“A public punishment… disguised as a trifling psychic disturbance”
March 28, 2022 11:15 AM Subscribe
Writing in The New Yorker, Becca Rothfield reviews and critiques two new takes on shame and its uses and abuses, particularly in online contexts (How To Do Things With Emotions by Owen Flanagan and The Shame Machine by Cathy O’Neil): “The Shaming-Industrial Context” (archive.org)
Shame is a really powerful emotion...and incredibly hard to shed once it has its hooks in you. As someone trained to be highly susceptible to shame, even at a remove (yay for strict Christian upbringing), I've had to drastically curtail my online activities over the past few years, both reading and writing. While it sometimes feels like I'm missing out on "the conversation", I enjoy and value my mental health. It's ugly out there.
posted by mon_petit_ordinateur at 11:44 AM on March 28, 2022 [9 favorites]
posted by mon_petit_ordinateur at 11:44 AM on March 28, 2022 [9 favorites]
At least for me, it's hard to take seriously an article that brings up Justine Sacco and fails to mention that at the time of her infamous tweet, she was the head of PR for a major corporation (IAC, the holding company behind a number of online brands such as Match and Angie's List), and that it was her position which was why she was called out - that she was not randomly targeted, but was called out specifically because of her position. At least to me, that feels like a lie of omission, and a substantial one in light of the article trying to frame online shaming being a function of targeting random individuals.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:24 PM on March 28, 2022 [16 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:24 PM on March 28, 2022 [16 favorites]
I like this new sousveillance state. I truly do. It's bringing us a step closer to everyone being held to identical standards. And if you're afraid of becoming a target, well, there's probably a reason for it. Heat, kitchen, et cetera. All of which is to say, I've been a target of the mob since the day I was born, so if people are now being torn down because of things they actually did, that looks to me like a change for the good.
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:35 PM on March 28, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:35 PM on March 28, 2022 [4 favorites]
At least for me, it's hard to take seriously an article that brings up Justine Sacco and fails to mention that at the time of her infamous tweet, she was the head of PR for a major corporation
The Sacco incident is rather incidental to the piece, and a bit of an unfortunate beginning even if it’s probably the first incident many people think of for online shaming. The essay is more interesting as a criticism of how Flanagan and O’Neil succeed and fail at codifying shaming and its utility: how “shame” has become a catch-all blame for issues, and how “shame” only works as a weapon when people agree about what is shameful.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:40 PM on March 28, 2022 [7 favorites]
The Sacco incident is rather incidental to the piece, and a bit of an unfortunate beginning even if it’s probably the first incident many people think of for online shaming. The essay is more interesting as a criticism of how Flanagan and O’Neil succeed and fail at codifying shaming and its utility: how “shame” has become a catch-all blame for issues, and how “shame” only works as a weapon when people agree about what is shameful.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:40 PM on March 28, 2022 [7 favorites]
I am going to stay out of the thread, but please consider the idea, no one* really deserves many of the intensity of the methods subject.
The piece "So you've been publicly Shamed" by Jon Ronson, suggests at one point, PS goes too far: It's often too damaging, evading the overall desired effect, or causing more harm.
We'd like to people to choose to be better (or whatever descriptor) out of their own motivation.
Public shaming is 'effective,' but usually produces sketched out, humiliated people, who may be more interested in avoiding cameras, than embodying better selves or work. It's so much better to have a functioning person than a shut down person.
I do think usage of recording is totally okay/super-effective if done well/tastefully/effectively, but more intensive usage can be culturally disgusting and essentially produces worse effects, especially with potential for mob mentality. It's.. potentially a "method" that can produce vacant/needless culture or worse.
posted by firstdaffodils at 12:42 PM on March 28, 2022 [13 favorites]
The piece "So you've been publicly Shamed" by Jon Ronson, suggests at one point, PS goes too far: It's often too damaging, evading the overall desired effect, or causing more harm.
We'd like to people to choose to be better (or whatever descriptor) out of their own motivation.
Public shaming is 'effective,' but usually produces sketched out, humiliated people, who may be more interested in avoiding cameras, than embodying better selves or work. It's so much better to have a functioning person than a shut down person.
I do think usage of recording is totally okay/super-effective if done well/tastefully/effectively, but more intensive usage can be culturally disgusting and essentially produces worse effects, especially with potential for mob mentality. It's.. potentially a "method" that can produce vacant/needless culture or worse.
posted by firstdaffodils at 12:42 PM on March 28, 2022 [13 favorites]
" I've been a target of the mob since the day I was born, so if people are now being torn down because of things they actually did, that looks to me like a change for the good." Black and white thinking and I cannot advise or support processes that likely produce a damaged and/or homogenized culture. I'd suggest the methods are unnecessarily punishing and without context, can get completely and needlessly out of control. I certainly respect the viewpoint to a degree, but a "take it or leave it" stance is potentially the exact problem of context concerns and lack of placed context.
I think it should be done to a degree, but it needs way* more thought/care/progressive cultural shaping.
posted by firstdaffodils at 12:49 PM on March 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
I think it should be done to a degree, but it needs way* more thought/care/progressive cultural shaping.
posted by firstdaffodils at 12:49 PM on March 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
The problem with shame in the internet age is that the internet as it currently exists is really bad for social action in several specific ways: internet mobs are pretty terrible at judging people fairly, and social media exists in this semi-public space where we can either calibrate our speech for high-risk, low-context interaction (like making a press release), or low-risk, high-context interaction (like making jokes to a friend in private). This is a very difficult task because the firehose of the internet's attention can be cruel, stupid, and completely overwhelming. Social media companies, by choosing to have the algorithms and follow/retweet/etc structure that they do, arbitrage that gap to harvest attention in the form of outrage for profit (among other forms of attention).
O'Neil's point that social media companies thrive off of and actively encourage this kind of content isn't that new but the link to shame is insightful. Lately I keep noticing how much of Reddit's front page is driven by shame -- from r/trashy to idiots in cars to the million cringe-related offshoots. It's kind of crazy how much attention we give bad behavior, and I'm not sure if it's incentivizing it or disincentivizing it.
Faint of Butt, the problem with "if people are now being torn down because of things they actually did" is that, again, the internet is really bad medium for both the adjudication and the sentencing. Just look at how mob justice comes differently for men vs women. It's kind of a new thing that (either gender) can lose their jobs; but women have been facing brigading and harassment since the day of the internet. I think we should strive for actual justice for all, not just pitchforks for all.
posted by ropeladder at 12:51 PM on March 28, 2022 [18 favorites]
O'Neil's point that social media companies thrive off of and actively encourage this kind of content isn't that new but the link to shame is insightful. Lately I keep noticing how much of Reddit's front page is driven by shame -- from r/trashy to idiots in cars to the million cringe-related offshoots. It's kind of crazy how much attention we give bad behavior, and I'm not sure if it's incentivizing it or disincentivizing it.
Faint of Butt, the problem with "if people are now being torn down because of things they actually did" is that, again, the internet is really bad medium for both the adjudication and the sentencing. Just look at how mob justice comes differently for men vs women. It's kind of a new thing that (either gender) can lose their jobs; but women have been facing brigading and harassment since the day of the internet. I think we should strive for actual justice for all, not just pitchforks for all.
posted by ropeladder at 12:51 PM on March 28, 2022 [18 favorites]
*"no one* really deserves many of the intensity of the methods subject.." *"no one* really deserves many of the intense methods shown in this subject."
I would say recordings/showings are extremely effective and can be worked tastefully, to great standards. ..many people don't wish to make efforts to actually create progressive or graceful approaches, then create so much more damage than necessary.
In my own experiences, I think it can be exceptionally repulsive and often primes others for negative expectations within a person who may ordinarily otherwise have very positive behaviors. It also potentially destroys room for "play" in recurring situations. (There is a study somewhere, suggesting instructors view a student's private record *halfway through the year (aside essential details), not at the beginning, to give the student a chance to act in a new environment, (a step they psychologically need), instead of potentially applying the same expectations to the student every year, so they continue to be set up for failure.
Recording culture produces a micro, media-tized version of the above.
I've gone over a thousand ways for a more humane approach in my mind.
posted by firstdaffodils at 1:03 PM on March 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
I would say recordings/showings are extremely effective and can be worked tastefully, to great standards. ..many people don't wish to make efforts to actually create progressive or graceful approaches, then create so much more damage than necessary.
In my own experiences, I think it can be exceptionally repulsive and often primes others for negative expectations within a person who may ordinarily otherwise have very positive behaviors. It also potentially destroys room for "play" in recurring situations. (There is a study somewhere, suggesting instructors view a student's private record *halfway through the year (aside essential details), not at the beginning, to give the student a chance to act in a new environment, (a step they psychologically need), instead of potentially applying the same expectations to the student every year, so they continue to be set up for failure.
Recording culture produces a micro, media-tized version of the above.
I've gone over a thousand ways for a more humane approach in my mind.
posted by firstdaffodils at 1:03 PM on March 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
Lately I keep noticing how much of Reddit's front page is driven by shame
I also think it's of a different intensity on different forums. Over the last two years on Reddit I've gotten into a couple of flame wars with tankies, who have been an influx from higher traffic subs by pseudoleftist reactionaries to the handful of low traffic, academically focused leftist subs that I've joined for years, and these new people have tried to shame me with talking points like "You are really a crypto fascist". I was tempted to call them the leftist analog of incels in response, which I basically think they are, but I won't stoop to that. These small subs don't have enough mod power to handle this new brigading, so the old people have left and the subs have seriously declined in content quality especially over the last two years. I'm still there, and seeing the occasional
new college student or curious person having questions about what academic books to read which is always heartening.
But compared to a social media site like Metafilter where shaming and ad hominem behavior also happen, my experience on Reddit has been different for a number of reasons. On Reddit, the users I'll almost never encounter again, so I can take their bad faith and poor behavior not so personally. There's also less expectation on user comment quality as well as moderation quality, so it's not as unexpected. The threading structure keeps unconstructive fights contained, and many just "resolve" to the extent that they fizzle out on the part of the users. Lots of other factors overall meaning that while Reddit is a large site with serious issues and questions of admin direction (they needed to quarantine a well-known tankie sub last week, my reaction was of joy and hope, that it would help the sane, small subs over the long run), counterintuitively the experience of using it is less shame intense between users due to the open nature of the site. Shame and toxicity has a big structural component and so on different platforms it has different causes, forms, and effects.
posted by polymodus at 1:32 PM on March 28, 2022 [3 favorites]
I also think it's of a different intensity on different forums. Over the last two years on Reddit I've gotten into a couple of flame wars with tankies, who have been an influx from higher traffic subs by pseudoleftist reactionaries to the handful of low traffic, academically focused leftist subs that I've joined for years, and these new people have tried to shame me with talking points like "You are really a crypto fascist". I was tempted to call them the leftist analog of incels in response, which I basically think they are, but I won't stoop to that. These small subs don't have enough mod power to handle this new brigading, so the old people have left and the subs have seriously declined in content quality especially over the last two years. I'm still there, and seeing the occasional
new college student or curious person having questions about what academic books to read which is always heartening.
But compared to a social media site like Metafilter where shaming and ad hominem behavior also happen, my experience on Reddit has been different for a number of reasons. On Reddit, the users I'll almost never encounter again, so I can take their bad faith and poor behavior not so personally. There's also less expectation on user comment quality as well as moderation quality, so it's not as unexpected. The threading structure keeps unconstructive fights contained, and many just "resolve" to the extent that they fizzle out on the part of the users. Lots of other factors overall meaning that while Reddit is a large site with serious issues and questions of admin direction (they needed to quarantine a well-known tankie sub last week, my reaction was of joy and hope, that it would help the sane, small subs over the long run), counterintuitively the experience of using it is less shame intense between users due to the open nature of the site. Shame and toxicity has a big structural component and so on different platforms it has different causes, forms, and effects.
posted by polymodus at 1:32 PM on March 28, 2022 [3 favorites]
The people who truly deserve to be publicly shamed and castigated - that is, the Putins, Trumps and Bolsonaros of the world, or the Koch brothers - are either immune or feed off it. Trump, especially, seems to have absolutely no sense of shame.
posted by jb at 2:01 PM on March 28, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by jb at 2:01 PM on March 28, 2022 [5 favorites]
Rule #1, never be the guest star on Twitter.
I've gone viral 3 or 4 times, always for silly stuff and never for anything damaging to me or anybody else. There is no logic to how Twitter picks its daily guest stars, and I'm sure most of the time the "stars" never thought more than 20 of their 20 followers would ever see the tweet. This is also partly why I auto delete my Tweets after 14 days, reduces but doesn't eliminate the possibility something comes back in a new context that wasn't relevant X years ago when I made the tweet.
posted by COD at 2:10 PM on March 28, 2022 [3 favorites]
I've gone viral 3 or 4 times, always for silly stuff and never for anything damaging to me or anybody else. There is no logic to how Twitter picks its daily guest stars, and I'm sure most of the time the "stars" never thought more than 20 of their 20 followers would ever see the tweet. This is also partly why I auto delete my Tweets after 14 days, reduces but doesn't eliminate the possibility something comes back in a new context that wasn't relevant X years ago when I made the tweet.
posted by COD at 2:10 PM on March 28, 2022 [3 favorites]
And if you're afraid of becoming a target, well, there's probably a reason for it. Heat, kitchen, et cetera. All of which is to say, I've been a target of the mob since the day I was born, so if people are now being torn down because of things they actually did, that looks to me like a change for the good.
It seems a bit optimistic to think that the mob will stop targeting you, though, or restrain itself to things a person has actually done. Mobs are historically pretty shitty at justice.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 2:40 PM on March 28, 2022 [7 favorites]
It seems a bit optimistic to think that the mob will stop targeting you, though, or restrain itself to things a person has actually done. Mobs are historically pretty shitty at justice.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 2:40 PM on March 28, 2022 [7 favorites]
One term often used for mob mentality is "deindividuation." Mobs reach a height where they become reckless or people lose their sense of individual or critical thinking.
posted by firstdaffodils at 3:00 PM on March 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by firstdaffodils at 3:00 PM on March 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
I haven't read either of these books. The O'Niel one sounds really interesting. (I think I'll pass on the first one, unless someone makes a better case for it here than the article does.)
I am often disappointed between the equivalence that's made between deserved public shame and undeserved shame in these discussions. Ronson's So You've Been Publicly Shamed did this terribly - equating a career of plagiarism and unethical professional behavior (Jonah Lehrer) with someone who took one silly photo at the Arlington National Cemetery and shared it with a few friends. That they both received public scorn doesn't make them the same.
posted by eotvos at 3:03 PM on March 28, 2022 [7 favorites]
I am often disappointed between the equivalence that's made between deserved public shame and undeserved shame in these discussions. Ronson's So You've Been Publicly Shamed did this terribly - equating a career of plagiarism and unethical professional behavior (Jonah Lehrer) with someone who took one silly photo at the Arlington National Cemetery and shared it with a few friends. That they both received public scorn doesn't make them the same.
posted by eotvos at 3:03 PM on March 28, 2022 [7 favorites]
I am often disappointed by the hyperbolic metaphors of those who speak out against shame. "Excommunication", "punishment", "bloodhounds", "mobs". This article leads with the specific example of Sacco without engaging with her present circumstances in a way that simply assumes her professional life has been totally ruined after losing that one job almost a decade ago.
Additionally, the specific quote of "He admits that shame has too often been conscripted as a weapon against the oppressed—as when women and queer people have been encouraged to suppress their sexual impulses. Nonetheless,(emphasis mine)"
reminds me of the Lauren Hough thread from several days ago. What could be an easier rhetorical tack to take to silence individual complaints than to ignore them and focus on the abstraction of the irrational mob and its unjust punishment?
posted by Earthtopus at 3:39 PM on March 28, 2022 [4 favorites]
Additionally, the specific quote of "He admits that shame has too often been conscripted as a weapon against the oppressed—as when women and queer people have been encouraged to suppress their sexual impulses. Nonetheless,(emphasis mine)"
reminds me of the Lauren Hough thread from several days ago. What could be an easier rhetorical tack to take to silence individual complaints than to ignore them and focus on the abstraction of the irrational mob and its unjust punishment?
posted by Earthtopus at 3:39 PM on March 28, 2022 [4 favorites]
The Sacco incident is rather incidental to the piece, and a bit of an unfortunate beginning even if it’s probably the first incident many people think of for online shaming.
Then why bring it up - and even worse, why lie about it? The fact that the author leaves out those key points about the incident undermines the piece by bringing their credibility into question right from the start. It's not an "unfortunate beginning", it's the author engaging in deception, which is a great way to cut a piece's feet right out from under it.
I am often disappointed by the hyperbolic metaphors of those who speak out against shame. "Excommunication", "punishment", "bloodhounds", "mobs".
I think that comes from people who normally wouldn't have been on the receiving end of shame for their conduct suddenly facing it. If you're used to being able to dismiss concerns with "it's just a joke", people taking that seriously and holding you accountable probably feels like being attacked by a mob. But the thing here is that depending on what is happening, this can really feel like another version of "to the privileged, equality feels like oppression."
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:11 PM on March 28, 2022 [7 favorites]
Then why bring it up - and even worse, why lie about it? The fact that the author leaves out those key points about the incident undermines the piece by bringing their credibility into question right from the start. It's not an "unfortunate beginning", it's the author engaging in deception, which is a great way to cut a piece's feet right out from under it.
I am often disappointed by the hyperbolic metaphors of those who speak out against shame. "Excommunication", "punishment", "bloodhounds", "mobs".
I think that comes from people who normally wouldn't have been on the receiving end of shame for their conduct suddenly facing it. If you're used to being able to dismiss concerns with "it's just a joke", people taking that seriously and holding you accountable probably feels like being attacked by a mob. But the thing here is that depending on what is happening, this can really feel like another version of "to the privileged, equality feels like oppression."
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:11 PM on March 28, 2022 [7 favorites]
Additionally, the specific quote of “He admits that shame has too often been conscripted as a weapon against the oppressed—as when women and queer people have been encouraged to suppress their sexual impulses. Nonetheless, (emphasis mine)”
reminds me of the Lauren Hough thread from several days ago. What could be an easier rhetorical tack to take to silence individual complaints than to ignore them and focus on the abstraction of the irrational mob and its unjust punishment?
I’m not quite parsing your sentence here. Are you arguing that Rothfeld is badly glossing over Flanagan’s argument by diminishing the real benefits of the campaign against Weinstein relative to abstract concerns about encouragement to suppress sexual impulses, or that Flanagan is minimizing broad abstract harms to women and queer folks in order to emphasize the benefit of deploying shame against powerful individuals?
posted by Going To Maine at 4:42 PM on March 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
reminds me of the Lauren Hough thread from several days ago. What could be an easier rhetorical tack to take to silence individual complaints than to ignore them and focus on the abstraction of the irrational mob and its unjust punishment?
I’m not quite parsing your sentence here. Are you arguing that Rothfeld is badly glossing over Flanagan’s argument by diminishing the real benefits of the campaign against Weinstein relative to abstract concerns about encouragement to suppress sexual impulses, or that Flanagan is minimizing broad abstract harms to women and queer folks in order to emphasize the benefit of deploying shame against powerful individuals?
posted by Going To Maine at 4:42 PM on March 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
No, I'm musing more generally on the bothsidesy rhetorical construction that seems to boil down to "punching down is bad, but," that also proliferated in that discussion. Apologies if that's better left for metatalk.
posted by Earthtopus at 5:10 PM on March 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by Earthtopus at 5:10 PM on March 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
I don’t think if anything needs metatalking here! Comments about the article should surely go in the thread about the article. IMO, the article is a bit hazey here - Rothfield doesn’t seem to like Flanagan’s argument, but hasn’t the space (or a ready counterargument?) to give it a more detailed opposition.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:46 PM on March 28, 2022
posted by Going To Maine at 5:46 PM on March 28, 2022
“guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” — the gun lobby.
This thread reminds me that certain entities profit from the shaming regardless of target. Thank you Going to Maine.
I hope that topic is one we can navigate without tearing each other to bits over how much shame is good or how effective shame can be, or shaming MFers as target practice over target acquisition/lack thereof.
posted by drowsy at 3:56 AM on March 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
This thread reminds me that certain entities profit from the shaming regardless of target. Thank you Going to Maine.
I hope that topic is one we can navigate without tearing each other to bits over how much shame is good or how effective shame can be, or shaming MFers as target practice over target acquisition/lack thereof.
posted by drowsy at 3:56 AM on March 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
"and that it was her position which was why she was called out-" (Nox, regarding Sacco) Can you elaborate on this please?
Last note: I do not* think Ronsons piece is a mastery, articulating media/shame/culture: It's a pop piece that could act as an initiator to deeper interests. Some of the links in this thread have in many senses, much deeper value. I do think Ronson does well to give a basic framework and draw interest. I did see areas in the book that were really "soft," or conflicting.
posted by firstdaffodils at 9:00 AM on March 29, 2022
Last note: I do not* think Ronsons piece is a mastery, articulating media/shame/culture: It's a pop piece that could act as an initiator to deeper interests. Some of the links in this thread have in many senses, much deeper value. I do think Ronson does well to give a basic framework and draw interest. I did see areas in the book that were really "soft," or conflicting.
posted by firstdaffodils at 9:00 AM on March 29, 2022
"and that it was her position which was why she was called out-" (Nox, regarding Sacco) Can you elaborate on this please?
Sacco wasn't randomly picked for attention over her tweet - Valleywag editor Sam Biddle called the tweet out specifically because she was IAC's PR head.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:06 AM on March 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
Sacco wasn't randomly picked for attention over her tweet - Valleywag editor Sam Biddle called the tweet out specifically because she was IAC's PR head.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:06 AM on March 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
Also, given that Ronson gave anonymity and treated as a victim the man who siced Hacker News on Adria Richards for having the temerity for pointing out that his sexualized joking at a professional conference was unacceptable, leading to the abuse she recieved, he can fuck off.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:10 AM on March 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:10 AM on March 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
Nox, I noted that in the book, too (on Richards.. awkward section to read thru.) I don't know if you read it, but those are totally valid points. I have more empathy for Sacco, as I don't think the intensity of her situation was warranted. It could've been done differently.
posted by firstdaffodils at 9:27 AM on March 29, 2022
posted by firstdaffodils at 9:27 AM on March 29, 2022
And they can choose not to do that, a possibility the existence of which it seems increasingly difficult to convince anybody.
There are a lot of jobs out there that now essentially require online presence. Which books get published, media jobs, marketing, communications, film. I've read (bad) advice about checking job candidates' social media feeds in areas that you wouldn't think of it as well, like fitness. One of the things I love about my current job is that it's not one of them but I do know if I were trying to get back into media I'd have to invest in my social media for about 6 months and be smart about it.
posted by warriorqueen at 10:46 AM on March 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
There are a lot of jobs out there that now essentially require online presence. Which books get published, media jobs, marketing, communications, film. I've read (bad) advice about checking job candidates' social media feeds in areas that you wouldn't think of it as well, like fitness. One of the things I love about my current job is that it's not one of them but I do know if I were trying to get back into media I'd have to invest in my social media for about 6 months and be smart about it.
posted by warriorqueen at 10:46 AM on March 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
There's a difference between an occupational hazard/necessity for particular professions and a comprehensive "sousveillance state".
Agreed, but the idea that individuals can avoid social media is ignoring the presence it's becoming in the system. LinkedIn, for example, is a requirement for way more jobs than I listed and it is nominally a social media site.
And people make choices of career or job based on hazards and costs all the time.
Sure. I started my first job in media in 1999, working on a website that combined editorial and forums with some use of ICQ, and then I moved to editorial-only in 2003. However, even though we used a lot of online tools, there was no requirement to do so. By the time I left in 2015, interns were being sorted for their pay-your-dues roles by their number of combined followers.
posted by warriorqueen at 11:55 AM on March 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
Agreed, but the idea that individuals can avoid social media is ignoring the presence it's becoming in the system. LinkedIn, for example, is a requirement for way more jobs than I listed and it is nominally a social media site.
And people make choices of career or job based on hazards and costs all the time.
Sure. I started my first job in media in 1999, working on a website that combined editorial and forums with some use of ICQ, and then I moved to editorial-only in 2003. However, even though we used a lot of online tools, there was no requirement to do so. By the time I left in 2015, interns were being sorted for their pay-your-dues roles by their number of combined followers.
posted by warriorqueen at 11:55 AM on March 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
And people make choices of career or job based on hazards and costs all the time.
People who think you can just be totally safe if you are just smart enough to not HAVE a TV -- I mean a social media presence -- seem to be forgetting that everyone is walking around with an internet-connected video camera 24/7. Whether you end up on social media is no longer entirely up to you at all.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 12:13 PM on March 29, 2022 [5 favorites]
People who think you can just be totally safe if you are just smart enough to not HAVE a TV -- I mean a social media presence -- seem to be forgetting that everyone is walking around with an internet-connected video camera 24/7. Whether you end up on social media is no longer entirely up to you at all.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 12:13 PM on March 29, 2022 [5 favorites]
I have more empathy for Sacco, as I don't think the intensity of her situation was warranted. It could've been done differently.
I agree she didn't deserve the abuse she recieved, but I also feel that's more about how utterly misogynistic our society is and that there are people who will seize on any opportunity to abuse a woman. That said, the fact that she lost her job for putting out a rather racist tweet is something that I don't find problematic, both from the standpoint of the racist tweet as well as the "this is the opposite of your job" aspect.
There are a lot of people who have internalized the idea that the marginalized should just accept the societal radiation of systemic bigotry aimed at them for the "greater good", and thus start looking for the fainting couches when the marginalized start demanding accountability for the people abusing them.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:21 PM on March 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
I agree she didn't deserve the abuse she recieved, but I also feel that's more about how utterly misogynistic our society is and that there are people who will seize on any opportunity to abuse a woman. That said, the fact that she lost her job for putting out a rather racist tweet is something that I don't find problematic, both from the standpoint of the racist tweet as well as the "this is the opposite of your job" aspect.
There are a lot of people who have internalized the idea that the marginalized should just accept the societal radiation of systemic bigotry aimed at them for the "greater good", and thus start looking for the fainting couches when the marginalized start demanding accountability for the people abusing them.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:21 PM on March 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
"That said, the fact that she lost her job for putting out a rather racist tweet is something that I don't find problematic, both from the standpoint of the racist tweet as well as the "this is the opposite of your job" aspect." My understanding had been that Sacco hadn't published a racist tweet, but a tongue and cheek commentary on white superiority- she isn't racist and it genuinely seemed so. However, publishing the tone of the comment had been super risqué without any context. I also slightly suspected Ronson of including the bit about Richards to lend a perspective to certain audiences, but this is nuanced and may be personal perspective.
If someone is publishing racist material online, then yeah, they can do something else awhile.
posted by firstdaffodils at 12:43 PM on March 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
If someone is publishing racist material online, then yeah, they can do something else awhile.
posted by firstdaffodils at 12:43 PM on March 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
My understanding had been that Sacco hadn't published a racist tweet, but a tongue and cheek commentary on white superiority- she isn't racist and it genuinely seemed so.
As one of our own famously put it, the failure mode of "clever" is "asshole". I get that she may have intended it to be sarcastic commentary, but given the lack of context, it's not surprising people saw it as racist, as well as it further feeding into "this is the opposite of your job." (It also didn't help that she tried the "it's your fault for misunderstanding me" tack initially.)
As for Ronson, I don't really care why he added the part about Richards - the fact that he chose to protect her abuser pretty much undercuts his work.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:28 PM on March 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
As one of our own famously put it, the failure mode of "clever" is "asshole". I get that she may have intended it to be sarcastic commentary, but given the lack of context, it's not surprising people saw it as racist, as well as it further feeding into "this is the opposite of your job." (It also didn't help that she tried the "it's your fault for misunderstanding me" tack initially.)
As for Ronson, I don't really care why he added the part about Richards - the fact that he chose to protect her abuser pretty much undercuts his work.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:28 PM on March 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
"(It also didn't help that she tried the "it's your fault for misunderstanding me" tack initially.)" I caught that and thought, "Miss, that's not the direction you really want with what you just said-"
posted by firstdaffodils at 2:04 PM on March 29, 2022
posted by firstdaffodils at 2:04 PM on March 29, 2022
I don't know why people are so worried about Fox News, I don't even *have* a TV
posted by CrystalDave at 2:55 PM on March 29, 2022
posted by CrystalDave at 2:55 PM on March 29, 2022
Whether you end up on social media is no longer entirely up to you at all.
True. But it makes it easier to go unnoticed if you post things on unpopular/old websites, compared to tweeting or other social media. Literally less people see it to get offended. I can think of old school bloggers who have been around since the 90's or whatever and if they're not all over social media as well, who cares what they blog now? Very few people are reading it to see it and certainly aren't sharing it or waiting for an update in their feed.
But yeah, it only takes one to (a) see it and (b) decide to tweet your anything, for you to go down.
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:33 PM on March 29, 2022
True. But it makes it easier to go unnoticed if you post things on unpopular/old websites, compared to tweeting or other social media. Literally less people see it to get offended. I can think of old school bloggers who have been around since the 90's or whatever and if they're not all over social media as well, who cares what they blog now? Very few people are reading it to see it and certainly aren't sharing it or waiting for an update in their feed.
But yeah, it only takes one to (a) see it and (b) decide to tweet your anything, for you to go down.
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:33 PM on March 29, 2022
« Older Grimoires and Gematria and Giggles, oh my | toys that became real Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
To TL;DR: social media has created a new kind of surveillance/sousveilance state where we're all monitoring each other for awful behavior. Social media operates on creating content and engagement, and it takes our daily activities and turns them into something for everyone else to consume and react to—divorced of context, and those reactions wind up as part of that content grist mill for more reactions. Takes on takes on takes on takes.
Sometimes the people that this sousveilance state turns on are people who deserve it, but all too often, it's just some rando who made a bad tweet or several, not expecting it to blow up. There's no real way to tell, but the nature of social media makes it so that anything and anyone could, potentially, be in the barrel for the day.
posted by SansPoint at 11:27 AM on March 28, 2022 [8 favorites]