Twitter has barred hundreds of accounts for posing as liberal activists(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Twitter has barred hundreds of accounts for posing as liberal activists
http://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/16/us/politics/npc-twitter-ban.html
173 comments
For the 1,000,000th time: you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater and call it "satire" either.
Except there's no crowded theater and no fire. It's time to put that rusty excuse to rest - the fact that some speech can cause bad consequences in extremely specific narrow case does not mean that now you can justify any speech restriction by "but fire in theater! Checkmate, free speech!"
Repeating it all those times hasn't made it true.
... What?
Edit: Oh, your profile says " "obvious troll" ". Okay then. Checks out.
Edit: Oh, your profile says " "obvious troll" ". Okay then. Checks out.
Since your ability to educate yourself has been exhausted at a single misreading of irony, others will do it for you:
https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...
https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...
Do you think pointing out someone else appears to have stock opinions and doesn't actually think about the world around them is "shouting fire in a crowded theatre"?
Spreading the wrong voting day is. The mockery is fine, but I don't see anything ridiculous about Twitter not tolerating voter suppression campaigns on their platform.
Do you think: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/10/17/business/17NPC/17... looks like a source of trustworthy information?
I guess Twitter took a zero-tolerance stance against voter suppression campaigns, whether the accounts involved are clearly satirical or not. They just flat out don't want people using their platform to spread the wrong election date, even if spreading the wrong election date is just 'trolling' or 'satire' or 'expressing my opinion on the liberals' to some. Again, I don't find that stance ridiculous.
Equating joke accounts spreading the wrong election date with voter suppression is just laughable. How could anyone possibly believe an NPC Twitter account? How stupid would they have to be?
This is the kind of post the NPC meme is parodying. Instead of parroting mindless talking points, why don't you learn about the history of the quote "shouting fire in a movie theater"? Learn about Schenck decision and how "shouting fire in a movie theater" was used to justify a criminal offense against individuals distributing anti-draft flyers to military-aged men. YES. Common anti-draft speech practiced wherever today was once as dangerous as what you're implying. This decision's first amendment implication was finally overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969.
Make up your own mind, and form your own opinions. This meme is not dangerous, it's exposing a dangerous pattern. A pattern of people parroting simplistic ideas with no knowledge of the context involved. A pattern which effects most sides of the political aisle. Don't be an NPC, learn and grow, become a player.
Make up your own mind, and form your own opinions. This meme is not dangerous, it's exposing a dangerous pattern. A pattern of people parroting simplistic ideas with no knowledge of the context involved. A pattern which effects most sides of the political aisle. Don't be an NPC, learn and grow, become a player.
> One thing I really like about Twitter is that you can choose to follow who you want. If you don't want to see memes making fun of you, just don't follow accounts that post/retweet these memes.
My experience of Twitter is the opposite. Someone I follow posts something I think is intelligent and polite, and the replies are filled with people launching tangential attacks and making weird accusations.
A tweet is like a tiny conference talk whose attendees are self-selecting. Yet random strangers all over the world are able to detect the in-progress talk, parachute in, and yell crazy things, and nobody can take away their microphone.
> It's sad that Twitter is banning satire accounts. I'm against all censorship of lawful speech, and condemn Twitter and any social media platform that participates in this kind of censorship.
Would you distinguish satire from impersonation? Eg, https://twitter.com/RealDonalDrumpf?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7... is clearly self-identifying as a satire of Donald Trump. Nobody is going to confuse that account with the real one.
But suppose hoards of people with political opinions you detest start creating accounts that pose as "your side", using the worst possible arguments for your positions, insulting everyone, and making "your side" look stupid and cruel. Is that a kind of speech you want to protect?
My experience of Twitter is the opposite. Someone I follow posts something I think is intelligent and polite, and the replies are filled with people launching tangential attacks and making weird accusations.
A tweet is like a tiny conference talk whose attendees are self-selecting. Yet random strangers all over the world are able to detect the in-progress talk, parachute in, and yell crazy things, and nobody can take away their microphone.
> It's sad that Twitter is banning satire accounts. I'm against all censorship of lawful speech, and condemn Twitter and any social media platform that participates in this kind of censorship.
Would you distinguish satire from impersonation? Eg, https://twitter.com/RealDonalDrumpf?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7... is clearly self-identifying as a satire of Donald Trump. Nobody is going to confuse that account with the real one.
But suppose hoards of people with political opinions you detest start creating accounts that pose as "your side", using the worst possible arguments for your positions, insulting everyone, and making "your side" look stupid and cruel. Is that a kind of speech you want to protect?
> Someone I follow posts something I think is intelligent and polite, and the replies are filled with people launching tangential attacks and making weird accusations.
You can still curate this experience. There are accounts that I will never read the replies from, and there are accounts that I know will have great replies.
There are other accounts where I will. I ban, mute, and use the "don't show retweets from this user" feature liberally.
> suppose hoards of people with political opinions you detest start creating accounts that pose as "your side", using the worst possible arguments for your positions, insulting everyone, and making "your side" look stupid and cruel. Is that a kind of speech you want to protect?
If you're talking about the NPC accounts, they are clearly satire by their tweeting style and avatar.
Actual subversive impersonation is tricky, but I would hope that those kinds of accounts get outed by the side of the people they are subverting and the side they are subverting can condemn those arguments, positions, and tactics.
You can still curate this experience. There are accounts that I will never read the replies from, and there are accounts that I know will have great replies.
There are other accounts where I will. I ban, mute, and use the "don't show retweets from this user" feature liberally.
> suppose hoards of people with political opinions you detest start creating accounts that pose as "your side", using the worst possible arguments for your positions, insulting everyone, and making "your side" look stupid and cruel. Is that a kind of speech you want to protect?
If you're talking about the NPC accounts, they are clearly satire by their tweeting style and avatar.
Actual subversive impersonation is tricky, but I would hope that those kinds of accounts get outed by the side of the people they are subverting and the side they are subverting can condemn those arguments, positions, and tactics.
> Would you distinguish satire from impersonation? ... is clearly self-identifying as a satire of Donald Trump. Nobody is going to confuse that account with the real one.
> But suppose hoards of people with political opinions you detest start creating accounts that pose as "your side", using the worst possible arguments for your positions, insulting everyone, and making "your side" look stupid and cruel.
Personally I'd distinguish satire from impersonation in this case as the banned accounts have:
- Grey flat colored faces
- A nose made out out of two straight black lines
- The username "npc" followed by a number
For example, every avatar the image underneath the headline in the article linked to in this page:
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/10/17/business/17NPC/17...
It's not a particularly subtle distinction.
> making "your side" look stupid
Just wanted to quote that again.
> But suppose hoards of people with political opinions you detest start creating accounts that pose as "your side", using the worst possible arguments for your positions, insulting everyone, and making "your side" look stupid and cruel.
Personally I'd distinguish satire from impersonation in this case as the banned accounts have:
- Grey flat colored faces
- A nose made out out of two straight black lines
- The username "npc" followed by a number
For example, every avatar the image underneath the headline in the article linked to in this page:
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/10/17/business/17NPC/17...
It's not a particularly subtle distinction.
> making "your side" look stupid
Just wanted to quote that again.
And this is really at the root of the entire culture war.
It used to be 'hey, that person said something stupid', lol ok what an idiot, anyway moving on to what we were doing'
Now instead it's 'hey that person said something stupid, I need to share it to 5000 followers to show just how stupid they are and how virtuous I am for pointing out that it's stupid, hey hey hey people look look look I'm resisting the stupid look look there's a stupid person'.
What we have is a large group of people who can only be described as professional offence takers. They wake up in the morning, and go out of their way to look though twitter what to be outraged by. They proactively seek out conflict purely for the sake of virtue signalling.
And when these people engage so consistently, after a while you get people who just post shit just for the sake of getting that emotional response out of the other side.
It used to be 'hey, that person said something stupid', lol ok what an idiot, anyway moving on to what we were doing'
Now instead it's 'hey that person said something stupid, I need to share it to 5000 followers to show just how stupid they are and how virtuous I am for pointing out that it's stupid, hey hey hey people look look look I'm resisting the stupid look look there's a stupid person'.
What we have is a large group of people who can only be described as professional offence takers. They wake up in the morning, and go out of their way to look though twitter what to be outraged by. They proactively seek out conflict purely for the sake of virtue signalling.
And when these people engage so consistently, after a while you get people who just post shit just for the sake of getting that emotional response out of the other side.
There's definitely a large cultural problem both with people being overly defensive and overly offensive (and I think a majority of people who seem to fall into one of these camps actually fall into both, just depending on the topic). On both sides, there's a gradient of behavior with no practical definition, and at the extremes of each, harsh reaction to that behavior becomes inevitable, since we're humans. On the defensive side, this is the transition between "I disagree but support your right to say it" and attacking a person who has said or done something that isn't particularly hateful or violent. On the offensive side, this is the transition between a harsh but grounded joke aimed at somebody's flaws as a way of making a point, and naked hatred (which may be framed as a joke, as all things can be).
I think we absolutely must address both problems somehow, but I also think that the movement of the offensive tendencies toward their respective extreme is much more damaging and more directly at fault for most of the current breakdown of human interaction. If person A mocks person B and implies that they should be lynched, and person B punches person A, they have both crossed the lines of reason on their positions (A: offensive, B: defensive), but boy am I not overly worried about B's behavior in context (that's a broad analogy, and a representation of my perspective rather than a universal example - it's not a comparison to the article's subject, which is a much more grey example of hatred vs reaction).
Of course, people will always see their group as reasonable and "the other" as unreasonable, especially when the "groups" are so broad that there's no room to stand outside and look in. It's all about as subjective as can be. Unfortunately, that doesn't make the practical outcome of such subjective interpretation any less concrete or unavoidable. I'm not sure what will end up causing this to deescalate, since both sides are utterly dug in.
I think we absolutely must address both problems somehow, but I also think that the movement of the offensive tendencies toward their respective extreme is much more damaging and more directly at fault for most of the current breakdown of human interaction. If person A mocks person B and implies that they should be lynched, and person B punches person A, they have both crossed the lines of reason on their positions (A: offensive, B: defensive), but boy am I not overly worried about B's behavior in context (that's a broad analogy, and a representation of my perspective rather than a universal example - it's not a comparison to the article's subject, which is a much more grey example of hatred vs reaction).
Of course, people will always see their group as reasonable and "the other" as unreasonable, especially when the "groups" are so broad that there's no room to stand outside and look in. It's all about as subjective as can be. Unfortunately, that doesn't make the practical outcome of such subjective interpretation any less concrete or unavoidable. I'm not sure what will end up causing this to deescalate, since both sides are utterly dug in.
In my view, there's a difference between letting people say stupid things, and letting people deliberately say misleading things that are clearly for the purpose of influencing an election (spreading the wrong election date.)
I don't see anything wrong with Twitter not tolerating people spreading the wrong election date because 'free speech, don't be so offended'.
I don't see anything wrong with Twitter not tolerating people spreading the wrong election date because 'free speech, don't be so offended'.
> people deliberately say misleading things for purpose of influencing an election
Well there goes every political campaign ever.
All jokes aside, these days it doesn't matter if it's the media, the campaigns themselves, the supporters - it's not about the facts, it's not about anything real, it's just about spreading misleading shit faster than it can be fact checked.
It's an issue on the right, it's an issue on the left. One may be worse than the other, but it doesn't mean it's better, it's just marginally less shitty.
Well there goes every political campaign ever.
All jokes aside, these days it doesn't matter if it's the media, the campaigns themselves, the supporters - it's not about the facts, it's not about anything real, it's just about spreading misleading shit faster than it can be fact checked.
It's an issue on the right, it's an issue on the left. One may be worse than the other, but it doesn't mean it's better, it's just marginally less shitty.
The point is that it is an issue. Yeah, for the last 200 years dozens of scumbags have lied to millions of American citizens, and I'd rather it never happen again.
No-one is advocating for people to be full of shit. All that is being said is that mass censorship of "offensive" words/ideas is the stupidest, most counter-productive way to do it.
Where do you draw the line? Do you think an account with...
username: NPC #15253823
id: npc_15253823
avatar: generic gray NPC avatar with sunglasses
posting #LetHerDecide memes is "clearly for the purpose of influencing an election," or is it satire? If that level of satire won't be tolerated, what will?
username: NPC #15253823
id: npc_15253823
avatar: generic gray NPC avatar with sunglasses
posting #LetHerDecide memes is "clearly for the purpose of influencing an election," or is it satire? If that level of satire won't be tolerated, what will?
Twitter decided trying to get people to not vote by spreading the wrong election date crosses the line. There's not much satire in spreading the wrong election date. I don't think it's ridiculous at all.
You avoided my direct question. Most of the accounts in question did not spread the wrong election date.
Didn't mean to. I had assumed all the banned accounts did spread the wrong election date.
I'll take your word that most of the accounts in question did not spread the wrong election date. I guess Twitter saw that some were, and assessed that the accounts were part of some 'campaign' (because they're similar in appearance, creation date, etc.) and basically judged every account in that 'campaign' as one.
To answer your question, if I were Twitter and I suspected all the accounts were being operated by the same small group of people, then yes I would punish all the accounts including the ones that hadn't yet carried out voter suppression tactics.
If I saw they were posting very similar content, I'd suspect the accounts that hadn't spread the wrong election date were soon going to and not wait until they all did to get rid of them.
I'll take your word that most of the accounts in question did not spread the wrong election date. I guess Twitter saw that some were, and assessed that the accounts were part of some 'campaign' (because they're similar in appearance, creation date, etc.) and basically judged every account in that 'campaign' as one.
To answer your question, if I were Twitter and I suspected all the accounts were being operated by the same small group of people, then yes I would punish all the accounts including the ones that hadn't yet carried out voter suppression tactics.
If I saw they were posting very similar content, I'd suspect the accounts that hadn't spread the wrong election date were soon going to and not wait until they all did to get rid of them.
No worries. I understand your position, but I think Twitter is vastly overreaching here. I can find no evidence that these accounts were actually trying to mislead people into not voting.
[deleted]
B-b-but they spread information that could lead intelligent and informed people to miss the vote!
Who doesn't get the voting date from Twitter these days?
Who doesn't get the voting date from Twitter these days?
I've been following on these /pol/ memes for a while, and I'm quite disappointed about the mainstream media. Because this, as a postmodern phenomenon, and their political and social implications need serious sociological and cultural studies. What are the social and cultural basis of these memes and the political movement of it? What is its underlying mechanism? If you can't understand it and just blindly discredit them it as "far-right troll campaign", then it is parts of the problem, not a solution.
"The Internet is an inherently platform of democratic and equality, which empowered the individuals to be free from the establishment", this narrative from the 80s has been proven to be wishful thinking. It appears to be true, because it coincided with the economic boom of 80s neoliberalism until ~2010. When middle east politics started to be destabilized, people celebrated because the revolution was liberal. There was even the "cute cat theory of digital activism", which says when there are funny memes involved, people are more likely to join the political protest of Internet freedom. And it was seen as a good thing - a faceless dictatorial government was overthrown by lolcat. Isn't it the miracle of the postmodern Internet?
But it has been clear that ANY idea, can by popularized and supported by a free Internet. Now in the current age of deglobalization and political and economic failure, naturally, nationalistic and conservative ideals are getting more and more popular support, like the Arab Spring, was supported by a number of people of the young generation who are frustrated by the status quo. And memes also played an important role in the movement, but now they are called hate symbols and should be banned by major platforms.
Now it has been clear that the Internet can surely empowers "individuals to be free from the establishment", it is very true, but unfortunately, any ideas, not only "democratic and equality" ideas, as long as long as it has popular support, can be empowered by the Internet.
When we've realizing an free and open Internet does not necessarily support liberalism, or democracy, or equality, the next question naturally arisen - when the important argument for Internet freedom is that they bring democracy and equality no longer works, should the Internet be free and open? Should we have free speech anymore? I believe the answer must be yes, including "them".
But the media are now just blindly discredit the trolls, and only solution they purposed was "don't feed the trolls", or Twitter and Facebook should ban "hate speech". If the mainstream cannot actually to study and understand its mechanism, and the underlying social-economical basis this conflict, of this new online anti-establishment and trolls, and to provide a social solution, I don't think the problem is going to be solved at anytime, and the answer to free speech, and a free, open Internet is going to be "No" soon.
If you want to understand more about the trolling culture and its mechanism, I recommend "This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things: Mapping the Relationship between Online Trolling and Mainstream Culture", by Whitney Phillips, published by The MIT Press.
"The Internet is an inherently platform of democratic and equality, which empowered the individuals to be free from the establishment", this narrative from the 80s has been proven to be wishful thinking. It appears to be true, because it coincided with the economic boom of 80s neoliberalism until ~2010. When middle east politics started to be destabilized, people celebrated because the revolution was liberal. There was even the "cute cat theory of digital activism", which says when there are funny memes involved, people are more likely to join the political protest of Internet freedom. And it was seen as a good thing - a faceless dictatorial government was overthrown by lolcat. Isn't it the miracle of the postmodern Internet?
But it has been clear that ANY idea, can by popularized and supported by a free Internet. Now in the current age of deglobalization and political and economic failure, naturally, nationalistic and conservative ideals are getting more and more popular support, like the Arab Spring, was supported by a number of people of the young generation who are frustrated by the status quo. And memes also played an important role in the movement, but now they are called hate symbols and should be banned by major platforms.
Now it has been clear that the Internet can surely empowers "individuals to be free from the establishment", it is very true, but unfortunately, any ideas, not only "democratic and equality" ideas, as long as long as it has popular support, can be empowered by the Internet.
When we've realizing an free and open Internet does not necessarily support liberalism, or democracy, or equality, the next question naturally arisen - when the important argument for Internet freedom is that they bring democracy and equality no longer works, should the Internet be free and open? Should we have free speech anymore? I believe the answer must be yes, including "them".
But the media are now just blindly discredit the trolls, and only solution they purposed was "don't feed the trolls", or Twitter and Facebook should ban "hate speech". If the mainstream cannot actually to study and understand its mechanism, and the underlying social-economical basis this conflict, of this new online anti-establishment and trolls, and to provide a social solution, I don't think the problem is going to be solved at anytime, and the answer to free speech, and a free, open Internet is going to be "No" soon.
If you want to understand more about the trolling culture and its mechanism, I recommend "This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things: Mapping the Relationship between Online Trolling and Mainstream Culture", by Whitney Phillips, published by The MIT Press.
This meme is originally based on the idea that not all people have an inner voice, and the supposition that people without an inner voice may be less likely to introspect and think critically.
I think the ban is a little ridiculous and likely has more to do with it's origin on a so called "far right" website than anything else.
I think the ban is a little ridiculous and likely has more to do with it's origin on a so called "far right" website than anything else.
But with that said, what isn't 'far right' these days ...
I'm just counting down the days until Bernie is called far right because he's not throwing bricks through Starbucks' windows.
I'm just counting down the days until Bernie is called far right because he's not throwing bricks through Starbucks' windows.
Well, not Bernie himself but Bernie supporter has been beaten up as "fascist" in Portland for showing up with American flag: https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2018/08/he_bro...
I can imagine some of these people would gladly call Bernie himself fascist - after all he's a Senator in the US government which they despise. So you may not be counting for that long.
I can imagine some of these people would gladly call Bernie himself fascist - after all he's a Senator in the US government which they despise. So you may not be counting for that long.
Anti-FGM activism and and reformist Islam have both been labelled hate speech according the SPLC:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/opinion/southern-poverty-...
While Twitter bans criticism of the left using the NPC meme, @dbwrf, a pro (yes they exist) FGM group is not only still up but also running a Twitter ad campaign supporting FGM.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/opinion/southern-poverty-...
While Twitter bans criticism of the left using the NPC meme, @dbwrf, a pro (yes they exist) FGM group is not only still up but also running a Twitter ad campaign supporting FGM.
That story just illustrates how insane things have gotten.
Maajid goes "hey I'm a member of this group, I want to improve our culture/religion" and is labeled an extremist.
Meanwhile others from this group are raping children and the only thing that is said is "oh it's their culture, don't be so racist".
Blows your goddamn mind.
Maajid goes "hey I'm a member of this group, I want to improve our culture/religion" and is labeled an extremist.
Meanwhile others from this group are raping children and the only thing that is said is "oh it's their culture, don't be so racist".
Blows your goddamn mind.
Bernie is anti open borders, calling it basic globalist shilling. "It would make everybody in America poorer—you’re doing away with the concept of a nation state"
I bet if you repeated his opinion but didn't use his name on Facebook, some, uh, [leftward people with very reflexive opinions] would show up to argue with you.
I bet if you repeated his opinion but didn't use his name on Facebook, some, uh, [leftward people with very reflexive opinions] would show up to argue with you.
To be fair, immigration has been a mainstay of American hegemony. I don't think anyone supports doing away with borders, just that our immigration laws shouldn't be so draconian as to have things like children in detention camps and people spending days in deserts to seek economic opportunity.
I suspect the ban is based off of all of the post World War 2 scholarship on fascism and the list of signs and symptoms - when you have literal nazis not facing immediate ejection but being condoned, pushing every all while engaged in such a political shift such that George W Bush would be now considered leftist it is reasonable to be worried. Implying your foes lack even the sapience of a goldfish is /way/ more worrying in that context than the juvenile unself reflective solipsism.
Yeah, is The Onion going to get banned now? This seems like straight-forward parody.
A long time ago, I was told "don't feed the trolls". It's hard to see how this publicity (e.g. the NYT) is not feeding the trolls. There is no doubt that this campaign, whatever motivations, was successful. At the same time, social media platforms are more at the ready to ban pranksters, bots, etc. That might be the only approach that works when the majority of society participates.
(1) don't feed the troll, but it grows despite most people trying to ignore it. (2) ban the troll, and give them the NYT press they wanted in the first place
Not a lot of good options here.
(1) don't feed the troll, but it grows despite most people trying to ignore it. (2) ban the troll, and give them the NYT press they wanted in the first place
Not a lot of good options here.
That approach only works for people who are "acting out" and trying to get attention online. The meaning of "troll" has changed. It doesn't work for people who are conducting harassment campaigns or spreading misinformation. It kinda doesn't work for anyone you're interacting with on a personal, non-anonymous basis anyway. If someone is behaving badly in a company or even in a casual group, you don't just ignore them.
"If someone is behaving badly in a company or even in a casual group, you don't just ignore them."
I think I agree, but it goes against the grain of what people previously thought you should do on the internet.
>harassment campaigns or spreading misinformation
I am genuinely curious about the flora of the NPC movement. I mean, this territory between meme and organized campaign is really interesting and it's sad it comes at the cost of society.
I think I agree, but it goes against the grain of what people previously thought you should do on the internet.
>harassment campaigns or spreading misinformation
I am genuinely curious about the flora of the NPC movement. I mean, this territory between meme and organized campaign is really interesting and it's sad it comes at the cost of society.
You're completely correct. Don't feed the trolls is exactly right. And yet every single time that the right throws out some more bait, no matter how silly, no matter how stupid, the left looses it's shit.
Take this NPC thing, it's a damn joke, just like every single meme - it may be funny, it may not be depending on your own preferences, but when it gets posted and in response you have 50 articles the next day about how it 'dehumanises' something or other ... before it even gets to NYT, the trolls are more than fed.
Take this NPC thing, it's a damn joke, just like every single meme - it may be funny, it may not be depending on your own preferences, but when it gets posted and in response you have 50 articles the next day about how it 'dehumanises' something or other ... before it even gets to NYT, the trolls are more than fed.
> don't feed the trolls
Absolutely, but it's still interesting to dissect and debate on why this campaign spread like fire compared to all other running trolling campaigns
What also make it interesting is how quickly social media reacted to it, seems unprecedented in speed and efficiency.
Absolutely, but it's still interesting to dissect and debate on why this campaign spread like fire compared to all other running trolling campaigns
What also make it interesting is how quickly social media reacted to it, seems unprecedented in speed and efficiency.
This may be an unpopular opinion, but I’d prefer if this culture war crap were kept off HN. There are plenty of other places to discuss this, just because Twitter is involved doesn’t mean it’s related to tech.
Not unpopular opinion at all. Reckon most here would agree.
Used to be you could come here to at least slightly escape from all that shit and artificial outrage. Now I can barely tell the difference between HN and Vox.
Used to be you could come here to at least slightly escape from all that shit and artificial outrage. Now I can barely tell the difference between HN and Vox.
Normally I’d agree, but I think prolific Silicon Valley startup Twitter playing such a big role makes it very much Hacker News material.
Yeah, this thread has degraded extremely rapidly in terms of comments. And luckily it just disappeared off the front page :)
> this thread has degraded extremely rapidly
The internet in a nutshell.
The internet in a nutshell.
This article was on Techmeme.
https://www.techmeme.com/181016/p42#a181016p42
https://www.techmeme.com/181016/p42#a181016p42
[deleted]
The Right used to abhor postmodernism, and were properly mocked by the Left whenever they whinged about it.
Now the Right have embraced postmodernism, and the Left have no idea how to respond.
Now the Right have embraced postmodernism, and the Left have no idea how to respond.
That happened back with George W. Bush ironically and really ended it for the postmodernist side. There was one interesting article about it.
http://clubtroppo.com.au/2012/02/22/george-bush-bruno-latour...
Being disengaged with reality because it doesn't say what you want it to isn't a good thing but some delusions are more harmful than others.
http://clubtroppo.com.au/2012/02/22/george-bush-bruno-latour...
Being disengaged with reality because it doesn't say what you want it to isn't a good thing but some delusions are more harmful than others.
Great link, with great links! I'll be avidly reading those over the next few days. "...Latour can actually write well when he wants to." Golden!
The PoMo "side" is not exactly the Leftist side, however. If reformed PoMo enthusiasts expect all this to go away now that they've seen the error of their ways, they will be disappointed. The discourse from 4chan etc is not only a reaction to a particular political circumstance, but also to the experience of real people in economic, advertising, media, social, etc arenas. The channers have found something that empowers them to speak back to dominant narratives that exclude them, and they're not going to give it up just because e.g. Latour has changed his mind.
The PoMo "side" is not exactly the Leftist side, however. If reformed PoMo enthusiasts expect all this to go away now that they've seen the error of their ways, they will be disappointed. The discourse from 4chan etc is not only a reaction to a particular political circumstance, but also to the experience of real people in economic, advertising, media, social, etc arenas. The channers have found something that empowers them to speak back to dominant narratives that exclude them, and they're not going to give it up just because e.g. Latour has changed his mind.
I confess this campaign is a puzzlement to me. There are a bunch of people all repeating the same idea as a way of critiquing people they believe are... all repeating the same ideas?
Wouldn't that be how you would critique that sort of thing? I dont think it's that hard to get.
Is it really that hard to understand? At its simplest level, the NPC meme is an extension of "I'm a member of [insert outgroup here], look how dumb I sound" trolling.
I guess? It's so self-invalidating that I'm having trouble seeing the point. Do they understand that they're engaging in the exact behavior they're criticizing? If they do and see it as clever irony, it hasn't come across in the bits I've seen. If they don't then it seems a vigorous self-own.
I see your point, but what’s weird is Twitter is banning these accounts and the press is freaking out about it. Why not let these npc memers continue to self own? Why interrupt your enemy while he’s making a mistake?
From Twitter's perspective, meme-makers aren't the enemy. Drama is good for their revenue numbers. Bulk fake accounts are a problem in general, so I'm sure they noticed the spike. But I'd guess the false election information is the honest motivation for the mass ban. People have basically given them and Facebook a mulligan on the 2016 election. But they definitely don't want to be blamed twice an a row for ruining democracy; not only does it make them look careless, but it significantly raises the risks of intemperate regulatory action.
Satire definitionally takes on elements of what is is criticizing. So your question is good, do they understand they're engaging in the same behavior they are criticizing. I think the answer is obviously they do. Just like when SNL does an obnoxious loud rendition of Donald Trump, they know they are being loud and obnoxious. I don't think most people would say SNL self-owns because they are being loud and obnoxious just like Trump - they are clearly mocking him.
Yes and no. If one person posted a bunch of this stuff in one spot, that would be satire, and the ironic contrast between text and intent would be heightened. But having a lot of people do it diminishes the contrast. Here the mass behavior weakens any satire.
SNL can pull off a loud and obnoxious Trump character, because they show they can work in many other registers. But SNL itself doesn't become indiscriminately loud and obnoxious throughout a whole episode in hopes that people will make some meta-level connection between general obnoxiousness and Trump. And for good reason; a tiresome character in contrast to non-tiresome characters can be good drama. A tiresome show is for most poeple just a tiresome show. There's a reason badfilm like The Room is very much a niche taste.
SNL can pull off a loud and obnoxious Trump character, because they show they can work in many other registers. But SNL itself doesn't become indiscriminately loud and obnoxious throughout a whole episode in hopes that people will make some meta-level connection between general obnoxiousness and Trump. And for good reason; a tiresome character in contrast to non-tiresome characters can be good drama. A tiresome show is for most poeple just a tiresome show. There's a reason badfilm like The Room is very much a niche taste.
Originally yes, that was the joke, people just repeating the same buzzwords and catch phrases in response to anything as game NPCs do.
However as with all the memes over the last few days, it quickly turns from that into 'well those people are reacting exactly how we thought they would, just keep posting it if it triggers them'.
e.g. take Pepe - the only reason it caught on was because the left took the bait and lost their shit over it. The only reason this NPC thing took off was because the same people took the bait and are loosing their shit over it. It doesn't matter what the meme is, what it's about, or what it represents. The right keeps making jokes, the left keeps taking the bait, the right sees that and keeps feeding them more and more.
However as with all the memes over the last few days, it quickly turns from that into 'well those people are reacting exactly how we thought they would, just keep posting it if it triggers them'.
e.g. take Pepe - the only reason it caught on was because the left took the bait and lost their shit over it. The only reason this NPC thing took off was because the same people took the bait and are loosing their shit over it. It doesn't matter what the meme is, what it's about, or what it represents. The right keeps making jokes, the left keeps taking the bait, the right sees that and keeps feeding them more and more.
> "well those people are reacting exactly how we thought they would"
Almost like NPCs...
Almost like NPCs...
Exactly that.
Right: Hey you guys just keep repeating the same thing.
Left: You're a racist
Left: You're a racist
Left: You're a racist nazi
Left: You're a nazi racist
Left: You're dehumanising us you racist
Right: Well hell, make 5000 more of these if they're getting such a great engagement rate.
Right: Hey you guys just keep repeating the same thing.
Left: You're a racist
Left: You're a racist
Left: You're a racist nazi
Left: You're a nazi racist
Left: You're dehumanising us you racist
Right: Well hell, make 5000 more of these if they're getting such a great engagement rate.
>take Pepe - the only reason it caught on was because the left took the bait and lost their shit over it.
Pepe was popular way before it was a political meme.. Pepe comes from a book released in 2006, and according to KYM feelsbadman became a meme in 2009.
Pepe was popular way before it was a political meme.. Pepe comes from a book released in 2006, and according to KYM feelsbadman became a meme in 2009.
I'm referring to it catching on in a political sense and becoming such a major part of the 2016 election cycle while neither the crying Jordan, the spongebob caveman, the sad ben Affleck and all else that was popular at that time didn't.
> Evidence suggests that these are mostly just attention-starved gamers looking to impress one another
What is the link with gaming I'm missing here? Is 4chan simply associated by gaming defacto? I don't see anything else about video games or any evidence of these people being gamers in the article...
What is the link with gaming I'm missing here? Is 4chan simply associated by gaming defacto? I don't see anything else about video games or any evidence of these people being gamers in the article...
Maybe they think that only gamers know what an "NPC" is. But, feels like a stretch.
"Gamers" and "Gamergate" is a generic boogeyman that media outlets can use to direct their anger at. See "Why Young Men of Color Are Joining White-Supremacist Groups" [1] for another example.
The obvious answer to "Why are non-whites joining white supremacist groups" might be "They're not white supremacist groups, they're just mislabeled by people who call everyone they disagree with nazis."
The article explains that it is, however, Gamergate and Ayn Rand that are turning non-white people towards white supremacy, even though Gamergate and Ayn Rand don't have an opinion on racial superiority as far as I know.
edit: It looks like I triggered the NPC downvote algorithm. I hope the next patch gives them dialogue choices.
[1] http://archive.is/P0X3D
The obvious answer to "Why are non-whites joining white supremacist groups" might be "They're not white supremacist groups, they're just mislabeled by people who call everyone they disagree with nazis."
The article explains that it is, however, Gamergate and Ayn Rand that are turning non-white people towards white supremacy, even though Gamergate and Ayn Rand don't have an opinion on racial superiority as far as I know.
edit: It looks like I triggered the NPC downvote algorithm. I hope the next patch gives them dialogue choices.
[1] http://archive.is/P0X3D
To me, the real explanation for a lot of this bizarre nonsense is because journalists are spending all day on Twitter which in reality isn't the real world it's technically just a very popular internet forum with a few famous users and they've begun to not understand that what happens on the internet forum Twitter does not represent what's actually happening in the real world.
This is how internet forum drama gets mistaken as actually something people in the real world actually think about.
Once you start to see this it becomes so strange that you can even tell when a journalist is a Twitter addict just from some of the terms and thinking they start to include in their articles.
There is very much a Twitter hivemind heavy users start to tap into, and unlike say Reddit users or even 4chan users they mistake Twitter as being the real world and the hivemind as reality.
This is how internet forum drama gets mistaken as actually something people in the real world actually think about.
Once you start to see this it becomes so strange that you can even tell when a journalist is a Twitter addict just from some of the terms and thinking they start to include in their articles.
There is very much a Twitter hivemind heavy users start to tap into, and unlike say Reddit users or even 4chan users they mistake Twitter as being the real world and the hivemind as reality.
Indeed. When ~journalists~ spend their whole day on Twitter, it means their resolution of the world is incredibly minute.
Think about the most significant events from 2005. If you're looking back at that resolution, the small day-to-day stuff gets filtered out. The signal to noise ratio of what's actually significant is pretty good.
These journalists are literally involved in the minute to minute. They wouldn't even notice the signal if it kicked them in the head, because they live in the noise.
Think about the most significant events from 2005. If you're looking back at that resolution, the small day-to-day stuff gets filtered out. The signal to noise ratio of what's actually significant is pretty good.
These journalists are literally involved in the minute to minute. They wouldn't even notice the signal if it kicked them in the head, because they live in the noise.
>They wouldn't even notice the signal if it kicked them in the head, because they live in the noise.
This is a pretty apt description for that entire group, really. Many people live exclusively in the consumer world and have largely abandoned foundations of society like building a family or participating in local community, and I think it manifests in the internet tribalism we see.
This is a pretty apt description for that entire group, really. Many people live exclusively in the consumer world and have largely abandoned foundations of society like building a family or participating in local community, and I think it manifests in the internet tribalism we see.
Indeed; it's unfortunate, really.
I step in and out of engaging in political discourse online, but spend most of my time outside of it. I only come back to test my (hopefully) improved perspective to see how my worldview holds up against the critiques that the internet throws at me.
I'm about due to another half year or more recess away from social media, though. It definitely wears on you.
I step in and out of engaging in political discourse online, but spend most of my time outside of it. I only come back to test my (hopefully) improved perspective to see how my worldview holds up against the critiques that the internet throws at me.
I'm about due to another half year or more recess away from social media, though. It definitely wears on you.
You aren't missing anything. It's just a far left propaganda outfit keeping with the message - "alt right", "right wing", "far right", "gamer", "incel", etc.
Ctrl-c, Ctrl-v.
Also, this story is like a week old. It's funny how it only reached HN via a nytimes post.
Ctrl-c, Ctrl-v.
Also, this story is like a week old. It's funny how it only reached HN via a nytimes post.
A few observations.
1. Why did NYT get a special scoop on who's been banned, and why? That makes it more likely to be perceived as an act of signaling more than one of genuine enforcement.
2. Streisand Effect, in several ways. The reaction by Twitter also serves to put blood in the water, letting those trolls know that the tactic hit a soft spot, and encouraging them to hit it more aggressively.
3. Where's the line between this and satire? I'm seeing: a. Blatant hyperbole b. Obvious markers that the account is a part of the satire: hyperbolic or downright silly account names, and a distinctive avatar
1. Why did NYT get a special scoop on who's been banned, and why? That makes it more likely to be perceived as an act of signaling more than one of genuine enforcement.
2. Streisand Effect, in several ways. The reaction by Twitter also serves to put blood in the water, letting those trolls know that the tactic hit a soft spot, and encouraging them to hit it more aggressively.
3. Where's the line between this and satire? I'm seeing: a. Blatant hyperbole b. Obvious markers that the account is a part of the satire: hyperbolic or downright silly account names, and a distinctive avatar
How about they proceed to ban bots instead?
That would IMO make twitter much more useful, but of course it would kill 95% of their “user base” and traffic.
That would IMO make twitter much more useful, but of course it would kill 95% of their “user base” and traffic.
Well, part of the basis of this "campaign" is that the people they are satirizing are indistinguishable from "bots"...
4chan is too stupid to tell the difference between a bot and a liberal
The fact that NYT even asks the question “Are these Russian bots?” kind of fuels this meme, imo.
Their answer is “probably not”.
Their answer is “probably not”.
You might know that internet trolls from reddit/4chan aren't likely to be russian (at least for this meme in particular), but most (especially older) people are not familiar with the various internet cultures. It's a question I can definitely see my parents asking.
Something that caught my eye there is serious discussion about whether jokes about November 7 voting (that I hear every election I've witnesses in US, bar none) is interfering with election and "giving false voting information" and whether it justifies removing the account. Which got me thinking - do I really want people that don't know which day is the voting day and trusting random twitter account with crudely drawn meme as an avatar with this information - do I really want them voting that much? It looks to me that if such people show up on November 7, it would only be for the best for everybody.
...as someone who is oblivious to these things (only knew it was a "thing" last night)...can someone explain why this is harmful and not just people wasting time?
It's just an elaborate form of calling somebody stupid by implying that they don't consciously think about their decisions by means of having an inner dialogue. For twitter to ban this is weird but hey, I guess they are moving more towards the european model of free speech if they aren't already there.
It's basically propaganda. Propaganda is generally agreed to be a bad thing for a true democracy.
Actually, propaganda is agreed to be a good thing for a democracy. It's why we have free press and free speech laws.
Many of the founders ran printing presses or newspapers to push their own propaganda. The most prominent being alexander hamilton and the NY Post.
What is bad for democracy is censorship ( aka one sided propaganda ).
Many of the founders ran printing presses or newspapers to push their own propaganda. The most prominent being alexander hamilton and the NY Post.
What is bad for democracy is censorship ( aka one sided propaganda ).
It is no more propaganda than #maga or #orangecheeto or #impeachtrump. It is political satire and commentary.
Propaganda for what?
How in the world is criticizing the capacity of a persons ability to critically think by using memes Propaganda.
I'm right wing and I find the boxed responses from leftest to line up with some of the NPC stuff I saw.
I'm right wing and I find the boxed responses from leftest to line up with some of the NPC stuff I saw.
From the article, spreading misleading voter information, which could cause voters to miss the date.
Sigh. So people who would normally vote liberal are now going to vote on the wrong day because they got the election day date from a troll account mocking their liberal position--and they didn't bother to remember that elections are always on Tuesdays or to use google?
I guess Twitter found the potential negatives of allowing voter suppression campaigns on their platform (no matter how ineffectual you think they are) are greater than the benefits of allowing people to carry them out 'because free speech.'
[deleted]
> These accounts posed as liberal activists and were used to spread — among other things — false information about November’s midterm elections
Which violates the Twitter policy against intentionally misleading election content. Pretty straight forward.
Which violates the Twitter policy against intentionally misleading election content. Pretty straight forward.
So basically satire banned on Twitter, if it comes from the right. These accounts were in no way misleading; one would never confuse them for actual liberal activists.
There's plenty of satire left out there. What isn't satire or useful is misleading information about how/when to vote etc.
While your answer is reducible to "yes" in this case, I think the NPC meme is just the inverted Russian bot meme. If one qualifies as misleading information, the other should be scrutinized as well.
Although the NPC case is probably about some random people on twitter that like to make fun of some targets, the story about Russians seems to have more involved actors.
Although the NPC case is probably about some random people on twitter that like to make fun of some targets, the story about Russians seems to have more involved actors.
It's not the satire/joke that's getting banned, we know this because there's still NPC account doing the same joke so it's not just the joke that brought down the hammer.
What got those 1500 banned were tweets like "Get out and vote November 7th!" 1 day after the actual date of Nov 6th and the boosting and retweeting among all the accounts.
What got those 1500 banned were tweets like "Get out and vote November 7th!" 1 day after the actual date of Nov 6th and the boosting and retweeting among all the accounts.
Thanks. This is logical.
Pretty sure like 0.001% of those accounts did that. But it's a good excuse, granted.
I think the real reason they got banned is that under every tweet of every blue-checkmark liberal on Twitter you'd find dozens of replies of accounts called NPC209834029 with the same avatar nodding and saying the same platitudes. But of course, when all the replies to all Trump tweets are from blue-checkmarks shitting on him, Twitter doesn't seem to care. :P I think neither should be banned, but I guess they know better.
I think the real reason they got banned is that under every tweet of every blue-checkmark liberal on Twitter you'd find dozens of replies of accounts called NPC209834029 with the same avatar nodding and saying the same platitudes. But of course, when all the replies to all Trump tweets are from blue-checkmarks shitting on him, Twitter doesn't seem to care. :P I think neither should be banned, but I guess they know better.
[deleted]
[deleted]
>Aren’t you giving these trolls the attention they’re seeking by writing about them in The New York Times? Yes, probably. But understanding how these things happen, and how easily joke memes can escape the internet’s seedy underbelly and morph into actual tools of influence, is part of understanding the mechanics of modern politics.
Laudable goal. Yet they shot themselves in the foot. Instead of focusing on "everyone falls into the trap of substituting popular rhetoric in the place of critical thinking" they had too much of what could be dismissed as "orange man supporter bad."
Laudable goal. Yet they shot themselves in the foot. Instead of focusing on "everyone falls into the trap of substituting popular rhetoric in the place of critical thinking" they had too much of what could be dismissed as "orange man supporter bad."
I have a hard time believing these troll accounts had a significant impact on anyone's voting decions. Dumb meme, but seems like an over reaction.
The speed at which the media have rounded against this meme is breathtaking. Are some memes inherently powerful and just need to be controlled? Why are they powerful? How much longer can 30 year old boomers be let sip Monsters outdoors? It's not right.
Memes are propaganda on steroids.
Could say the same about most journalism today as well.
"NPC meme" is to 2018 as "Common Sense" is to 1776.
siiiippp
[deleted]
Yes some memes are more powerful than others. Like biological replicators, they score on longevity, fecundity and fidelity.
For example many religions have a clause where if you stop believing you go to hell. Or if you don't teach it to your children you are a bad person. Very powerful mechanism.
For example many religions have a clause where if you stop believing you go to hell. Or if you don't teach it to your children you are a bad person. Very powerful mechanism.
Ok but what makes a certain meme have enough power that it then has fecundity/fidelity? There must be a resonance between powerful memes and 'human nature' or else they surely wouldn't propagate (e.g. fear of death, in the case of the 'hell' meme).
I suppose what I'm wondering is: is this meme making people fret that they might actually be NPCs? It must be resonating with people or else there wouldn't be uproar.
I suppose what I'm wondering is: is this meme making people fret that they might actually be NPCs? It must be resonating with people or else there wouldn't be uproar.
These should be treated as similar to political cartoons.
"Pro-trump" What the f? Don't we have professionals anymore? Why is this news? Why is this so innacurate i thought the NY Times was a decent source of information. These people know nothing.
Banning all those accounts based on a tiny minority of tweets promoting fake election dates seems like totally bs reasoning. If their reasoning for the bans was actually a policy against "dehumanizing speech" as some have said, then why not ban everyone who tries to dehumanize a Trump supporter with an accusation of them being a "Russian bot?" Or what about dehumanizing language against opponents like racist/sexist/Nazi/homophobic/transophobic etc?
Also.. I think this meme has a grain of truth to it - I don't know about the political aspect, but as to people's minds generating the same content and repeating the same phrases over and over: it seems as if our popular media is pretty limited in the things journalists and TV hosts are "allowed" to cover and say. Late night hosts all seem the same. That's one reason I enjoy 4chan, because the content is so diverse.
Also.. I think this meme has a grain of truth to it - I don't know about the political aspect, but as to people's minds generating the same content and repeating the same phrases over and over: it seems as if our popular media is pretty limited in the things journalists and TV hosts are "allowed" to cover and say. Late night hosts all seem the same. That's one reason I enjoy 4chan, because the content is so diverse.
It's interesting that this Twitter ban gets all this attention, while a far more civically damaging coordinated mass-ban by Twitter and Facebook has largely escaped notice. [0] If one were a cynic, one might suggest that there is only enough space in the news cycle for one group of unsympathetic ban victims.
[0] https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2018/10/13/internet-censorship-...
[0] https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2018/10/13/internet-censorship-...
The appropriate title should have included:
"The accounts violated Twitter’s rules against “intentionally misleading election-related content."
"The accounts violated Twitter’s rules against “intentionally misleading election-related content."
[deleted]
Banned for "voter suppression"? Really?
As if a bunch of people are going to get disenfranchised because a stupid joke tweet? Come on. If you don't vote because of that one tweet maybe you aren't educated enough to be voting in the first place.
Furthermore, why not just ban that one tweet? Banning the entire meme because one tweet only goes to further the narrative that anything right wing is being systematically suppressed on the internet.
Congrats on throwing the trolls a giant hunk of red meat, Twitter.
As if a bunch of people are going to get disenfranchised because a stupid joke tweet? Come on. If you don't vote because of that one tweet maybe you aren't educated enough to be voting in the first place.
Furthermore, why not just ban that one tweet? Banning the entire meme because one tweet only goes to further the narrative that anything right wing is being systematically suppressed on the internet.
Congrats on throwing the trolls a giant hunk of red meat, Twitter.
Evan James has a good writeup on the sort of anxieties around society that sprung up the NPC meme [0]. There's a portion which I think has a kernel of truth, although it is definitely generous to the kind of people that immaturely lashed out and made very low-effort twitter accounts which wound up propagating the meme:
>The far right can be profoundly intuitive creatures, who feel more deeply than cursory glances suggest. The NPC meme is a response to something real, something that snarky liberals, and even leftists, increasingly fail to notice. In short, it is a tragicomic acknowledgment that things are not OK, that we are all NPCs (to one degree or another) because we are all in bondage.
I think the idea that people repeat samey platitudes they hear on TV or read online without much further thought is certainly a legitimate concern. The meme brought up a good point about mass consumer culture, but from there, it attained its own populism: a thousand voices telling a thousand other voices that they're following a script.
As someone who admittedly spends a lot of time on 4chan (an online addiction I have sustained for ten years), I was present to witness its snowballing on the imageboard. What I found interesting then was that the crux of the discussion around the meme focused on the idea that few people have an inner monologue [1].
[0] https://jacobitemag.com/2018/10/02/empty-realm/ [1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/pristine-inner-exper...
>The far right can be profoundly intuitive creatures, who feel more deeply than cursory glances suggest. The NPC meme is a response to something real, something that snarky liberals, and even leftists, increasingly fail to notice. In short, it is a tragicomic acknowledgment that things are not OK, that we are all NPCs (to one degree or another) because we are all in bondage.
I think the idea that people repeat samey platitudes they hear on TV or read online without much further thought is certainly a legitimate concern. The meme brought up a good point about mass consumer culture, but from there, it attained its own populism: a thousand voices telling a thousand other voices that they're following a script.
As someone who admittedly spends a lot of time on 4chan (an online addiction I have sustained for ten years), I was present to witness its snowballing on the imageboard. What I found interesting then was that the crux of the discussion around the meme focused on the idea that few people have an inner monologue [1].
[0] https://jacobitemag.com/2018/10/02/empty-realm/ [1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/pristine-inner-exper...
It confuses me, because "don't take things at face value" and "don't just follow a script" is, well, postmodernism. It's also anticapitalism. It's also a commentary about peoples reverence of traditional gender roles and religions. Actually, I totally fail to see why it's a conservative meme at all, unless it's being repeated without any attempt to consider broader implications.
>unless it's being repeated without any attempt to consider broader implications.
That's just it, I think. The meme was taken in by a crowd that itself does not practice introspection. I don't think the New York Times is too far off when they mention its spread by "attention-starved gamers": disenfranchised young men attempting their own first run at exercising a naive political opinion over the internet.
That's just it, I think. The meme was taken in by a crowd that itself does not practice introspection. I don't think the New York Times is too far off when they mention its spread by "attention-starved gamers": disenfranchised young men attempting their own first run at exercising a naive political opinion over the internet.
> I totally fail to see why it's a conservative meme at all
It's not a conservative meme. 4chan trolls != conservatives != The Right != Republicans != ... Almost nothing fits neatly into a bipolar spectrum of "us vs them" and 4chan culture is mostly about being where the normal people don't want to go.
On /b/ you can find posts complaining about Jews controlling the economy, trans people swapping pictures, memes about niggers cucking white bois, incest fantasies, celebrations of school shootings, people claiming their favorite anime characters as waifu/husbando, complaints about how this is all cancer and needs to stop ...
There is no unified message that would fit into mainstream politics.
It's not a conservative meme. 4chan trolls != conservatives != The Right != Republicans != ... Almost nothing fits neatly into a bipolar spectrum of "us vs them" and 4chan culture is mostly about being where the normal people don't want to go.
On /b/ you can find posts complaining about Jews controlling the economy, trans people swapping pictures, memes about niggers cucking white bois, incest fantasies, celebrations of school shootings, people claiming their favorite anime characters as waifu/husbando, complaints about how this is all cancer and needs to stop ...
There is no unified message that would fit into mainstream politics.
And yet people here and the NYT are labeling this "far right" and even alt-right. It's laughable.
At it's core, it shouldn't be a conservative meme at all, if anything it's a "free thinker" or a libertarian / anarchist point of view. I think it is labelled "conservative" is because the left have reacted strongly against it, thereby defining it, and reinforcing the forms that cause that reaction by their opposition. It's a kind of virus which gets stronger the more anti viral counter measures are applied.
Anyhow, I first heard about someone calling other people an NPC in a robert anton wilson celebration event 5 years ago by a man on acid talking about how many people in the world are NPCs when you try to talk to them about something real or important. I thought it quite funny, was a bit uneasy, sort of agreed, and sort of disagreed.
Anyhow, I first heard about someone calling other people an NPC in a robert anton wilson celebration event 5 years ago by a man on acid talking about how many people in the world are NPCs when you try to talk to them about something real or important. I thought it quite funny, was a bit uneasy, sort of agreed, and sort of disagreed.
If your view is "conservative" == "right-wing" == "capitalism" then I can see why you would say that.
Cmon the meme is kinda funny.
It's also kind of stupid. As in, very tiny amounts the things that the "joke" tries to attack are based in reality. Its as if they cannot accept that large numbers of progressive or liberal minded people exist.
if Twitter were to ban stupid content from its website, not much would remain ; the stupidity of this can't be used as a reason to explain the bans.
I think it's actually the reverse. Your critique is that the NPC meme ignores that lots of liberals/progressives exist.
The rightist promoters of the NPC meme would agree with that statement -- but they would say that it's because most are just acting as ideologically/memetically programmed automatons. Crucial to understanding this meme is that its promoters see "libs" not as literal bots, but as humans-with-bot-thinking, who have grown up on a diet of platitudes and mantras without deep analysis.
On the contrary, the left/libs/progressives (whatever you want to call them) on Twitter have had a habit of actually doing what you're saying, when they pull out the "oh look another Russian bot" troll. That meme actually asserts that the number of actual conservatives/right-wingers is literally small and being amplified by actual programmed chatbots.
The rightist promoters of the NPC meme would agree with that statement -- but they would say that it's because most are just acting as ideologically/memetically programmed automatons. Crucial to understanding this meme is that its promoters see "libs" not as literal bots, but as humans-with-bot-thinking, who have grown up on a diet of platitudes and mantras without deep analysis.
On the contrary, the left/libs/progressives (whatever you want to call them) on Twitter have had a habit of actually doing what you're saying, when they pull out the "oh look another Russian bot" troll. That meme actually asserts that the number of actual conservatives/right-wingers is literally small and being amplified by actual programmed chatbots.
It's a joke, you're taking it way too seriously
[deleted]
Being funny isn't really a defense against pointing out that it's harmful.
Responses like these make me think the meme is actually dead-on accurate.
Harmful seems like a stretch.
Is it?
Harmful? "a few of the accounts started posting misleading information about the midterm elections, including encouraging liberals to vote on Nov. 7". Yes.
Golly, this is so "show me the man and I'll find you the crime" going on here. Are liberals actually too stupid to know when the vote is?
The upcoming midterm elections are expected to be very close, with low turnout favoring Republicans. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/democratic-lead-continues-to-gr... So a strategy for Republicans lately is to reduce turnout. Voter roll purges, disenfranchisement of felons, stricter voter ID laws, and closing polling stations are some legal ways to reduce turnout. Groups that are less concerned about appearing above-board use lies as a cheap way to nudge close elections. Spreading misinformation is effective enough that even well-funded fraud campaigns do it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud#Disinformation
High turnout tends to favor Democrats, so they are less motivated to engage in this particular kind of election fraud. I don't think that makes them smarter or dumber.
High turnout tends to favor Democrats, so they are less motivated to engage in this particular kind of election fraud. I don't think that makes them smarter or dumber.
Election fraud? Are you serious? Your response is pretty much the essence of why this meme is a huge hit: because it's true. It's like the left is just jealous they can't meme and aren't funny anymore.
I'm not sure if you're arguing that posting lies about voting dates isn't fraud, or that this instance doesn't count because it's posted by a joke site.
[deleted]
[deleted]
"let's show how unthinking this other group is with a snowclone meme"
Not sure how to feel about this one. Waiting for John Oliver's take.
I'm with you on that. Eagerly waiting to be fed my opinion and then post about it on FB and Twitter. My friends are going to love it and I will feel appreciated.
[deleted]
> Last week, a trolling campaign organized by right-wing internet users spilled over onto Twitter.
So Twitter bans a bunch of satire accounts for political reasons and the New York Times applauds the decision. This makes me incredibly sad but I guess it's to be expected.
If your political position is so weak that some jokes can damage it, maybe it's time to take a deep inward look. I don't see anyone calling on SNL to ban Trump impersonations.
So Twitter bans a bunch of satire accounts for political reasons and the New York Times applauds the decision. This makes me incredibly sad but I guess it's to be expected.
If your political position is so weak that some jokes can damage it, maybe it's time to take a deep inward look. I don't see anyone calling on SNL to ban Trump impersonations.
For spreading incorrect election information.
Plenty of far right twitter accounts, these where designed to get banned for publicity.
Plenty of far right twitter accounts, these where designed to get banned for publicity.
> these where designed to get banned for publicity.
I don't think they were. I think they were designed to be funny and characterize a particular ideology.
As I said in the other comment, this article gives one extremely mild example of incorrect election information and says "a few" of the accounts were participating in that. Why would you ban all of them, including the accounts not spreading misinformation?
I don't think they were. I think they were designed to be funny and characterize a particular ideology.
As I said in the other comment, this article gives one extremely mild example of incorrect election information and says "a few" of the accounts were participating in that. Why would you ban all of them, including the accounts not spreading misinformation?
Not all of these accounts where banned. But, it's likely they where banning multiple sock puppets from the same users.
>far right twitter accounts
Nazis are everywhere, after all.
And wow is it just embarrassing to see this "incorrect election information" thing being touted here. If someone was actually convinced that the election was a day later because they believed an NPC Twitter account they have only themselves to blame.
Nazis are everywhere, after all.
And wow is it just embarrassing to see this "incorrect election information" thing being touted here. If someone was actually convinced that the election was a day later because they believed an NPC Twitter account they have only themselves to blame.
That’s not how memory works.
You don’t read something say that false and ignore it. You ignore or remember something independent of it’s true and then latter when trying to recall something make an association. So you might recall Election Day, 7th, false or just Election Day, 7th.
As Election Day changes (2020 in on the 3rd) many people have a rather weak recall of the date so it’s easy for people to get confused.
PS: In terms of politics these Twitter accounts don’t actually have a liberal following so banning them helps republicans.
You don’t read something say that false and ignore it. You ignore or remember something independent of it’s true and then latter when trying to recall something make an association. So you might recall Election Day, 7th, false or just Election Day, 7th.
As Election Day changes (2020 in on the 3rd) many people have a rather weak recall of the date so it’s easy for people to get confused.
PS: In terms of politics these Twitter accounts don’t actually have a liberal following so banning them helps republicans.
It's not the jokes and mocking they got the boot for it's spreading intentionally misleading election information like when and how to vote.
The article gives one example and says it was a "few" accounts. Why ban all of them?
They weren't all banned. There's still at least a couple of these NPC satire accounts floating around out there now.
If you are misled about when the vote is by a tweet from an account with a wojak avatar, it's probably for the better of mankind if you don't vote... or procreate.
Eugenics is bunk and low information voters are still entitled to their representation and votes.
NY times characterizing these protesters as far/right or as “attention starved gamers” is also odd.
ROFL
I love the last question ‘Aren’t you giving these trolls the attention they’re seeking by writing about them in The New York Times?’
I thought the same thing. Interesting to see right-wing business coming out of *chan-land. I’d always seen it as more of a left-wing place.
I thought the same thing. Interesting to see right-wing business coming out of *chan-land. I’d always seen it as more of a left-wing place.
*chan-land is pro freedom of speech. Historically that meant being against things like religious crusades against explicit lyrics and anti-evolution arguments. With the shift of the left against free speech, they've become the new enemy.
No they're not, their idea of freedom of speech extends no further than "I want to say whatever I want."
Their longstanding history of doxxing, conducting raids, etc. on those who they disagree with are the exact opposite of actual proponents of free speech.
Their longstanding history of doxxing, conducting raids, etc. on those who they disagree with are the exact opposite of actual proponents of free speech.
Y'all went so far left *chan-land is now considered right.
*chan land is chaotic neutral and always has been. Authoritarians just can't handle chaotic. A projection of a high dimensional vector (politics) onto a line (left - right) is always going to be a goof.
[deleted]
Great honest accurate article. NPC meme is the funniest thing since Ugandan knuckles
[deleted]
I must admit, it has been entertaining watching how the meme's proponents have acted as if they have uncovered some great Truth of the human experience, when in fact it's nothing more than the tired old "I am a critical thinking individual while those who disagree with me are not." wrapped in video game nomenclature.
I suspect that deep down this was an attempt at coining a "new" SJW after the term had gone mainstream.
I suspect that deep down this was an attempt at coining a "new" SJW after the term had gone mainstream.
It's a joke
It's sad that Twitter is banning satire accounts. I'm against all censorship of lawful speech, and condemn Twitter and any social media platform that participates in this kind of censorship.