrates the point. Both Sherry Turkle and Amy Bruckman wrote about it IIRC.

Basically I'd gotten tired of one person's nonsense, so I "gagged" them. They knew I couldn't hear them, so they'd follow me into a public "room" within that virtual environment and talk to me. They knew I couldn't "hear" them but everyone else could. My lack of a response to them, though I was active in the more general conversation, was interpreted as either assent or cowardice. Including when the person started accusing me of being a child molester. I eventually became aware of the shenanigans through others' reactions, but it was still an ugly situation. Refusing to hear what others had to say about me was not a solution.

You know what they say: for every problem there's a solution that is simple, obvious, and WRONG. "You just need to..." is almost as bad as "actually..." in conversations among techies.

These activists will find your place of employment and take it up with them. You can ignore Twitter but they will find you.

Sure, but that's been going on forever. There's a difference between activists that are motivated enough to show up at your workplace, and those who are willing to daylights out of you.

I think that you're misunderstanding your parent, who is not, to my reading, saying that people will show up at your work and beat you up or yell at you, but rather that they will campaign to get you fired.

For example, Scott Alexander of Slate Star Codex mentioned in a recent post that people had called his employer and tried to get him fired because of the comments of people on his blog and the subreddit associated with it. (And he blogs pseudonymously, for whatever it's worth).

Another reason communication works is mutability. Personal and popular opinion changes over time. We're (and especially young people) not adapted to have everything we say or do kept on record for eternity. We've done a good job of messing that up too.

Then the question becomes whether or not research underwriters are letting these tweets affect research funding. Hopefully they aren't.

Very much this. The reason why we're all so overwhelmed by the online and media vitriol is those platforms have the ability to push the negative content straight to us. And they do so because they know it'll get our attention.

So... the answer, for me at least, is to turn them off. I deleted my Facebook and Twitter accounts. I don't watch, read, or listen to news.

"How then do you stay informed?" you may be asking. Well, I didn't delete my family or friends and they will often bring up topics that are of interest to me. It's about to snow a lot where I live. I heard about it first from my friends and then made the conscious decision to read more about it online so I could know and be prepared.

Sure, I also get the occasional bullshit political vitriol but they're quickly realizing how ineffective that is with me because I either unceremoniously change the subject or walk away from them when they start that nonsense.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com