171–180 of 480 posts
Here’s one of the tweets he mentions without a link: https://twitter.com/boop/status/1332815338820472833?s=21
@boob also calls to light this write up seemingly with more context: https://savingjournalism.substack.com/p/vcbrags-pasquale-mit...
The best solution here is to completely disconnect from social media or (at most) have an incredibly sanitized presence. Unless your job or livelihood revolves around needing to engage with a random internet audience (i.e. you're an influencer, entertainer, etc.) stay away from having a public persona on Twitter/Facebook/etc. The only community I interact with candidly tends to be this one. I don't post on Twitter, F…
I think rejection from society at large is a fundamental human problem. We went from literal witch hunts to figurative ones, but the concept and human psychology has more or less always been the same. The graph of meaningful human relationships is always going to be small and consist only of bidirectional edges. It's a road to accepting that and forging self-worth based on the people you know and care about, and who…
It takes active role models, introspection and life-long seeking of enlightened approaches, to break the mold. Few do, but when one do, many can follow.
I'm writing this comment via throwaway because people need to understand others have given this a lot of thought and if you get cancelled, there are good people who won't put up with that bullshit. There is more than hope.
A criminal defense attorney told me that more often than is comfortable to accept, accusers have a pattern of self-destructive relationships and the person they pick to accuse is just the most successful one in a line of many. The details are convincing because they really are true, but from other occurrences in their lives. The legal question is not whether or not the accuser is a victim of some kind, but whether the accused is responsible. In politics false accusations come with the territory and now a social media presence is politics.
All this talk of believing victims is the worst idea of all because a person who makes a spectacle is the one who is the least likely to be telling the truth during their performance. The simple truth is that men and women often lie. Prosecutors lie, police lie, witnesses lie, reporters lie, managers lie, employees lie, lawyers lie, mothers lie, fathers lie, kids lie, custodians lie, and yet somehow it is acceptable to destroy someone's life on the word of someone (and their friends) who makes a public display of being a victim?
Some victims are telling the truth, but everyone who makes a public display should be treated with extreme skepticism, and the louder they get, the less anyone should listen.
From the linked Notion "Receipts" page: > I've struggled to understand why so many people have piled on to these absurd accusations without facts. I watched a similar situation play out in real time. A friend had to fire an employee who wasn't submitting work or even responding to communications. The employe retaliated by using their moderately large social media presence to disparage my friend and her company. Stran…
I wouldn't call OP's post "receipts", but rather "his curated receipts." What makes more sense? Some dude has been creepy and only showed the positive side in his defense, or three random unrelated women -- who he claims only ever had lovely, adoring exchanges with him -- decided to destroy his life for no apparent reason. I mean, the former case has a precedent for happening almost habitually in the past, you'd have…
The problem is previously we didn't listen to victims, and allowed them to be silenced. Now the pendulum has swung the other way, and we are listening unconditionally, but (occasionally) bad actors are taking advantage of our good intentions. How do we find balance?
The issue isn't bad actors taking advantage and the issue isn't listening to victims. We should absolutely keep listening unconditionally and there will always be bad actors. The problem is how we respond to what we hear. The core casue of the issue is treating online vigilante outrage mobs as an acceptable activity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is already a mechanism for conveying liability to the publisher (not the platform, but the tweeter/poster, as it should be) when they publish false claims of fact (ie lies).
Precisely: this does not work in practice! I see many reasons why, the first of which is just that most of the time the damage is already done by the time it goes to court, assuming you can find the real name behind the usernames that professed lies, and I'm not even talking about bots. That's why the liability has to rest on platforms -- and that's in addition to the publisher's liability. Edit: formatting
Hopefully they can pop on here and tell us why they behaved like such a horrible human? or how they think their job search will go - i wouldn't feel safe working with someone like that - false accusations on a public platform against someone who was already being falsely accused.
linked from the article
https://www.notion.so/Receipts-f7b8a6a4be0b43c28bed79484f242...
From the linked Notion "Receipts" page: > I've struggled to understand why so many people have piled on to these absurd accusations without facts. I watched a similar situation play out in real time. A friend had to fire an employee who wasn't submitting work or even responding to communications. The employe retaliated by using their moderately large social media presence to disparage my friend and her company. Stran…