Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

[bananas]

Source: Washington Post

A new study shows that knowledge of government surveillance causes people to self-censor their dissenting opinions online. The research offers a sobering look at the oft-touted "democratizing" effect of social media and Internet access that bolsters minority opinion.

The study, published in Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, studied the effects of subtle reminders of mass surveillance on its subjects. The majority of participants reacted by suppressing opinions that they perceived to be in the minority. This research illustrates the silencing effect of participants’ dissenting opinions in the wake of widespread knowledge of government surveillance, as revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013.

The “spiral of silence” is a well-researched phenomenon in which people suppress unpopular opinions to fit in and avoid social isolation. It has been looked at in the context of social media and the echo-chamber effect, in which we tailor our opinions to fit the online activity of our Facebook and Twitter friends. But this study adds a new layer by explicitly examining how government surveillance affects self-censorship.

<snip>

She said that participants who shared the “nothing to hide” belief, those who tended to support mass surveillance as necessary for national security, were the most likely to silence their minority opinions.

<snip>


Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/03/28/mass-surveillance-silences-minority-opinions-according-to-study/

[villager]

1. As intended.

I mean, the mass surveillance that many hilariously misnamed "progressives" on this site support has many nefarious intentions, of course.

But that is certainly one of them.

[JDPriestly]

2. This was particularly obvious in Eastern Europe.

Surely the NSA knows this.

[Sam_Fields]

3. It's not just the government people have to worry about.

People with minority opinions also fear their corporate employers who can fire people for minority opinions or anything seen as anti-corporate.

[billhicks76]

4. DINOs Know It Too

[Zira]

7. Quite a bit of them around. You'd think they'd be exitinct by now.

[davidthegnome]

5. I wonder if some special agent is reading this forum.

It wouldn't surprise me. I had a conversation once with a former operative (or at least with someone who claimed to be one)... and I laughed at the idea that anyone would really listen in on regular phone calls, or read facebook posts, or DU posts, or monitor emails that are really pretty harmless. The operative told me I was seriously naive. He said that they've got all kinds of people who's job is to do just that - and beyond that, there are all kinds of regular, angry Americans, who are all too happy to tip them off about their neighbors and friends. He didn't have much of an opinion of the practice, other than to say that this kind of monitoring some times leads to useful intelligence.

That was a few years ago... I don't know if the man actually worked for the agency he claimed to, but he definitely turned out to be right about various surveillance programs we talked about. I was a good bit more naive back then. I don't think I'm being constantly monitored - but I definitely think it's a possibility that anyone could be, for any number of reasons. There is very poor oversight of most surveillance programs. Imagine what someone can do with access to all of your credit cards, your social security number, your checking account number - the list goes on and on.

Maybe I'm a bit suspicious, maybe I'm a bit paranoid, but I figure it's almost crazy not to be, in this age.

[uhnope]

18. why would they? nt

[bobthedrummer]

21. Of course DU is monitored specifically as a political site-not to mention whatever arbitrary lists

most of US are on in addition to all the other rights that have been systemically violated with the meta data collections every day.
Then there are all those other SIGINT collections farmed out to "private security companies".

But of course you are extremely well-versed on all this uhnope-your posts prove it.

[uhnope]

22. um. no, not true

but you didn't answer the question. Why would they?

[bobthedrummer]

24. Thanks for the kick! n/t

[uhnope]

25. incredibly lame

[bobthedrummer]

27. Why do you mimic Trump with your use of mocking the disabled ("lame") and ignoring reality?

I'm disabled. So are many other DUers.
Do you have some issues we should be aware of uhnope?

[truthisfreedom]

8. I've got nothing to say about this

I enjoy my silence.

[Wilms]

10. That alone just put you on a watch list. n/t

[uhnope]

23. paranoia

is awesome on the Internets

[Helen Borg]

9. Exactly as Snowden pointed out.

[riderinthestorm]

12. +10000 nt

[uhnope]

19. oh pleez

[davidn3600]

11. Price of safety Americans seem willing to pay

[Blue_Tires]

13. This is news?

They funded a study for this?

All anyone has to do is take a look at China...

[uhnope]

20. isn't this a bit like the body cam effect on police & public

that when they think someone is watching/recording, they behave better?

[malthaussen]

14. I'd question this study...

... but I don't want to be noticed.

-- Mal

[uhnope]

15. Is that always a bad thing? Minority opinions like "Hitler was right" currently flood the Internet

& that online thuggery is not "democratizing" at all

[Octafish]

17. As long as everybody thinks alike, right?

Doesn't that sound undemocratic to you?

[reddread]

26. forbidden thoughts

who could write fiction as bleak as modern American political history?

[Octafish]

16. What's not to Orwell?

Nothing to hide types are the rage. The rage.