Peer Pressure Series – Introductory Editorial
You don’t need a censor to control speech.
You just need someone who says, “Let’s keep it civil.”
In Newfoundland activism circles, there’s a new kind of power rising—not from corporations or government offices, but from behind keyboards and moderation panels. These aren’t trolls or bot farms. They’re the so-called neutral voices—the ones reminding you not to be divisive, not to stir up drama, not to go too far.
They’ll say they want unity.
What they mean is: don’t rock the boat we built.
And just like that, peer pressure becomes policy.
Why Speaking Up in a Small Town Comes With a Cost
In rural Newfoundland, your protest sign might make it to the CBC.
But your Facebook comment can get you exiled from your own community.
Activism here isn’t just political—it’s personal. Everyone knows everyone. Families overlap. Friendships stretch across protest lines. So when you challenge a narrative, you're not just pushing back on an idea—you’re pushing against social gravity.
That’s what makes peer pressure more powerful than censorship. It doesn’t silence you by force. It makes you fear becoming the problem. And once you’re labeled that, the group won’t need to kick you out. You’ll walk out yourself [1].
Moderation as a Tool of Control
Take Paul Pike, for example. The moderator of NL’ers Against Wind Energy presented himself as a centrist, a peacekeeper, a facilitator of “civil discourse.” But the moment someone brought up U.S. politics, Trump’s role in defunding global green projects, or the Paris Agreement’s collapse, Paul stepped in [2].
Not with facts. Not with debate.
But with tone control.
“Let’s not politicize things.”
“We want healthy discussion.”
“Drama posts will be removed.”
What happens next is predictable:
A post gets removed. Someone gets warned.or blocked as happened to me today.
And the original idea—often valid, inconvenient, or ahead of its time—gets erased from the conversation.
This isn’t about rules. It’s about narrative authority.
Paul isn’t alone in this. Others do it with emojis. With silence. With vague appeals to “unity” and “respect” [3]. But the result is the same:
The group moves on. The truth gets buried. And the gatekeepers stay in charge.
False Consensus and the Illusion of Unity
When everyone’s afraid to speak honestly, it starts to look like everyone agrees.
That’s the trap of peer pressure.
The same voices who suppressed geopolitical discussion in 2022 are now quietly acknowledging it in 2025. Suddenly, it’s safe to admit Trump’s stance affected wind investment. Suddenly, it’s okay to mention federal overreach.
But only from approved mouths, and only after the window for resistance has closed.
This isn’t growth. It’s narrative laundering [5].
The real damage isn’t just that voices were silenced.
It’s that a false consensus was manufactured—one that claimed to represent “the people” while systematically excluding anyone who didn’t toe the line.
The Flying Monkeys, the Watchdogs, and the Walls
This isn’t just disagreement—it’s social enforcement.
People are punished not for being wrong, but for refusing to play along.
In academic terms, it’s called the Asch effect—when people go along with the group even when they know the group is wrong [6]. But in Newfoundland, it runs deeper. Because here, peer pressure isn’t just passive.
It’s weaponized.
It’s used to delegitimize.
And it’s been honed over generations of isolation, scarcity, and inherited shame [7].
This Series Is Not for the Gatekeepers
This new section—Peer Pressure—isn’t for those who need to be liked.
It’s for the ones who spoke anyway.
Who got blocked, smeared, ghosted, or exiled.
Who lost friends, family, or reputations for refusing to nod along.
In this space, we’ll unpack:
- How false unity is constructed
- Who benefits from silencing dissent
- How tone control replaces actual accountability
- And how community leaders become enforcers for systems they claim to oppose
Because if we’re going to rebuild something honest, it can’t be based on consensus forged in silence.
It has to start with the ones who weren’t invited back into the room.
References
[1] Janis, I.L. (1972). Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes.
[2] Facebook. NL’ers Against Wind Energy Group. Comment by Paul Pike on group moderation, July 2025. (1 , 2 )
[3] Bayman’s Paradox. Fractured Frontlines: How Local Infighting Serves Federal Control. https://baymansparadox.com/explore/local-paradox/post.php?id=129
[4] Bayman’s Paradox. The Consultant and the Keepers: When Opposition Becomes Optics. https://baymansparadox.com/explore/local-paradox/post.php?id=128
[5] Chomsky, N. (2002). Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda.
[6] Asch, S.E. (1955). Opinions and Social Pressure. Scientific American, 193(5), 31–35.
[7] Noelle-Neumann, E. (1974). The Spiral of Silence: A Theory of Public Opinion. Journal of Communication, 24(2), 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1974.tb00367.x
[8] Marín Lladó, C., & Ortega Mohedano, F. (2021). Tone policing, gaslighting and silencing: Strategies of delegitimisation in online feminist movements. Communication & Society, 34(3), 23–37. https://revistas.unav.edu/index.php/communication-and-society/article/view/34734
[9] Shirky, C. (2008). Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations. Penguin Press.
[10] Pariser, E. (2011). The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You. Penguin Books.