We Live in Fear of the Online Mobs
James Damore, the author of the notorious Google memo , has had his 15 minutes of fame. In six months, few of us will be able to remember his name. But Google will remember -- not the company, but the search engine. For the rest of his life, every time he meets someone new or applies for a job, the first thing they will learn about him, and probably the only thing, is that he wrote a document that caused an internet uproar.
The internet did not invent the public relations disaster, or the summary firing to make said disaster go away. What the internet changed is the scale of the disasters, and the number of people who are vulnerable to them, and the cold implacable permanence of the wreckage they leave behind.
Try to imagine the Damore story happening 20 years ago. It’s nearly impossible, isn’t it? Take a company of similar scope and power to Google -- Microsoft, say. Would any reporter in 1997 have cared that some Microsoft engineer she’d never heard of had written a memo his co-workers considered sexist? Probably not. It was more likely a problem for Microsoft HR, or just angry water-cooler conversations.
Even if the reporter had cared, what editor would have run the story? On an executive, absolutely -- but a random engineer who had no power over corporate policy? No one would have wasted precious, expensive column inches reporting it. And if for some reason they had, no other papers would have picked it up. Maybe the engineer would have been fired, maybe not, but he’d have gotten another job, having probably learned to be a little more careful about what he said to co-workers.
Compare to what has happened in this internet era: The memo became public, and the internet erupted against the author, quite publicly executing his economic and social prospects. I doubt Damore will ever again be employable at anything resembling his old salary and status. (Unless maybe a supporter hires him to make a political statement.)
This kind of private coercion is not entirely new, of course. Community outrage cost plenty of people their jobs or their businesses in the old days. But those were local scandals. Rarely would someone's notoriety follow them if they moved to another city.
Over time more and more people have suffered national stigma that outlasts their 15 minutes of fame. Cable news accelerated this: Think of Monica Lewinsky in 1998. The internet transformed the degree of scrutiny, the extent of its reach, and the shelf life of the scandal, so much as to make it different not just in degree, but in kind.
Whenever a new form of power arises, we need to think about how to safeguard individual liberty against it.
In the early days of Twitter, I used to say that it was a bit like I imagined living in a forager band to be: You were immersed in a constant stream of conversation from the people you knew.
Ten years later, I still think that’s the right metaphor, but not in the way that I meant it then. Back then I saw Twitter as a tool for building social bonds. These days, I see it as a tool for social coercion.
Forager bands do not have or need police. They have social coercion so powerful that it is just as effective as a gun to the head. If people don’t like you, they might not take care of you when you’re injured, at which point, you’ll die. Or they won’t share food with you when your hunting doesn’t go well, at which point, you’ll die. Or they’ll shun you, at which point … you get the idea.
We now effectively live in a forager band filled with people we don’t know. It's like the world’s biggest small town, replete with all the things that mid-century writers hated about small-town life: the constant gossip, the prying into your neighbor’s business, the small quarrels that blow up into lifelong feuds. We’ve replicated all of the worst features of those communities without any of the saving graces, like the mercy that one human being naturally offers another when you’re face to face and can see their suffering.
And, of course, you can't move away. There’s only one internet, and we’re all stuck here for the rest of our lives.
Private coercion starts looking less and less like a necessary, if sometimes regrettably deployed, tool of local community-building. Without the tempering instincts of intimate contact, without the ability to exit, it looks a lot more like brute, impersonal government coercion -- the sort that the earliest and highest U.S. laws were written to restrain.
Given the way the internet is transforming private coercion, I’m not sure we can maintain the hard, bright line that classical liberalism drew between state coercion and private versions. We may have to start talking about two kinds of problematic coercion:
- Government coercion, which is still the worst, because it is backed up with guns, but is also the most readily addressed because we have a legal framework to limit government power.
- Mass private coercion, which even if not quite as bad, still needs to have safeguards put in place to protect individual liberty. But we have no legal or social framework for those.
I find myself in more and more conversations that sound as if we’re living in one of the later-stage Communist regimes. Not the ones that shot people, but the ones that discovered you didn’t need to shoot dissidents, as long as you could make them pariahs -- no job, no apartment, no one willing to be seen talking to them in public.
The people I have these conversations with are terrified that something they say will inadvertently offend the self-appointed powers-that-be. They’re afraid that their email will be hacked, and stray snippets will make them the next one in the internet stocks. They’re worried that some opinion they hold now will unexpectedly be declared anathema, forcing them to issue a humiliating public recantation, or risk losing their friends and their livelihood.
Social media mobs are not, of course, as pervasive and terrifying as the Communist Party spies. But the Soviet Union is no more, and the mobs are very much with us, so it’s their power we need to think about.
That power keeps growing, as does the number of subjects they want to declare off-limits to discussion. And unless it is checked, where does it lead? To something depressingly like the old Communist states: a place where your true opinions about anything more important than tea cozies are only ever aired to a tiny circle of highly trusted friends; where all statements made to or by the people outside that circle are assumed by everyone to be lies; where almost every conversation is a guessing game that both sides lose. It is one element of Margaret Atwood's "A Handmaid's Tale" that does resonate today : Any two acquaintances must remain so mutually suspicious that every day, they can discuss only the pleasant weather and their common fealty to the regime.
It’s some comfort that the social media mobs don’t have guns. But that raises the most troubling question of all: how to disarm them.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Tags
Who is online
78 visitors
"I find myself in more and more conversations that sound as if we’re living in one of the later-stage Communist regimes. Not the ones that shot people, but the ones that discovered you didn’t need to shoot dissidents, as long as you could make them pariahs -- no job, no apartment, no one willing to be seen talking to them in public."
Well done Megan
Great article.
You people sure do live in a lot of fear. I guess that explains why so much of what we read from you is panicky, over-blown, histrionic and, by definition, anxiety-driven. Fear-based decision making is pretty much the worst base for decision making. And so much of it is comically displaced. You still see commies everywhere but we've got a certifiably mentally ill man as president right now and you seem to have no problem at all with that. Just fucking weird.
There's an old saying: If a man tells you what he is, believe him.
Will this brand new Hillary Clinton ad sway the election?
Nope.
(Next question...?)
About Damore: I thought you conservies and libertarianies were all about private companies being free to hire and fire anyone they want. Do you now have another view about that? I've read one of your really bright lights thinks Google should be subjected to government control after this firing....of course, it would be a rightwing government.
You people sure do live in a lot of fear. I guess that explains why so much of what we read from you is panicky, over-blown, histrionic and, by definition, anxiety-driven.
You mean like when ESPN was petrified of an announcer named Robert Lee announcing the UV football game?
You mean like when ESPN was petrified of an announcer named Robert Lee announcing the UV football game?
Yeah, I personally think that was the stupidest move I've ever heard. Have you read ESPN's explanation for it? Apparently they thought that Lee would be subjected to threats and that even Lee himself thought it would be a good idea. It sure didn't come from any protest about him doing. No one would have ever known about it had ESPN not publicized it so much. In any case, a really weak example if you thought you'd found a nut.
I thought you conservies and libertarianies were all about private companies being free to hire and fire anyone they want.
For their opinions?
For their opinions?
For undermining company policy and morale. Damore made a bone-head move sending that opinion out to the entire company email chain. It's like he wanted to stir up trouble. He did and he got bit by it. This guy's clearly one of those techies who thinks he outshines the sun and wanted everyone to know it. See how fast he ran to rightwing sites to get publicity afterward. You guys sure pick pricks for your "heroes." Don't think we've forgotten how you lavished praise on the uber-scumbag, and now convict, Martin Skreli.
Who knew the US political right were such flower petals?
Who knew the US political right were such flower petals?
It was pretty obvious to me about 10 seconds after I went on my first discussion site.
Who knew the US political right were such flower petals?
We're all flower petals. I think that's part of what the author is trying to say. We're misusing the internet and getting caught up in highlighting issues that don't deserve a national platform. Using the ex-google employee as an example was a good way to put things into context. This man will be impacted by a single act he did for many years going forward. As the author rightly points out, had this happened 20 odd years ago the employee may have been counseled or let go without much fan fare but more importantly with the ability to learn from the experience and grow without damaging his chances of getting another job. Now he has this stigma attached to him for who knows how long.
I'm not sure what was going through his mind when he wrote the memo. Maybe he had just finished watching Jerry Maquire and felt inspired to shake things up. I don't think google handled this situation well. Personally I didn't think it was such a big deal. Who cares what this dude thinks about what women can and cannot do.
We're all flower petals. I think that's part of what the author is trying to say.
Exactly PJ. This goes beyond politics.
I bet the Soviet Commissars were pretty happy with the freedom of speech in Russia and didn't see an issue either.
IF corporations were firing people for saying affirmative action is a good idea, or supporting planned parenthood, we all know you and your fellow travelers would be screaming bloody murder from the rooftops.
But since your side is wielding the whip, you can afford to be be blase.
IF corporations were firing people for saying affirmative action is a good idea, or supporting planned parenthood, we all know you and your fellow travelers would be screaming bloody murder from the rooftops.
But since your side is wielding the whip, you can afford to be be blase.
Sean, in truth, no one knows what each company's core environment is hiring on. In NY's financial industry, they are actually very conservative. So if you go for a job interview and they read your facebook/ tweets/ instagrams is very political and liberal, you are not getting that job, even if you said you voted Republican in your last 10 elections. btw.. they do that very sneakily on interviews. Most of the time, you don't even know the question was asked and answered.
IF they are doing that, it's obviously both stupid and wrong. Also, they aren't doing a very good job of it either given the millions of dollars financial industry employees donated to Democrats last cycle.
But certainly the potential for abuse exists on both sides and putting that genie back in the bottle seems impossible.
Have you read ESPN's explanation for it? Apparently they thought that Lee would be subjected to threats and that even Lee himself thought it would be a good idea.
Ya, and I'm not buying a word of that. They told Lee what to do and he did it. ESPN was once strickly a sports station. It has become more & more political
We now effectively live in a forager band filled with people we don’t know. It's like the world’s biggest small town, replete with all the things that mid-century writers hated about small-town life: the constant gossip, the prying into your neighbor’s business, the small quarrels that blow up into lifelong feuds. We’ve replicated all of the worst features of those communities without any of the saving graces, like the mercy that one human being naturally offers another when you’re face to face and can see their suffering.
The author articulates how social media and the internet are impacting us using an analogy that most people can easily comprehend. Great article, great find! Now, if we only could figure out how to combat the negative while still harnessing the greatness of the internet.
For undermining company policy and morale.
If you read his actual opinion piece, you would know that he actually agrees with Googles progressive policies. He is no hero to me, but Google is a concern - they control information
If you read his actual opinion piece, you would know that he actually agrees with Googles progressive policies.
The more I learn about him the bigger idiot he seems. Maybe that's the real reason he was fired.
Now, if we only could figure out how to combat the negative while still harnessing the greatness of the internet.
You've got it
I'm going to disagree about that Atheist. I think the fear is very real and very tangible. Let me tell you a personal tale.
7 years ago, long before the histrionics of today, my daughters' high school put on a presentation about the ins and outs of getting into college. One of the first thing the school counselor said was to "cleanse" their Facebook and MySpace (remember them) accounts, of anything that a university would look at disfavorably. This included talking about sex, drugs, drinking, harassment of fellow classmates, bullying, etc. At that time, we suggested to our daughters to take a long hard look at their facebook accounts and clean up any of the suggested material. My girls checked and felt they were clean and all went as expected.
But a few of their friends, who had on going feuds with other people, and a few who talked a bit too much about getting drunk and doing drugs, got met with loads of rejection letters. These were smart students who should have gotten into any school they wanted. The only thing different from my girls, was their very scandalous Facebook accounts.
One of their girlfriends pleaded to my daughters to find out why (unnamed school where my father in law was among the acceptance committee), she was rejected and if she could get a second chance. Turned out it was indeed her facebook account, just as the counselor warned them in their junior year and no, there would be no second chance. How sad a lesson to learn by one so young.
Now this is 7 years ago. People were not tweeting like they are doing now. There was no instagram.
I often warn people be mindful about what you put out there on NT. That once it's out in the cyberworld, it is out of your control and can be used against you. I have even counseled people to remove content that I think is damaging. Of course these are adults and they can do what they want.. some have taken my advice, others not.
My bottom line is that I do think that this article is very valid. Of course, many of you go by psynonyms. I do not. So I must be accountable for everything I bang out behind the screen. But that doesn't mean you are invincible behind a screen name. One trip to the darknet will tell you that, and really all they need is an IP to know who you are and that is as easy to get as pinging your computer.
Well, that's my two cents..
Perrie......it is worth ten cents. I have told my grandson the same thing. Once it is out there it is forever. I hope he takes my advice.
BTW.....what is the darknet.
Mags,
I hope so, too. We were shocked at how far back universities look. Same thing will apply to jobs later. My daughter's boyfriend doesn't even have a facebook account for this reason and she still posts very carefully.
I don't do any social media. NT is my only interaction with unknowns. Wait, I do a bridge site with no personal interaction.
What is the darknet, pls?
What is the darknet, pls?
I'm sorry I missed this. The darknet makes up about 90% of the internet. We are only seeing about 10%. You need an interface such as Tor to access it. Long before google, the internet was wide open with gofer services to get your information. Yahoo started to change that and then google changed it all. Now the darkent is mostly used for:
There is also the deep web, where internet material is not indexed. It's actually not as sinister as it sounds.
Thank you......won't be going there.
Once it is out there it is forever.
That's an important point. Many people think that if you post something on the 'Net, and then delete it, its gone. But it can still be retrieved!
(Also,BTW, if you delete something on your computer's hard-drive, its can still be "undeleted").
Once it is out there it is forever.
That's an important point. Many people think that if you post something on the 'Net, and then delete it, its gone. But it can still be retrieved!
(Also,BTW, if you delete something on your computer's hard-drive, its can still be "undeleted").
I often warn people be mindful about what you put out there on NT.
Didn't a certain guy named "Mike" stop posting online for a similar reason?
Ummm... not exactly, but we did have some interesting discussions about content and work.
Another rw whining seed complaining about p.c. culture. I do declare y'all are havin a nervous breakdown.
Site is going in the shitter in the process though.
Why do you want to say that?
Another rw whining seed complaining about p.c. culture. I do declare y'all are havin a nervous breakdown.
Site is going in the shitter in the process though.
Gee John, don't hold back. Tell us exactly how you feel.
08/24/17 08:54:41PM @perrie-halpern:
08/24/17 08:36:06PM @johnrussell:
Another rw whining seed complaining about p.c. culture. I do declare y'all are havin a nervous breakdown.
Site is going in the shitter in the process though.
Prejudice, by another name? An Echo chamber Fan in a Chat Forum? Who wants the " World to go in a Closet " so there be more room for those already in them ?
Huh?
Another rw whining seed complaining about p.c. culture. I do declare y'all are havin a nervous breakdown.
Site is going in the shitter in the process though.
Alas...sometimes life is so unfair...
{sigh}
Out of curiosity, do you think the writers blacklisted from Hollywood were whiny snowflakes ? Does the decades long glorification of them as heroes and martyrs (see Trumbo as a recent example) bother you as celebrating complainers?
FYI, you should have the option to delete one of the doubles, upper right on the post next to edit
Thanks, I waited too long