Subnostr

People are worried about posting dissident views under their real identities because they could get in trouble for them.

But just as admitting you smoked weed or used hallucinogens once disqualified you from many jobs (and now no one cares) or learning to code was deemed important (and now AI will probably do a lot of the work), it’s impossible to know what will be helpful or harmful to your prospects in the future.

Maybe people who spoke out will be sought after because AI will obsolete NPC-types from the workforce entirely.

Maybe being silent and going along to get along is the real risk to your prospects.

It’s impossible to know.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

ponymontana💜⚡ 1y ago

agree with your vision, but the risk (and opportunity) is associated with every act of expression, in particular when divergent from the status quo. From just a game theory perspective, it doesnt have sense to prosecute a majority, and even if in future the world around would change spin, its still so ineffective prosecute a previous-majority.

So express something associated to an identity is an investment with risks and opportunities, the more divergent it is from majority, the more are risks and opportunities.

The act of not-speech and not populate an identity with acts of public expressions is the safest near 0 risks but also 0 opportunity.

Sometimes decide to not-speech is itself so eloquent and is itself an act of expression, but in reality in a pragmatic way, its nearly impossible to really prosecute/reward silence IMO.

Chris Liss 1y ago

Agree they won’t prosecute silence, but it might be the equivalent of not making the trip, not taking the risk, not venturing out. The opportunities might be entirely missed. Would be trivially easy for AI to screen social media for candidates.

(Not saying job prospects are the be-all, end-all, either, just using it as an example because a lot of people keep their mouths shut to protect future employability.

There are other more important reasons to dissent from bad policies.

OpnState 1y ago

I chose to go nym instead of using my real name for a few reasons. One of which is that governments are increasingly focused on "spreading disinformation" and other "harmful content". They are trying to criminalize something that is entirely subjective and that needs to be interpreted by someone.

Incredibly dangerous that.

There's a principle in lawmaking that terms and concepts should be as clear as possible.

Another reason is because people tend to attack and judge the person instead of what the person is saying. Ad hominem attacks are a cheap tactic and I'd rather not have to deal with them .

If this number eventually gets to a point where it will be open to ad hominems, I'll just create another .

Try opening a number and speaking your mind. It's liberating.

Chris Liss 1y ago

I do speak my mind already,

And what you say is absolutely true — “disinformation” is whatever they say it is. But once you concede the government can go after you for nothing, why be anon? They could go after your real life identity for saying 2+2 =4.

And that’s what happened in Communist states in the past. Only a tiny minority of the 100M killed were actual dissidents. They killed people for any reason or no reason, in part because not enough objected when they had the chance.