This card will be played over and over again by politicians, influencers, prosecutors, police, etc, until the smartphone-from-birth generation reaches office. At that point, it'll be so easy to dig up dirt on anyone, people will just stop caring (as they should anyway).
We're just in a weird transition period right now.
https://www.bookbrowse.com/expressions/detail/index.cfm/expr...
One of the parents saw the post, and raised a stink.
Now that I'm retired, it doesn't really matter that much, but I do my best to behave well (this joint is pretty much the only place I post much). In the past, I was not so circumspect. In fact, I was a troll.
I remember once, signing up for Disqus, and they came back, and said something to the effect of "We found all these posts from around the Internet. Would you like to claim any as yours?"
Included, were some of the worst troll posts I'd made, many years ago, under the [obviously mistaken] assumption that they were anonymous.
I nuked the signup, and went and had a lie-down.
Since then, I have never bothered to try being anonymous. I probably could, if I wanted to, but I'd rather just stay public, and not say stuff that I'd regret.
I assume the implication here is that the thing they said 10 years ago was less inappropriate back then. So how do you predict sensitivity changes 10 years in the future to limit your speech today? Even if you delete posts after, say 1 year, archives exist. Shouldn’t you just not say anything if you’re afraid of this? Maybe discussion of self-censorship like this will be taboo in 10 years and the ship has already sailed.
My thought was more about time and distance. Something can be unpopular or even wrong when it's first said too. People are dynamic and change over time. The mechanism of change is living their lives.
Taboos can change as well, so there is a motivation to steer clear of controversial topics in recorded media. You can use discretion to judge risk. It's unlikely that someone's going to fire you for discussing ice cream in 10 years.
There is no way to know what people are going to get offended about in the future, but the clear trend is people getting offended about more and more things over time, rather than fewer and fewer things.
I don't think this is an automatic negative as you are implying. There's definitely lots of qualifiers involved though. There would have to be significant evidence to show that the sentiment expressed is still no longer held which could be more than problematic to prove. If it was someone up for supreme court justice that posted pics showing how much they liked beer and their antics as a party person could be shown as lack of maturity by comparing that they no longer drink now. Someone posting racist comments would be much harder as you don't really know if they've changed their view or just learned not to post publicly their views.
Edit: automatic negative should really read automatic disqualifier
Don't post something harmless today that will be deemed a "dog whistle" in 2035 so that you don't have to prove a negative?
I don't mean to be critical here, it's a genuine ask.
And to add to the above, my post is the kind of post that would be gone. If I was taking a similar stance.
Age of post should just not be an automatic "but it was 10 years ago" get out of jail free card. If there's compelling evidence it was just a stupid thing someone did as a teen, then we can have that conversation. If it is a post from someone in some position of leadership that is 10 years old but was made in their 40s is not the same "I was an immature teen" situation.
I’m kind of glad that the value of blackmail futures has plummeted to zero
I always thought millenials would be the culprit because millennials have so much online, but nope, it was just old fashioned baby boomers that have spearheaded it and double down on their indiscretions to be the role models for the country’s top offices
No, its not.
The preferred image may be more combative, aggressive, and anti-social than in the recent past, but as always adherence to it is more important than actual authenticity.
> I’m kind of glad that the value of blackmail futures has plummeted to zero
It hasn’t, though the value function for current negative information is different, so things that were once valuable for blackmail or otherwise harmful to public image are less so (and things that were not are moreso.)
> I always thought millenials would be the culprit because millennials have so much online, but nope, it was just old fashioned baby boomers that have spearheaded that double down on their indiscretions and are the role models for the country’s top offices
The only boomer I can think of that you might be talking about denies them constantly (even if there is past documentation of his acknowledging them in a general sense) and is supported by favor-currying media magnates who either actively promote propaganda favoring his messaging on that or, at a minimum, actively spike critical coverage.
And even within his movement and with the support of his cult of personality and the same favorable media, others in his orbit have often been less successful in having their indiscretions given a pass (see, e.g., Matt Gaetz’s nomination for Attorney-General of the United States.)
"no sir."
"for god's sake Baldrick, you're running for parliament. I'll put fraud and sexual deviancy."
I’ve been told “I’m making someone uncomfortable” and I said “they’re making me uncomfortable”, and follow that up with “why are you privileging their discomfort over mine” and when they or the mob say something gendered or sexist as the explanation, then I get to cancel all of them or get a nice fat paycheck
(Ironically, Dems eat their own for that stuff, so maybe "politically motivated" doesn't quite capture it... compare e.g. Al Franken and Katie Hill vs Roy Moore or Matt Gaetz)
Pretty sure it's pretty close to true at this point that he actually could get away with literal cold-blooded murder in public at this point and his cult would fold themselves in half backwards tryin' to justify it somehow. [0]
[0]: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-fifth-avenue-...
https://www.pewresearch.org/2024/03/21/views-of-the-u-s-role...
Yeah, if you can fake that, you've got it made.
Things like advice in an alcohol recovery forum would be prime evidence for a liability suit.
There are also groups that vacuum the internet for offensive posts, and use them to try to get people fired for things they said 10 years ago.
At this point, I assume all internet activity can and will be de-anonymized, and restrict my speech accordingly. I'm sure there are some meaningful precautions and nuances, but it is too much to keep up with.