great idea, BUT I think "streisand deflect" is a terrible name because it is many syllables, and hard to morph into verb, adj. and adv. This makes it hard to adopt and makes people wonder what the 'streisand' thing is, and intelligent and honest people will be wary of using it before doing some research- which is friction for the good guys.
snuffle (snuffly, snuffily) would be better. (not that specific one, just something that sounds a little like smother/snuff/snuggle.)
If this is my only contribution to epistemics (consider how words morph and the simplicity of use), I think I will have done something good.
I don't think this compromises being honest on the source of language, but tbh, I don't think this is a real ethical dilemma anyway. You can make it easy to find out the source of a word without it being obvious as you propagate it. I cannot imagine being offended for someone teaching me a useful word and not simultaneously teaching me its genealogy.
> You can make it easy to find out the source of a word without it being obvious as you propagate it
yes, I think this is the right way. A problem you might observe here is that, successfully coining a word IS difficult, and IS impressive, and people want to claim credit for it. And I'm saying this partially to tow the line between us in this community giving proper credit to those who can do valuable work, while also not slowing down the effectiveness of our work
> This makes it hard to adopt and makes people wonder what the 'streisand' thing is
all good points - I think the target audience for this phrase is people who already know the original streisand effect. I think it is kind of a conceptual prereq, so this makes this NOT something that you would expect to be widespread in "normie language"
I am testing "epistemic noise" for a more general / easy word here. No one knows what the hell "epistemology" means but "how do we know what we know" is easy. "Noise" is easy and familiar. We should keep trying and if something resonates then it becomes "canon", we don't control that process (especially when it's happening openly)
right, but I would attempt to make it as catchy and modifiable as a part of speech as possible. so while epistemic noise is clear- it doesn't lend itself to easy use
The only thing that seems better than Streisand deflect is "haystacking", but I think that loses something, in the same way many trope names lost some flavor when TV tropes went on a rampage of renaming tropes with character names in their titles.
great idea, BUT I think "streisand deflect" is a terrible name because it is many syllables, and hard to morph into verb, adj. and adv. This makes it hard to adopt and makes people wonder what the 'streisand' thing is, and intelligent and honest people will be wary of using it before doing some research- which is friction for the good guys.
snuffle (snuffly, snuffily) would be better. (not that specific one, just something that sounds a little like smother/snuff/snuggle.)
If this is my only contribution to epistemics (consider how words morph and the simplicity of use), I think I will have done something good.
I don't think this compromises being honest on the source of language, but tbh, I don't think this is a real ethical dilemma anyway. You can make it easy to find out the source of a word without it being obvious as you propagate it. I cannot imagine being offended for someone teaching me a useful word and not simultaneously teaching me its genealogy.
> You can make it easy to find out the source of a word without it being obvious as you propagate it
yes, I think this is the right way. A problem you might observe here is that, successfully coining a word IS difficult, and IS impressive, and people want to claim credit for it. And I'm saying this partially to tow the line between us in this community giving proper credit to those who can do valuable work, while also not slowing down the effectiveness of our work
> This makes it hard to adopt and makes people wonder what the 'streisand' thing is
all good points - I think the target audience for this phrase is people who already know the original streisand effect. I think it is kind of a conceptual prereq, so this makes this NOT something that you would expect to be widespread in "normie language"
I am testing "epistemic noise" for a more general / easy word here. No one knows what the hell "epistemology" means but "how do we know what we know" is easy. "Noise" is easy and familiar. We should keep trying and if something resonates then it becomes "canon", we don't control that process (especially when it's happening openly)
right, but I would attempt to make it as catchy and modifiable as a part of speech as possible. so while epistemic noise is clear- it doesn't lend itself to easy use
This was awesome, thanks for writing it.
we’re just getting started 🔥
The only thing that seems better than Streisand deflect is "haystacking", but I think that loses something, in the same way many trope names lost some flavor when TV tropes went on a rampage of renaming tropes with character names in their titles.
A
And I think enough people know about the Streisand effect is well known enough to make this a trivial leap/minimal friction.
great observations. I appreciate the candor.