If a person commits a crime, then let courts decide, otherwise it's just mob rule and vigilante "justice".

That said, I think it's going to take at least a few more decades before such a ruling is made. I suspect it will come along the lines that internet history is protected speech, and so it's a protected work category and is illegal to fire a person over. Once companies can just point to the law and shrug, then they can ignore the online mob.

Additionally, one would think cancelling should fall under libel and slander laws, and the accused would be able to go after the instigators.

It's uncomfortable when it's "your side" that finds it's goals at odds with human rights, but in the end we're all better off with defending basic human rights. Policing morality is infinitely more difficult and oppressive, no matter how much it really feels good at the moment.

Will it be illegal at the point of expressing an opinion online?

Will it be illegal at the point of agreeing or liking an opinion expressed online?

Will it be illegal at the point where one is purchasing a product or service and determines where their money will go based on an opinion they hold?

People are allowed to have, express and hold opinion. They are allowed to make decisions based on these opinions.

> Additionally, one would think cancelling should fall under libel and slander laws, and the accused would be able to go after the instigators.

Good news! These laws exist.

> It's uncomfortable when it's "your side" that finds it's goals at odds with human rights, but in the end we're all better off with defending basic human rights.

When "your side" starts advocating that people should not have, hold or act on opinions, you might start wondering who you're on side with.

I haven't been permanently banned from any subreddit (no message in my 14 year old history indicated this)... but I've been unable to get any human to tell me what exactly I did was against the Reddit Content Policy.

The curious thing for me was that my alt account (the one I use to try to have some semblance of free speech) was also permanently suspended.

This, to me, felt like I may have been censored in some way (though I really don't know the motive; maybe I was too outspoken against an oppressive government?).

It certainly has had a chilling effect on my online activity.

> The curious thing for me was that my alt account (the one I use to try to have some semblance of free speech) was also permanently suspended.

That sucks, especially as there are few ways to appeal these bans.

Perhaps you were banned for upvoting your own content from another account? This will result in a ban for both accounts. If not, it could be a number of other reasons that have nothing to do with cancellation or governmental criticism.

To be quite honest, there used to be a time in my life where I would've cared about getting up voted and having a popular opinion, but I don't think I've cared enough to cheat the system.

Nowadays, I tried to discern what is or isn't propaganda and I sometimes commented on days-old threads.

Now that I think about it, one of the last things I had upvoted was a comment that advocated for peace between the Israeli and Palestinian sides.

I wanted to reply, but I thought that my opinion would not be taken seriously if I used my alt account, so I switched to my real account to write a thoughtful comment.

I started writing it, then I saved it as a draft and decided to go to sleep and think things over so I wouldn't write something offensive, then I tried posting (on the 'RIF' app) and it kept failing to post. That's when, after logging in online, I realized I had been permanently banned.

No one can agree on what constitutes free speech, everyone feels that they are the ones under attack (on the Right and the Left and the Centrists). No one can concede ground, everyone holds that they are absolutely correct in every case. So they leave for more tolerant grounds (i.e. where people agree with them and their sense of persecution), where people respect their right to speech, form a mob, then strike back against their perceived enemies.

And then there is the brigading, which everyone thinks is the fault of the 'other' side and endemic to the 'other side's' thinking.

It's like there are multitude Battlefields on a War of Opinion & Truth.

In my case I may have compared 1 year ago a certain world leader that was sending minority demographic to specialized facilities to a Disney character.

Though it certainly took quite a while for me to be labeled and permanently suspended.

I don't know why my alt account would be banned as well, though.

Possible reasons for a Reddit ban include trying to post to a sub-reddit that has suspended or banned you using another account, doxing / harassment or vote manipulation / brigading.

But we are not talking of a personal choice to boycott, or even to persuade others to boycott. That action is passive in nature and falls entirely within an individuals liberty to withdraw consent.

Cancel culture involves aggressive mobs that will use covert and unethical means such as targeting a company's advertisers, clients and suppliers, or relentlessly harassing the HR department in order to induce them to fire somebody.

As the OP in this thread noted, this is comparable to vigilantism.

>Good news! These laws exist.

Libel laws are hard to use against anonymous callers and letter writers calling you a 'Nazi.' It is most unlikely that the recipient of such a call will be persuaded you are a literal Nazi, but they will be influenced and intimidated by the strong hostility and disapproval expressed. It would be hard to prove in court that you had actually been libeled, even if you could bring that person to court, but you will still have been damaged.

>When "your side" starts advocating that people should not have, hold or act on opinions, you might start wondering who you're on side with.

But cancel culture is intolerant of other's right to freedom of conscience, and it goes beyond mere disapproval to active personal destruction.

Which actions exactly should be illegal? I assume you don't want to make me force watching movies from certain producers that I don't like anymore. At the same time in some countries retail stores basically have to cater to everyone and already can be made liable if they don't sell something that they advertised for as long as customers stick to terms and conditions.

I rather think that excess cancelling and all that comes with it is a result of perceived injustices. Even if you come up with a very creative law unless these injustices are solved the symptoms will pop up elsewhere. That said, standards in society develop over time and probably the capacity for ambivalence is going to rise again. Also people tend to give more credit to things that have been worked for more than things that have been inherited.

Most importantly, accusations of bias are also not a valid reason to fire a journalist.

There's also an intermingling of private and public sphere, and firing someone for private legal behavior because some internet hive mind started a smear campaign also should not be lawful. Of course, America has the coercive institution of at-will employment, ruining any attempt at fixing it this way.

A good step would be filling class action defamation suit against a class running a smear campaign over barely public and irrelevant things. Consequences for setting up mobs. While platform is not liable, the users are. That could make some people think twice before doing it.

Nobody has to incite a mob. It just happens. It's collective action. There's no one to sue, unless you feel like suing everyone.

Because firing someone is cheap. It's not "damage control", it's virtue signalling, as costly as it is for others to express their outrage on twitter.

If there was an easy solution though, it would probably already be in place.

No, it is not. It is supposed to be protected from the government punishing you over it, any other requirements are purely made up.

> There's also an intermingling of private and public sphere, and firing someone for private legal behavior because some internet hive mind started a smear campaign also should not be lawful

So you would use the power of the state to suppress speech in the name of free speech? I don’t think you’ve thought through the long term consequences of this.

The United States has an unusually robust legal protection of free speech in its constitution. It is the case that this only protects citizens from the state, and any other protections people imagine it provides are, as you state, 'purely made up.'

Even so, the First Amendment is based on a prior ethos of the value of free speech.

The philosopher, J.S. Mill, in his impassioned defense of freedom of speech saw both government and private actions as being threats to free speech, and advocated protections against both.

There is an adage which has been much repeated in recent years that freedom of speech does not imply freedom from consequences. That depends on what those 'consequences' are. One may disagree, argue back, or even block a person with whom you disagree, but it crosses a line when you respond by trying to destroy a person whose views you reject.

Protection from the government punishing you over political speech is "purely made up" as well. All laws in all countries are "purely made up", humans made them so.

Furthermore, even if one just decides to YOLO a few centuries of American jurisprudence on the matter, one will quickly find oneself either advocating for authoritarianism, or recreating our existing speech system from scratch. Those are the only two logical outcomes that can come from an assertion that one parties speech should be suppressed in order to “protect” (promote, imho) the speech of another group.

But why? Do people from other countries deserve to have their digital pasts weaponized? That was absolutely not obvious to me.

Because the top article is a NYT article, and this forum is largely American in composition. There are interesting discussions about free speech rights in other countries, but in this case it’s reasonable to assume an American context.

> Do people from other countries deserve to have their digital pasts weaponized

I’ll remind you that presuming good faith is a rule here, this is a nakedly bad faith interpretation of what I said.

Firing an employee or terminating a contract in response to a twitter mob.

You are of course free to boycott whoever you want- but my impression is that those threatened boycotts won't really cause much damage to companies. People keep saying that firings are meant to "limit damage" but I have yet to see proof of this. To me it is mostly virtue signalling on the part of the involved businesses- it's not meant to prevent an economic damage but as a form of PR and advertising.

It still boggles my mind to see multi-billion dollar multinational companies cowering in terror from what is probably no more than a few dozen Twitter users in each case, none of whom were customers anyway, they just have too much time on their hands

Weird way to end 'right to work' laws, but any port in a storm I guess.

The symptom is that accusations or out-of- context statements or actions can spark a brief but intense reaction on Twitter, and companies frequently fire their employees based on that Twitter reaction. And then those employees may lose access to healthcare or otherwise be in a very precarious position.

So the issues are - The internet remembers forever. - Twitter mobs are self- amplifying and the size and intensity of the mob is not significantly correlated to the intensity of the perceived offense - Twitter mobs don't react based on the most correct information, but rather the most viral - Companies fire people based on Twitter mob actions because: - Companies can be liable for creating a "hostile work environment" for failing to act on things their employees did outside of work hours. - Companies can fire anyone for any reason except being a member of a protected class - Healthcare is tied to employment, so getting fired is disruptive since you need to get new insurance, which in turn probably requires you to switch doctors, get your medical records transferred over, etc.

The symptom of "people are having their lives massively disrupted by relatively minor things they did decades ago" could be approached from any of these angles. So

1. Fix Twitter (and it is specifically Twitter that is the bulk of the problem) to have a way to disprove of a message without further amplifying it 2. Fix the incentives for businesses so that the business is not responsible for what the employee does on their own time. 3. Fix the social safety net and healthcare system so getting fired is not ruinous. 4. Add more employee protections, making it harder to fire people without cause.

I personally think any of the above would work, though I'm wary of 1 (the laws required to obligate this would probably have significant chilling effects elsewhere) and 4 (depends strongly on quality of legal implementation, and I don't have a lot of faith in our legislators to write well thought out laws). I personally favor 2 - as an employer if you're not paying someone for their time I don't think you should get to dictate what they do with that time.

I'm not very old, but I am old enough to know the history of SLAPP lawsuits and anti-SLAPP legislation[1]. Barbara Streisand lost a SLAPP motion so hard that we named an entire effect in free expression after her! Do you really want a world in which well-resourced parties can leverage the courts to silence dissent?

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publ...

The internet is one place where 99.9% compliance with a social norm or law isn’t good enough to prevent the remaining 0.1% from causing enough damage to be un-ignorable, even if you manage to get worldwide agreement on updating the law. (Consider that e.g. the UK does not have American freedom of speech, and if anything considers the American way of doing things to be strange and somewhat anarchic).

I sometimes wonder it would help if social media posts had to be deleted after a short period, perhaps a few months or a few years? (The pre-internet social media, being conversations and occasionally letters, was probably >99% forgotten in hours, and most of the rest was hearsay).

Or it would help, or make things worse, if it became easy for people to change identity?

Because then we could have a service where you signed everything with your key and then you were know as whatever the hash of that key is - and you can create a new identity with a new key, but your name won't be linked to any real world identity.

I barely use Facebook or Twitter compared to reddit, and I suspect it is because of the real name issues, that makes those places just not as much fun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imageboard#Tripcodes

I’m incredibly dubious that you can write a law that accomplishes this that won’t run afoul of the first amendment. And honestly, I think that literally jailing attempted “cancellers” would have way more of a chilling effect than whatever “cancel culture” causes.

The solution for this is to change the culture, not to weaponize the power of the state to harm those you dislike. Please stop suggesting it, it will only make things worse.

It seems pretty obvious to me that this would make “cancel culture” markedly worse.

It is difficult to understand why such an outcome is obvious. At one end of the spectrum, people are making claims that should be actionable through legal measures yet they choose to do make it actionable through speech. There are many reasons why this could be the case: lack of confidence in the legal system, expedience and perceived severity of punishment, or a lack of evidence to support the claims (assuming they are true). Regardless of why, I would classify it as vigilantism. Vigilantism has not place in a civil society that respects the process of law. In cases where the initial act was illegal, I find it difficult to call the threat of criminal action a tool of "cancel culture".

Then there are allegations that many may considered as immoral, yet are legal. The people making the allegations cannot use the threat of criminal action to cancel someone, unless they resort to slander (e.g. make up a criminal act). That is pretty much the current situation. On the other hand, those on the receiving end would have more recourse against deliberately malicious acts. Since there would be due process, I find it difficult to think of it as a tool to cancel those making the allegations.

Be precise. What claims are actionable? Provide examples.

I think you might have a wildly inflated idea of what is and is not legally actionable, which is driving erroneous conclusions about what the law is, where it is going, and the limits of what is and is not possible in the courts under current jurisprudence.

If you make it illegal to fire that person, then any one employee could do considerable damage to dozens of other people and you'll have no recourse.

It seems like a better system would be one where everyone is responsible for their own behavior.

Companies don’t like being harmed in this way, so they will most likely respond by digging very deeply into every job candidate’s past to avoid hiring someone who may be “canceled” at a future date.

Here’s the thing: most people have done pretty shitty things in their past. However, most people don’t rise to a level of prominence that it ever matters. They are able to live normal, productive, happy lives.

Making “cancel mob” terminations illegal ends all that. Is this really the path we want to go down?

Yes? The problem with cancellation is that individuals are targeted which means that for most people it is not a problem and they have no incentive to stop it. The mob cannot go after everyone. Employers cannot filter out everyone - then they have no employees.

well then the investors can't ask for the firing, they have to demand something else.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-employers-discri...

Maybe 80% of the people that opine on this subject are in category 3), 19% are in 1), and only 1% actually believe this sort of thing is great even when it hits someone that's on their team. Unfortunately all of the category 3 hardcore partisans tell themselves that when they tear someone on the other side down it's different because they were really wrong.

Here's a good test: if >50% of people on each of the left and the right would agree that someone has done something so egregious that they should face consequences, you're probably dealing with a real problem person and not a case of awry cancel culture. If more than half of either party would say that what a person has said is OK, you're probably dealing with a partisan cancellation.

Edit: I should mention that I have more extreme feelings in favor of free speech than the above paragraph, in that I think even opinions that are outside the window for both parties deserve protection and shouldn't usually result in firings unless super duper out there and horrible. But my point is that at the very least, if something is a majority position in a major party, it's a mainstream position and it is extremely questionable (both morally and practically) to ever fire someone for expressing a common belief.

Is that really achievable for people who are political figures? That is, for someone attributed to a "side", is it actually possible to get the two sides to agree on anything? We've seen the defense of some quite spectacular indefensible behavior lately. Attempts to investigate The Jan 6 incident have been filibustered.

There's two aspects which really ought to be separated:

1) is this behavior bad?

2) has this person done that?

Much of the partisan fighting over racism and homophobia disagrees at #1. Much of the disagreement over sexual assualt happens at #2; if an event happens and only the victim witnesses it, is that sufficient proof?

Let us stop thinking about racism and homophobia for a moment and think of marijuana legalization instead. This is precisely the case when an aggresive intolerant minority used to destroy people over nothing. Most legalization projects were pushed through by ballots, where the aggressive intolerant minority could not intimidate the voters into silence.

Interestingly, the vote results usually did not align with the partisanship of the voters. There is much more ideological diversity within the parties than generally recognized.

And, as a result, many people no longer "face consequences" for smoking weed that only a vocal minority considers taboo.

> There is much more ideological diversity within the parties than generally recognized.

Party discipline (yes, on both sides) aims to suppress that. e.g https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/2/16/republicans-who-vot...

I agree about your distinction between "is this behavior bad?" and "has this person done that?". The important cancel culture debate to me is over the first, where it is 100% clear who said what, the only question is whether they should be fired/silenced/banned/attacked for it. The facts about what really happened matter deeply but to take an example, the Kavanaugh situation isn't really an issue of "cancel culture" being out of control because almost everyone agrees that if he did it he should not have been appointed, it's just that most Republicans really don't think he did it and most Democrats do. Something else is going on there that is very not good, but it's not the same as James Damore being fired for statements that most people in both parties find to be within the bounds of "speech you shouldn't be shitcanned for" (https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/policy/technology/3..., surprisingly the political divide on that one is only 10% but even Ds are 50/50 on it).

Edit re: Kavanaugh: I'd also put good money that even if the accusations against him were 100% proven or disproven almost no minds on either side would actually change, despite people claiming allegiance to the truth. Instead, like Trump and his misdeeds, we'd start arguing about fake facts and then further retreating to discussions about whether his sins we're actually great enough, etc. But as things currently stand the ostensible argument is at least over the real facts.

Someone losing their job for having a public melt down is not the same as a celebrity getting criticized, and that’s not the same as someone clearly losing some sort of nasty office politics war. Treating this as a monolithic block is silly.

On a separate note, I don't agree with your breakdown of people because I think it's possible to have principles that are not partisanship but are also orthogonal to "mob good" vs "mob bad".

Maybe a charitable interpretation of the motivations fo that philosophy is "my mob is correct, your mob is not", but the end result is the same.

While I guess it is possible to have another consistent view, I think they mostly boil down to the specifics of where to draw the "bad speech" line. And I think in reality the vast majority of people who don't take a hard free-speech-for-all (asterisk: except people whose words are so horrible that a huge number of people agree) stance on this set the line based on their own politics rather than any stable set of principles.

That's because you don't "hear" people be silent.

Which, I think, probably says something about how likely it is that people genuinely believe the talking point invoked in this article that the right-wing is the real cancel culture. If it was, it wouldn't be so shocking that and news-worthy that it happened, and the sole other example in the article wouldn't be someone from 2004 who built a career in media thanks to the supposed cancellation - exactly the kind of thing the press would point to as proof "cancel culture" isn't real if the left were the ones calling for her head.

I think we agree, but to elaborate further, here's an informative post on the topic: https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/23/can-things-be-both-pop...

One should also look at how the average person would see this. If after expressing an opinion, the only viable career left is that of a political commentator/provocateur (the market for which is limited), most people will stay silent.

When someone is booted out of office for the wrong reasons (even though it is "the right person", i.e. someone who's views I don't agree with) I speak out against it. If I was a politician, I would pledge before elections to never step down due to anything that happend in my past; if I had a company I would consider adding something into contracts that we cannot fire people due to past controversial statements.

I think we have a unified legal system for a reason, and would prefer if everything prohibited is handled there, after which you are considered innocent again. I don't like cases where someone is legally innocent but yeah he's an asshole and we don't give him a job anymore. You could argue different people have different standards, and it is a free market and people are allowed to choose who they work with and who they deplatform - but in practice, at least in the entertainment industry, the standards are rather monolithic. Companies don't want to offend anyone, and also don't want to get trouble with payment providers, so you get certain behavior. Don't kid yourself, the liberal Twitter bubble doesn't have the kind of power to "cancel" people on their own - big corporations and media companies decide what get's picked up, what get's scandalized, and what is acceptable. And I'd really rather have this decided democratically by some kind of parliament or council than by some companies.

I remember creating a Facebook account in my teenage years, most of my friends used nicknames on the account names. Why? Because the platform was so popular, the chances of your grandma finding your raunchy posts were also high. The same caution should apply to anyone before signing up for a social media account. Your misplaced, misunderstood caption/ viral post will reach your immediate social circles.

Can't turn back the tide of cancel culture. Believe me, you can't win this on a numbers level. You can only hope your ride is less bumpy. And wait for the wave to pick its next victim.

I think it is kind of stupid the whole world now lives on social media. People really do not understand what SM is at all.

This has always been true even before the internet.

Anyway reddit is as mainstream as the others and they not only permit account names, basically nobody uses their real names. Heck alt accounts are encouraged too.

Note that twitter still allows pseudonymity that you're talking about.

About Twitter allowing pseudonyms, it is out of the scope in this context as you cannot cancel a faceless person.

Am pro-free speech as I truly believe this was the original intention of the www and the communities that formed it. If the answer to this return in ideology is in more "free speech" platforms, then am personally more-than-ready to embrace the idea. No one should be policed in or victimized for sharing their opinions on the internet. I find it is so backward and cringy.

It's not that people think you need to pay for your past "transgressions" (in their eyes). The problem is that people think they can extrapolate your future decisions, behavior, etc. based on a snippet from your past.

So it's not really about something that happened in the past. It's about something that people will think will happen in the future.

Well we disagree about this. It often seems to be a certain amount of glee involved when someone posts something from someone's online past that might not have been a big issue back then but is a hot-button issue now. Or something that they might have childishly or ignorantly said back then. Or something that they have completely changed their view on now.

But it doesn't matter. They all seem to be immediately followed by calls of some sort of "punishment" to fit the past "crimes".

Who knows what hot-button issues of the future might be?

People aren't that noble. You excuse what is callous brutalism as well intentioned error. People aren't guarding against dangerous influences. They're abusing mob power.

Despite my very bening post history, I don't feel safe participating in the discussion anymore. I don't fear being cancelled, but I am terrified of Internet lynch mobs. They know no due process, no measure, and no limits.

I've dealt with a lot of direct and personal harassment after being very active in a community. I pulled the plug when someone falsely accused me of sending them creepy PMs. It was quickly debunked by stellar mods, but it made the community way too dangerous to participate in.

For everything else, I just use throwaways.

And I hate that my name is traceable back to my time in 2007 because it was so cool to use the same unique name everywhere. Nowadays Facebook, Instagram, LINE all are "serious" accounts but all have different IDs and lack my last name.

At best this discourages dialogue. It discourages people from interacting in the public domain, vilifies their non-work lives, and unifies them in terrifying ways. Actions have consequences, and (from outside North America) it appears that the goal is to polarize society and then prosecute in the court of public opinion.

Maybe these things have to become so prolific that it touches a critical mass of society until we learn how to properly conceptualize people with a past and provide for a path of redemption.

Today people are 'cancelled' for holding certain political views. Perhaps in the future they're cancelled for having eaten meat, or spending money in a communist country. What about holding stock in Nestle, or perhaps at one point in time supporting a (now disgraced) cleric. The nuance is rather important - the world is neither black, nor white.

journos are one of the worst offenders in this toxic climate.

Weaponizing tweets only loses its power in only two ways, either by every reasonable person and institution realizing that this is stupid, or by mutual assured destruction.

Unfortunately I think we're well past the point of no return, so I'm looking forward to the latter. So let the cancelations continue until moral improves.

There has to be more accountability here. It should be possible for a potential employee to see a company's past actions with respect to this sort of thing. In general a potential employee should know going in that an employer is so unprofessional that they might throw them under the bus for something as trivial as social media.

I only have a very limited internet presence with my real name and never post any of my opinions on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stylometry

Since I said something in an interview to push a particular business agenda and had that used against me since then in all kinds of contexts, I make sure nothing more appears about me online. I cannot really understand how something I said or did (in this example: I was cto of a services company and in the interview I mention I like services more than products, which, at the time I did; this is no longer true) in a business setting 10 years ago is relevant to something I do now but clients and investors bring it up.

Makes it kind of weird how straight up criminals get positions and investments time and time again even when they have 100s or 1000s of news articles from actual reputable press against them...

https://support.google.com/websearch/troubleshooter/9685456?...

https://support.google.com/websearch/troubleshooter/3111061?...

How usable this is in practice when entire industries depend on preserving that data is another question...

The really sad thing is the children. Parents uploading their kids entire lives and the kids have absolutely no way to opt out. Permanently giving your kid an online identity before they can even talk. Horrible thing to do to your child.

The secondary problem is being forced off social media for more or less random reasons.

My first thought is to ignore them because they’re usually microscopic in terms of scale but I’d love to hear from someone who has had their business targeted by a mob and what effect it had on the bottom line and morale

Before he knew what happened, he was stabbed to death by a mob while the real thief got away.

Vigilante ’justice’ continues to be a scourge of society; think of the stoning episodes of millenniums past.

Social media removes the activation energy barrier to be a part of a mob - to feel the thrill.

In order to delete the posts you have to manually click on each and every one and then click on delete. Sometimes it throws an “unexpected error” and then you have to click on everything again, but then it often throws the error again.

Another way is to “mark all” but that only marks 50 posts at once. If you scroll down then it adds another 50 posts, at the cost of about 20 seconds per scroll, so when you scroll down far enough you can accumulate a lot of posts that will be available for “mark all”. But, mind that Facebook doesn’t like you to batch remove all of your history. So after 150 or 200 posts (the amount is changing apparently randomly) accumulated and clicking on delete, they throw a “Challenge required” error. With trial and error you find out that this error appears always after you accumulated too much, so you’d naturally think, let me just go back one step and scroll a couple of time less to generate a new and smaller list. But it’s not possible to generate that list of posts again for some reason, as going away from the activity monitor and back into it again just shows again the >200 posts list nicely prefetched for you. I found the only way to “reset” this view is to log out of Facebook and log in back again, then the activity monitor starts at 50 posts again.

Hopefully when you then batch delete 150-200 posts, there isn’t a special post in between which brings another error when trying to delete from the activity monitor in batch or manual. It seems that this error only appears when you deleted too many posts in a specific time frame. What you need to do is to find that post in the haystack of at minimum 50 posts, click on it’s time such that you get on the posts individual page (better open in another tab or you might get insane eventually, if not already) and then delete the post from there by using the menu button.

Hopefully it allows you to delete and you can continue to batch delete the rest in batches of 150-200. Otherwise you will have to wait for a couple of hours you receive a new delete allowance.

Lastly, even if you at first think posts were deleted, you might have to revisit and see again, as some posts just reappear again. You don’t find them necessarily inside the activity monitor again but e.g. when you use the search, or even worse, when others use the search on these posts.

If I want to delete every piece of data from a companies storage (including backups, caches et al) I should be able to do that.

If it is ever proven that data still exists on an individual whose requested full deletion the CEO should be imprisoned for a minimum of one year.

But of course that will never happen and the GDPR is an absolute failure that has done more harm than good.

Don’t get me wrong, I actually find it useful sometimes to receive targeted ads. It worked for me often enough such that I noticed products, events or groups that really are interesting to me and which I otherwise probably wouldn’t have found. I recently started browsing YouTube logged in with my profile again and the recommended videos are much better than when I have an incognito browser.

Nevertheless, it must be possible to at least delete your public interactions with one click. I don’t see any business reason for Facebook and Twitter to keep year old posts public.

But here's an alternative: https://web.archive.org/web/20210530000441/https://www.nytim...

Over the past couple of years but especially 2020 I've had more non-tech family members, friends and friends of friends ask me for advice on preserving their privacy and anonymity and political speech seems to usually be in the top 5 reasons when I ask them.

I hold anonymous giving and anonymized trust in high regard, nomad. Quite fallibly, I put my skin in the game on the wire like few ever have. I hope we learn to wear the Ring of Gyges without being unduly affected by it. Let us be the change we want to see in the world (https://philosopher.life/#Contact%20h0p3). Some say I'm a madman out here in the desert. It's a pleasure to meet you.

The media has always been the source of weaponizing people's past, today with even less regard to their current status or any other factor.

All for internet points.

1)Many believe having freedom of speech means having freedom from consequences of your speech. And not just governmental consequence but all consequence. That's wrong and always has been wrong, if rarely enforced. Speech has always had consequences but those consequences weren't cancellation. Not for white folks anyway.

2)White people can't live in the same world with the same rules that they've created for other people. Cancel culture is very much a thing and has been a thing used against Black folks and other minorities in America for decades. The list of things we get canceled for far exceeds exercising our freedom of speech. Here's a short list:

A)Our names. Got an ethnic name? Expect to get less interview callbacks.

B)Hair. We've had to lobby for laws to protect our right to wear our hair in 'natural' or 'ethnic' styles.

C)Actual Freedom of Speech. Try and bring up racism or discrimination practically anywhere and see what happens to you. See Colin Kaepernick.

D)Skin Complexion. Light-skinned privilege is a thing. Google 'colorism'.

E)Accent and use of language. Google 'code switching'.

You get the point. If the only thing you have to worry about is if you actually said something dumb in your past and if it's going to come up, then you have it good. Other folks are getting canceled just how they exist, from traits they can't change, and they have been for decades.

And even with all that, I still think Cancel culture is pretty shit because the mob is a broadsword, not a scalpel - h/t "The Siege". It doesn't stop at Trump, it keeps going to folks like AGM. But I'd love it if those fighting against cancel culture also fight for those who aren't white men complaining about it on Twitter and Hacker News. Fight also for those who have been victimized by cancel culture before it had a catchy name and impacted the white and powerful. Probably won't win until you do anyway.

The cold reality is that the solution to all of this is very simple:

1. Stop using your real name (and personal information) online.

2. Stop using social media sites (as they revolve around sharing personal information).

In situations when you MUST use real life identity online, only post the most bland, inoffensive things possible. The multitude of protests to this position are irrelevant: anonymity online is not an option, it is a NECESSITY because of the way the Internet works.

Clever people understood this from the beginning: this advice was mainstream Internet 101 in the 90s. But as time went on profit seeking companies brainwashed everyone into a new norm where we all go around with our clothes off and our dicks out. This is not a safe or sustainable situation. The net isn't like real life. It has MEMORY, vast and sticky. It's searchable. On the net, information is a weapon, and if you go around handing out loaded weapons to everyone you meet, eventually bad things will happen.

Reams of digital ink have been spilled in this comment section debating how best to keep people from firing the weapon at you. This misses the point. Stop giving it to them in the first place. If you do, you have no room to complain.

The only exception here is the cancelling of people with relatively small followings/influence who receive heavy-handed negative attention (like the Reddit bomber or people in academia like the N-word professor) but instances like these are fewer and far between and will probably decline over time as boomers leave the discourse (die).

I used to work at a few big media companies in a position that required a decent amount of public facing and had brushes with this sort of behavior in the past (people tweeting death threats at me, which I just brushed off because I understood what I signed up for and am not naive). These days I work for myself in a “blue collar” industry and mostly ignore social media, so I can’t really be cancelled.

I guess the point i’m trying to make is, if this is something you’re actually worried about, just

1; go work in an industry that lacks the highly educated, overstimulated, and mostly out of touch people that dominate 99% of the discourse but speak for 1% of the population

2; learn how to read the room (ie. listen more and talk less)

Big tech wanted everyone to have a voice and now they do. :)

When Kennedy was considering nuking Khrushchev, he had to face the reality that, if he did, his own family would die, and if he didn't, they probably wouldn't. Khrushchev, mutatis mutandis. If Kennedy had given the first-strike command, an individual colonel in a missile silo pondering whether to disobey wouldn't face a similar choice; he would know that, whatever he chose, hundreds of other colonels at other missile silos would launch their missiles, the Soviets would retaliate, and his family would die. So his only self-interest was not getting court-martialed for insubordination.

The difference with cancel culture is that there is no Kennedy and no Khrushchev who has the authority to not fire the missiles. Every missile silo independently decides whether to fire and who to fire at, but they compete with other missile silos on the same side to demonstrate greater viciousness. And, instead of killing a million people, every missile kills a ten-thousandth of a person. So it's more of a grinder, as you say, than a firestorm.

So, there's no net gain, but abstaining from the witch hunt is not a Nash equilibrium. It may even put you up at the stake next week when it's seen that you were insufficiently enthusiastic about today's Three Minutes Hate.

More concretely, if you choose not to fire your employee because there's a social media hate campaign directed at him, whether you're right or not, that won't provide you any protection at all when it comes out that twelve years ago you posted something anti-transgender. Or pro-transgender, depending on who's canceling you.

Your optimistic prediction would be true in a world where collective action was easy, and we had plenty of free software, no global warming, and no taxes, just volunteer work.

Stanislav Petrov decided to ignore the official protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov

Petrov is indeed a notable hero — but note that his self-interest was aligned with our collective survival in the same way Khrushchev's had been.

What sort of "survival" would even be possible in a post-apocalyptic world?