Sherlock: Hunt down social media accounts by username across 400 social networks

Re:Sherlock: Hunt down social media accounts by username acr... by dylan604 on Wednesday December 25, 2024 @12:54PM (#42510032)

> for things they said 10 years ago.

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

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sherlock: Hunt down social media accounts by username acr... by II2II on Wednesday December 25, 2024 @01:19PM (#42510204)

That second example pretty much demonstrates why it is so dangerous. There were attitudes that were commonplace 30 years ago that are now considered racist, in many cases because they were racist, that people don't subscribe to today. I imagine the same can be said about 10 years ago. People's values change. We should not be giving them life sentences when the have reformed their attitudes and behaviors, otherwise the incentive to reform is taken away.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sherlock: Hunt down social media accounts by username acr... by idontlikeirc on Wednesday December 25, 2024 @11:05PM (#42513031)

One example of this I can think of is a show from the late 90's which used the word "spaz" very liberally, which was already iffy at the time but not fully demonized. Using it nowadays could be considered a major point of contention towards your image. Words like Gypsy and Retard are more recent inclusions in this field.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sherlock: Hunt down social media accounts by username acr... by s1artibartfast on Wednesday December 25, 2024 @11:56PM (#42513210)

When did spaz go out of favor? I was completely unaware it became taboo.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sherlock: Hunt down social media accounts by username acr... by Pigalowda on Thursday December 26, 2024 @07:34AM (#42514818)

It was deemed ableist by the White Knight Censorship company a few years ago. Something about cerebral palsy.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sherlock: Hunt down social media accounts by username acr... by iinnPP on Wednesday December 25, 2024 @01:01PM (#42510072)

I'm at a loss for how your example doesn't lead to automatically negative.

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sherlock: Hunt down social media accounts by username acr... by dylan604 on Wednesday December 25, 2024 @01:09PM (#42510125)

Having the right/freedom to post anything you want does not mean there shouldn't be consequences for those posts later.

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sherlock: Hunt down social media accounts by username acr... by DaSHacka on Wednesday December 25, 2024 @02:01PM (#42510475)

Ah, so you're who GGP's talking about.

[ Parent | on HN ]