This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I agree with you that this is currently not actually a law, but I think you are being slightly dishonest when you claim that "No one is considering a law!" - this is the sort of action which frequently precedes legislation on the topic, as the problems the code is meant to address remain unaddressed. I find it hard to believe that even the most ardent supporter of a code like this actually believes that it will do anything at all to fix the problem of men continuing to propose alternatives when their first data idea gets shot down.
No, it isn't. I challenge you to provide me with even one example.
The New Media bargaining code is what I was thinking of specifically.
How is that similar? In that case the government tasked the ACCC with developing a mandatory code. They didn't ask Facebook and Google to develop a voluntary one.
The first draft of the code was actually voluntary rather than mandatory, and they did ask Facebook and Google for input on it. That's what made me think of this case in particular - it started out as a voluntary code with suggestions from the various parties, in a fairly similar way to this one.
Okay, so I need to concede this point. I hadn't noticed the early parts of that dispute, and only started paying attention after it got to the mandatory code stage.
However, this article suggests that a key point in the progression of the issue was
In other words, they said "go sort this issue out yourselves" and Facebook and Google said "no". I have no actual recollection of these events myself so I'll assume the article is representing them accurately, but correct me again if that's not the case.
Now, granted, this itself is enough to refute my strong position - I contended that industry would much prefer to self regulate rather than have the heavy hand of government come in. Obviously in this case that wasn't true and they tried to call the bluff, and the government did in fact bring in mandatory regulation.
So I think we can agree that the "or else" here is real - if the dating apps don't self regulate the government will regulate them. And I concede I was too confident that the government would not need to make good on that threat.
I am happy that we have amicably resolved a dispute without recourse to name-calling or heat generation! But yes, I don't see anything disagreeable in your post. I was paying a lot of attention to the code as it happened due to being extremely online, and I agree with this article's contention that Facebook et al were in the right here. I saw the code as the government doing their best to please the Murdoch media, like when they (allegedly) sabotaged the national broadband network because that could potentially impact Murdoch's business.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link