I really try to hang out in more nuanced modes of rhetoric but: Don’t amplify psychological terrorism by repeating it in social media posts condemning it. Stop.
When you do this, no matter your intent, you are helping the worst people by repeatedly exposing the intended targets to the terrorizing messages.
Yes, hate campaigns need to be discussed. Not by amplifying the messages themselves across networks rich in their targets.
@PassiveIdeation This isn’t about rules at all, it’s about taking care of people’s brains and bodies so they can do the essential work of fighting fascism, which begins with not spinning out into despair and terror.
There are so many orgs working on defense and care and action, and none of that work is served by amplifying trolls. The people whose interests are served by paralysis and a constant state of fight or flight are the fascists.
From Small Steps, Big Impact: Combating Hate Through Individual Actions -- it's phrased in terms of disinformation but applies to hate campaigns in general:
avoiding amplification
naming the motivations behind disinformation
avoiding posting the disinformation on other social media platforms
going on the offense and posting as much truthful information as possible
and using engaging content (graphics, memes, videos, etc.) that guarantees the spread of factual information.
@PassiveIdeation @kissane don’t spread misinformation because not only might it further hurt the public grasp of reality but the strategy may backfire. Folks need to get better at spreading the truth in a way that folks trust and understand.
Many folks on social media are calling truthful and accurate journalism propaganda. It’s okay to be knowledgeable and have an agenda/goal.
@pawsplay @PassiveIdeation @kissane a major problem I run into with trying to spread very reasonable perspectives is that some fields are inherently extremely complex when people want simple answers.
Furthermore I strongly suspect some fields are man-made so to speak and may be intentionally complex or built upon societal structures that are meant to help certain classes of people more than others. In my judgment, one such field is mainstream #Economics
Not when Right Wing Media has such an outsized influence on the electorate.
Not just Fox and other large RW media outlets; it’s the Andrew Tates and the Charley Kirks!
I think there is a lot to be said about keeping a positive mindset, but the world turns regardless of how it makes us feel
The vile things people say bother me too, but over time I found ways to not allow the vitriol to spur an emotionally charged response.
Its our individual responsibility to find ways we can catalogue the nonsense, express strongly opposing ideas, and be calloused enough to not have a meltdown every time. It's happening whether we see it or not
If there was a way to combat fascism and remain passive that'd be great. But the reality is that a far right authoritarian views the meek as an asset.
I enjoy being on a platform that isn't full of racial/homophobic/sexist slurs but when those people are completely censored and shut out of the conversation they migrate to another place to share their ideas. All the sudden those conversations don't include opposing voices and we limit the reach of rational dialogue
@tethre @kissane @PassiveIdeation
If you are traumatically stressed out by the neverending hoard of jerks in the world and are having extreme anxiety about the impending far right extremism our government will be subject to I dont think it's realistic or healthy to expect the problem can be solved with censorship.
At this point I think it's important to know our enemy, and consider the lengths a fascist will go to get rid of their enemies
Pearl clutching ain't enough to win that fight
The original topic here wasn't censorship, though. It was more like: taking into consideration the likely effects of reproducing ideas in specific contexts & frames.
For example, there's a big difference between "when you're ready, here's some things we need to be doing, here's why they're useful", & on the other hand, "here is a terrible thing, alert alert! here's another terrible thing! here's another one!"
@unchartedworlds @tethre @kissane @PassiveIdeation
"The likely effects of reproducing ideas"
Are you suggesting that merely hearing an idea is tantamount to effective promotion even in the clear context of opposition?
I would say that depends on how you define "promotion". But in a sense yes. Even if you say plainly "I disagree with this idea", you're still transmitting it onward, and you're still validating that it's legitimate discussion.
I don't have citations on hand (maybe someone else does), but I'm pretty sure this dynamic has been empirically found to be a factor in why misinformation is so hard to counter.
But that's the more general case: to loop back round, @kissane was originally pointing towards specifically "terrorizing messages":
"Yes, hate campaigns need to be discussed. Not by amplifying the messages themselves across networks rich in their targets."
It might be worth viewing the whole developing thread in a browser (because that view will get you all the public replies) for more nuance & more examples:
https://mas.to/@kissane/113459510206022015
I really try to hang out in more nuanced modes of rhetoric but: Don’t amplify psychological terrorism by repeating it in social media posts condemning it. Stop. When you do this, no matter your intent, you are helping the worst people by repeatedly exposing the intended targets to the terrorizing messages. Yes, hate campaigns need to be discussed. Not by amplifying the messages themselves across networks rich in their targets.
@unchartedworlds @kissane @tethre @PassiveIdeation
I suppose I'm really trying to drive home the idea that censorship is a preventative measure that is too little too late. It isn't a hate campaign so much as a hate administration now.
We had a chance to take preventative measures during the last 4 years and instead folks just wanted to forget it all as if it would just go away. at this point brushing the rhetoric aside to spare our feelings is going to negatively impact the resistance.
@unchartedworlds @tethre @kissane @PassiveIdeation
I think you are walking a very fine line here. It sounds an awful lot like thought policing. I firmly believe education and tireless efforts to offer opposing ideas is the best way to combat disinformation and hatred. It's also important to unmask the people behind the propaganda. This includes attribution in regards to their vile ideologies.
I get that it could sound superficially similar to censorship / "thought policing". I would invite you to seek out research on what has been proven to work in making change via communication, which is not necessarily what would seem intuitively obvious. Unfortunately I don't know all that stuff like the back of my hand to cite it, but I've read enough of it to be wary of your certainty. "I firmly believe" is different from "the evidence shows".
It doesn't sound superficially like censorship. It literally is censorship. As per definition. In fact and in evidence. I don't really care about that aspect of it though. I take umbrage with the suggestion that the spread of certain ideas result in popular support of them and if we slow the spread it will resolve the issue. I've been exposed to insane fascist propaganda and it has only strengthened my resolve against them. The evidence shows.
I don't agree that what I'm talking about can be summarised as "if we slow the spread it will resolve the issue". It's more like: spreading bad ideas can have unintended effects, so be careful about how & where you do it.
"I've been exposed to insane fascist propaganda and it has only strengthened my resolve against them."
I respect that. Just please be aware that not everyone is going to respond the same as you did.
I understand where you're coming from but I don't believe anyone can effectively combat something as dangerous as fascism with ignorance. We NEED to know our enemy. 25 years ago it would have been excusable to ignore them, but now that they have POTUS, SCOTUS, and a possible house majority it is imperative to pay close attention. I'm tired too. Exhausted. Disheartened. Done. But this is just the beginning. We NEED to toughen up and be proactive about this.
I'm asking you to think critically about your statement. "Spreading bad ideas can have unintended consequences". If that is the argument for stopping fascism then you are saying (once again) that if we stop spreading the bad idea it will not have the consequence of gaining support. I think it's literally the opposite. If we don't educate people on the subject they might be fooled into supporting the bad thing out of ignorance to the truth.
@gene_parmesan @unchartedworlds before you judge our statements, maybe get some of the calluses off of you, read them again, and for good measure, read all your replies again, too. and then tell us how this all fits together?
take a minute, sleep over it, then come back if you feel there is actually anything to add 🤷♀️
I'm adding in depth explanation for my reasoning and the best you've offered is saying you read something somewhere once but can't remember who wrote it or what it said
Are you just arguing for the sake of argument?
@gene_parmesan @unchartedworlds the depth doesn't matter if you dig besides the point, though?
either way, i'm gonna follow my own advise, and take a little social media break. take care 💜
Seems like you think I'm saying "don't mention bad ideas (e.g. fascism), & they will go away".
& you're therefore trying to explain to me "no we _need_ to mention the bad things, so as to guard against them".
What if that weren't what I was saying in the first place?
Suppose you consider the actual words in "Spreading bad ideas can have unintended consequences".
What else might I be talking about, that's quite different from "stop mentioning bad ideas & they will go away"?
Please elaborate.
What do you mean when you say we need to stop the spread of bad ideas?
And how is that any different from thought policing?
How do you believe it is possible to "stop the spread of bad ideas" without restricting access to INFORMATION about the subject in the first place?
How is censorship (restricted visibility) more effective than providing dogged education through oppositional repartee?
"What do you mean when you say we need to stop the spread of bad ideas?"
But that _isn't_ what I said.
Can you see any logical difference between
(a) "Spreading bad ideas can have unintended effects, so be careful about how & where you do it." (a thing I did say)
and
(b) "Stop the spread of bad ideas" (what you claim I said)
?
It's difficult to explain things to you when my actual statements keep getting changed around at your end.
What are the unintended consequences you keep referring to?
it's really hard to figure out what your point is here.
Youre arguing on favor of censoring the "bad ideas" by saying they can lead to consequences. And I'm arguing that censorship to such an extreme does more harm than good.
Censorship is the entire subject of this argument. So when you take that side it's implied that your supporting censorship (slowing the spread of information) .
"What are the unintended consequences you keep referring to?"
That would be a good question. But only two lines later, you're back to talking as though you already know my answer & you already know it's wrong.
Rather than me having to work through that negative climate to try to explain, how about you (re-)read what I said, what @/kissane said, & the other strands of the original thread? Like maybe before I give more, you could pick up what we already put down.
"Spreading bad ideas can have unintended consequences"
Explain what you meant. It's not that hard.
What bad ideas? What are the consequences? And what solution are you arguing for.
Enough with the shallow statements
A conversation elsewhere reminded me where I'd seen some related strategy/info, so here's a link:
https://commonslibrary.org/frame-the-debate-insights-from-dont-think-of-an-elephant/
Framing isn't the _only_ factor I was thinking of, but it's an important one.
I read what you shared, can you please explain in your own words what it says and how it aids your argument?
Here's another good one I happened upon today:
https://www.theframelab.org/twelve-communication-traps-democrats/
@gene_parmesan @PassiveIdeation "Positive mindset" nothing.
Repeating rape threats and promises of violence where their targets have to see them over and over is not a way to strengthen people's resolve, it's carrying water for the terrorists.
It manifestly does not work and people who do it should stop if they want to be useful.
(If you take criticism of your comms strategy as censorship/pearl-clutching/thought policing, maybe you could use some of that toughing up you keep advocating.)
Erin Kissane
Spare Joe
The Nexus of Privacy
Skydude
Ian Stuart
Wandering Star
🦼Exiled NYer- Connie
Jargoggles
Steve Dowden
tethre
Jennifer Moore 😷
