Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How One Stupid Tweet Blew Up Justine Sacco’s Life

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

561–570 of 596 posts

Re: How One Stupid Tweet Blew Up Justine Sacco’s Life

#561

Post by chrismcb »

coldpie wrote: post #255
paulhauggis wrote: post #219

This is the reality of social media. If you offend the wrong person, you will most likely get fired from your job and or get unwanted attention in other parts of your life..all for just expressing an opinion. It's essentially online bullying by people that want to silence you for having an opinion that is different than their own. The ex-Mozilla CEO knows this well. An online bullying campaign was launched against hi…

> The ex-Mozilla CEO knows this well. An online bullying campaign was launched against him and he was forced to quit. Hahahahahahaha no. Eich paid money to political campaigns to ensure that some of his own employees and fellow citizens would not have basic human rights. Then, he refused to apologize for it and dodged the question when asked if he would do it again. That's not "expressing an opinion," that's nearly s…

So if the CEO of your company doesn't share your political views, and votes for or against a law that might harm you, that CEO doesn't belong in a position if power? Someone who is enacting his fundamental rights, and having an opinion shouldn't be in a position of power? I'm curious, while he was a CEO did he do anything that would hurt his employees? Did he say anything that would indicate he would hurt his employees?

Re: How One Stupid Tweet Blew Up Justine Sacco’s Life

#562

Post by DanBC »

BrainInAJar wrote: post #407
DanBC wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The coorect response to what most of these people said is for someone to pull them to one side and say "stop being a dick, especially if you're using the company social media account". Threats of violence, loss of job, weeks long campaigns -- none of that is an appropriate response.

in for example Eich's case how do you pull him aside and say "stop being a dick by donating to hate, and then trying to run a diverse company?"

You see he has donated to a hateful cause. You then tell him that this action has triggered extra scrutiny of his actions at work. You the. Scrutinise everything he has done at work, and all interactions in the workplace. As soon as he discriminates againt gay people in the workplace you fire him.

Re: How One Stupid Tweet Blew Up Justine Sacco’s Life

#563

Post by [deleted] »

BrainInAJar wrote: post #407
DanBC wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The coorect response to what most of these people said is for someone to pull them to one side and say "stop being a dick, especially if you're using the company social media account". Threats of violence, loss of job, weeks long campaigns -- none of that is an appropriate response.

in for example Eich's case how do you pull him aside and say "stop being a dick by donating to hate, and then trying to run a diverse company?"

[deleted]

Re: How One Stupid Tweet Blew Up Justine Sacco’s Life

#564

Post by rihegher »

mintplant wrote: post #560
rihegher wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? I'll be interested in sources then, because I've just never heard of such things in France. From what I know even well known public figures that has been sentenced about innapropriate expressions just had been fined (Le pen) or had their show cancelled in some cities (Dieudonné)

Sure thing. France: Dieudonné sera jugé pour «apologie de terrorisme» http://www.rfi.fr/france/20150114-france-dieudonne-sera-juge... France arrests 54 for ‘defending terrorism’ after Charlie Hebdo attack The Justice Ministry said that 54 people, including four minors, have been detained for defending or verbally threatening terrorism since the Charlie Hebdo attack. Several have already been convicted under special m…

All right, random people has been arrested and taken in custody during 48 hours after the Charlie things. I was actually meaning people jailed for months and lost their jobs and suffer all the dramatic effects of prison.

Re: How One Stupid Tweet Blew Up Justine Sacco’s Life

#565

Post by rihegher »

zimbu668 wrote: post #558
rihegher wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? I'll be interested in sources then, because I've just never heard of such things in France. From what I know even well known public figures that has been sentenced about innapropriate expressions just had been fined (Le pen) or had their show cancelled in some cities (Dieudonné)

I don't know about people being arrested for comments about Charlie Hebdo, but people have been fined and imprisoned for statements about the Holocaust: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial#P...

Thank you very much. The english version of wikipedia state that Roger Garaudy and Jean Plantin has been jailed whereas the french version of their wikipedia pages state they hasn't been. So it would be good to have reliable sources.

BUT you actually pointed me to a guy that has been an exception to both of my statements. Vincent Reynouard has been jailed for revisionism after having published a book and a video tape about the massacre of small village in south of France during War World 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oradour-sur-Glane

And even before that he lost his job as a teacher because he had some revisionist document on its work computer http://www.liberation.fr/france/1997/04/23/le-prof-revisionn...

So he is really the exception which proves the rule.

Re: How One Stupid Tweet Blew Up Justine Sacco’s Life

#566

Post by coldpie »

mcphage wrote: post #544
coldpie wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please enlighten me.

Most people on this planet have religious beliefs, that claim some behaviors are good, and some behaviors are bad. A lot of them don't make much sense. Maybe you think that God doesn't want you eating bacon. Why? I don't know. But you follow them because you believe that's what God wants you to do. A lot of people—millions and millions of people in the US—believe that their God disapproves of gay marriage. And so the…

We have a constitution. The first amendment of which says religion will have no influence in making laws. Done, discussion over, and the courts agree.

Re: How One Stupid Tweet Blew Up Justine Sacco’s Life

#567

Post by fit2rule »

rihegher wrote: post #286
fit2rule wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, in Europe the tradition of mobbing is a serious problem, and its definitely something that occurs on a regular basis in the real world, and not just on the Internet. In Germany, people have been fired for instigating the mob - not necessarily for saying things that offend others, but rather for rabble-rousing and trying to get the pitchfork brigade riled up. I think Europe has a keener sense of the history of t…

My english is not perfect and reading you answer I thing I was misunderstood. This kind of mobbing and over reaction do happens in France as well and I don't deny that. Recently 3 millions get down the street because 18 peoples has been killed. So I acknowledge that over-reaction is not just an american thing. It's more on the employer side that I'm surprised. If an employer is not stupid why would he fire someone on…

I believe its because more often than not, the employer is profiting direction from the mobs own ignorance of itself. A classic case is where employees are not allowed to discuss their wages, as this of course allows the 'owner' of the organization to make bargains and deals, and so on. So the function of leadership, expressed as control over the crowd, has its own degrees of +/-'ve reality. In an open group, where everyone knows everything, its quite difficult to rile people up and get them to pick on an individual member; the dark line that forms around mysteries, lies, deceit and intrigue, is precisely the abyss into which any individual may fall. And it is always 'others' who push them into it.

Re: How One Stupid Tweet Blew Up Justine Sacco’s Life

#568

Post by JKGH »

mcantelon wrote: post #430
coldpie wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good point, what other forms of hate should we allow him to express without consequences? :)

What would you recommend the consequences should be for Barack Obama, given he publicly held the view that Eich privately held?

He's a war criminal who slaughters innocent civilians in countries he is not at war at (not that it matters, since, innocent civilians), so ideally, he should be tried at the Hague?

Re: How One Stupid Tweet Blew Up Justine Sacco’s Life

#569

Post by mintplant »

rihegher wrote: post #564
mintplant wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure thing. France: Dieudonné sera jugé pour «apologie de terrorisme» http://www.rfi.fr/france/20150114-france-dieudonne-sera-juge... France arrests 54 for ‘defending terrorism’ after Charlie Hebdo attack The Justice Ministry said that 54 people, including four minors, have been detained for defending or verbally threatening terrorism since the Charlie Hebdo attack. Several have already been convicted under special m…

All right, random people has been arrested and taken in custody during 48 hours after the Charlie things. I was actually meaning people jailed for months and lost their jobs and suffer all the dramatic effects of prison.

Well, according to the Al Jazeera article, some have already been convicted and sentenced.

Re: How One Stupid Tweet Blew Up Justine Sacco’s Life

#570

Post by mcphage »

coldpie wrote: post #566
mcphage wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people on this planet have religious beliefs, that claim some behaviors are good, and some behaviors are bad. A lot of them don't make much sense. Maybe you think that God doesn't want you eating bacon. Why? I don't know. But you follow them because you believe that's what God wants you to do. A lot of people—millions and millions of people in the US—believe that their God disapproves of gay marriage. And so the…

We have a constitution. The first amendment of which says religion will have no influence in making laws. Done, discussion over, and the courts agree.

That's not what the first amendment says. A lot of laws have inspiration in religion (and tradition)—people believe X, and so want laws that support X. But if X gets passed as a law, it's because people support X, not necessarily because it comes from a religion. What we're seeing with gay marriage is, people are studying the matter, and finding out that the only reasons against it are religion, and tradition. And those aren't sufficient. So laws against it are being overruled.

But that isn't to say that religion has (or should have) no influence, because it influences the believers, who then support laws & lawmakers. Nor is always it possible to separate the beliefs that someone holds for religious reasons, vs. beliefs they hold for other reasons. But it does mean that a law needs more than religious reasons to stay on the books. Thankfully, gay marriage seems to be one that is mostly held for religious reasons, so laws preventing it can be dismantled (versus, say, marijuana prohibition. It's more than just religion, so it's harder to dismantle).

But if all you take away is that people against gay marriage aren't driven by sociopathic malice, then that's still an improvement.

Post reply on HN