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

Life after an internet mob attack

pasquale.cool

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 480 posts

Re: Life after an internet mob attack

#241

Post by bendbro »

philwelch wrote: post #115
BitwiseFool wrote: post #25

The most disturbing and insidious sentiment of online mobs is claiming that the targets are "just being held accountable". Or that such people are just experiencing "consequences". I really can't express just how cold and bloodthirsty such statements seem to be. It's the perfect combination of justifying vicious behavior while also absolving themselves of responsibility.

Whenever the talk of “consequences” starts, I’m reminded of a quote: “There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech.” —Idi Amin

Yeah, the "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" response that some liberals give has always puzzled me. It is internally inconsistent for a liberal ideology.

1. They believe that "wage slavery" exists. That is, an employee may freely agree to employment conditions under a capitalist view, but under the liberal view, they have not freely agreed since various coercive forces exist that force them agree to the employment conditions. So if a liberal believes a "freely" agreed to job is actually not free due to coercive conditions, then a liberal should also believe that free speech is not free when coercive conditions exist that control speech.

2. The idea that any consequence of free speech is acceptable is easily countered: the consequence of you calling an insane person stupid is they kill you. Obviously no normal person would think that is acceptable. So every normal person, including those liberals with internal inconsistency in this argument, know that the argument should actually be about what consequences are warranted in response to speech.

Re: Life after an internet mob attack

#242

Post by TrispusAttucks »

zxzax wrote: post #230
abnry wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of a justice system in a democracy is (a) the laws are agreed upon through the political process and (b) due process and impartial consideration are applied in casting a judgment. "Cancel culture" is primarily enforcing things that (a) have not reached the same political consensus as codified law, like laws against theft or murder, and (b) are enforced by impulse, hearsay, and mob mentality.

I guess I'm confused, there are a lot of things in life that become known by hearsay and don't reach the same consensus as codified law. What makes this special? Would it really be any different if twitter actively had daily democratic polling on who should be criticized that day? And how would that be any different from "mob mentality," if large groups of users all decided to impulsively vote the same way?

Innocent until proven guilty by a fair trial. Not the other way around.

The entire point of justice was to be less tribal. Social justice now is the opposite. It's who has the biggest tribal cannon they can point at someone they disagree with. Not whether the facts support the claim.

Re: Life after an internet mob attack

#243

Post by tootie »

mkishi wrote: post #229
tootie wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They cause harm when they're wrong. Not when they're right. A mob went after Harvey Weinstein because after the first few accusations they rest realized they weren't alone.

What's your point? As long as they're right sometimes, it makes the unfortunate casualties worth it? A needed sacrifice for the greater good?

That's not what I said. The parent comment (and others in this thread) seem to think that these kind of accusations are always bad. I tend to think that accusations are usually well-intentioned and well-founded.

Re: Life after an internet mob attack

#244

Post by mc32 »

throwkeep wrote: post #234
mc32 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The unfortunate tendency of people not in the know is to pile on righteous indignation for the sake of peer brownie points. It’s often clear they’re just taking a birdshit on something that looks like it can earn them internet kudos. Dynamically it doesn’t seem far removed from a lynchmob.

There's a similar tendency I've noticed with these, where people who have met or interacted with the person pile on with vague statements. This is a popular one: "I met him once and knew something was off! He had a creepy vibe". I'm sure it reflects their interaction in some cases, but it's so common with these witch hunts (including the one in question here), there may be more to it. Motivated reasoning or something…

I’m speaking about the more general pile on.

Some of the more specific ones could be ex-post re-rationalizing. Like when someone discovers their neighbor was a crook, suddenly his or her demeanor in retrospect was suspicious, or had wide eyes or had eyes close together, said hi but said it fast, or never said hi, or something whatever it is that sets them apart from non crooks.

Re: Life after an internet mob attack

#245

Post by zxzax »

caddemon wrote: post #236
abnry wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of a justice system in a democracy is (a) the laws are agreed upon through the political process and (b) due process and impartial consideration are applied in casting a judgment. "Cancel culture" is primarily enforcing things that (a) have not reached the same political consensus as codified law, like laws against theft or murder, and (b) are enforced by impulse, hearsay, and mob mentality.

Yeah the thing that concerns me most about "cancel culture" (of what I see) is people openly pushing back on the principle of innocent until proven guilty. It seems to be common to argue that there is nothing wrong with the court of public opinion putting the burden of proof on the accused. Usually this is combined with some comment about how horrible the accusation is versus how supposedly mild it is to be criticize…

I mean, to me that sadly is nothing new. I've known my share of people who just assume by default that people they don't know are jerks, and are hostile toward them. I don't know what you would call it. Untrusting? I can't see where you would cross that line and all of a sudden start calling it "cancel culture" or "consequence culture" or whatever. Is it because it's happening online now?

Re: Life after an internet mob attack

#246

Post by cortesoft »

Manuel_D wrote: post #197
SavantIdiot wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's his receipt. Not hers. Is that really 100% of the interactions they've had? You seem to be pretty confident there's only his side of the story.

Then she should share receipt of the alleged creepy messages. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.

Burden of proof for what? To charge him with a crime? Sure.

But random people are free to make whatever conclusions about him that they want, with as little or as much evidence as they personally require to render their judgement. You don’t get to tell other people how they should form their opinions.

It isn’t fair, but there is no other way for the world to work. Everyone has their own criteria for judging people... we can put legal requirements on some things (like what criteria you can use to determine if you hire someone, or rent them an apartment, or let them into your store), but people are free to dislike someone for whatever reason they want.

Re: Life after an internet mob attack

#247

Post by newacct583 »

zozbot234 wrote: post #231
newacct583 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, which is why you refuse to believe the accusers, right? All we have here is judgement. There's no meaningful evidence except testimony from the people in conflict. You made one call, grandparent made another. Why should only one be sexist?

What has been stated so far is not 'judgment'. SavantIdiot has merely stated a prior that applies to any and all accusations of some sort, regardless of the evidence. The fact that OP can provide evidence of unambiguously positive exchanges, while not dispositive as has been pointed out, is at least enough on its own to overcome the prior.

Alternatively: three similar accusations of different events by different people without any other relationship seems like that should be enough to outweigh a nice text message that got sent once, no?

I mean, maybe not. You disagree. But you disagree because you JUDGE the evidence differently, not because of any fundamental truth.

To wit: get off your high horse. You're doing the same thing you called another poster "sexist" for doing.

Re: Life after an internet mob attack

#248

Post by zxzax »

TrispusAttucks wrote: post #242
zxzax wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess I'm confused, there are a lot of things in life that become known by hearsay and don't reach the same consensus as codified law. What makes this special? Would it really be any different if twitter actively had daily democratic polling on who should be criticized that day? And how would that be any different from "mob mentality," if large groups of users all decided to impulsively vote the same way?

Innocent until proven guilty by a fair trial. Not the other way around. The entire point of justice was to be less tribal. Social justice now is the opposite. It's who has the biggest tribal cannon they can point at someone they disagree with. Not whether the facts support the claim.

So what is the solution there? Should twitter and facebook have their own internal legal system, decided upon by democratic vote as I was just describing? What would make it inherently less tribal if they did that? Would that stop large groups of people from all deciding to vote as a block and criticize one person all at once? Or is the goal something else? Surely, if this problem were theoretically solvable by a social media site, there should be some different way to operate one?

Re: Life after an internet mob attack

#249

Post by Manuel_D »

cortesoft wrote: post #246
Manuel_D wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then she should share receipt of the alleged creepy messages. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.

Burden of proof for what? To charge him with a crime? Sure. But random people are free to make whatever conclusions about him that they want, with as little or as much evidence as they personally require to render their judgement. You don’t get to tell other people how they should form their opinions. It isn’t fair, but there is no other way for the world to work. Everyone has their own criteria for judging people...…

> Burden of proof for what?

For me to believe their accusations. It's not just something that exists in the courts, it's a principle that many (most?) people adhere to in their lives. If you have one co-worker who accuses the other of stealing their phone, would you punish the accused without first asking how they know they stole it or looking at camera footage of the time of the alleged theft?

It's not illegal for you to believe unsubstantiated accusations (not just unsubstantiated, but unsubstantiated in the face of exculpatory evidence). It's not illegal for a boss to fire an employee over an unsubstantiated accusation. Legal, but still harmful to society.

Re: Life after an internet mob attack

#250

Post by noobermin »

SavantIdiot wrote: post #185
bobsmooth wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember what happened to ProJared?

No I don't. Not sure what side of the arg ProJared is on. But I do remember what happened to Vanessa Guillén, and an entire military that tried to cover it up, and many, many others like her. (Should I enumerate GamerGate's victims and the way their real accusers said it was BS, when it wasn't?)

Both things can be wrong. ProJared didn't victimize Vanessa Guillen so it's a category error to put the military cover up that happened with people lying about ProJared and him showing receipts on how he wasn't victimizing people.
Post reply on HN