Life after an internet mob attack • Hacker News Board

Re: Life after an internet mob attack

#321

Post by fastball » Thu, May 27, 2021, 2:07 AM UTC

SilverRed wrote: post #315

vhanda wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately, if some guy walks up to a woman at an event and acts creepy, this demands that a woman record every moment of her life in case she has to defend herself if she calls him out... We're throwing away "innocent until proven guilty" with this. I'm sure you agree how dangerous that can be. Though, as you point out, recording every moment is not feasibly or desirable. Do you have any ideas on how we could s…

I think in most of these cases, the accusations are correct. But some of them aren't correct and we must protect the innocent as well. And me, as an outsider on the internet, has no business trying to pick a side or work out who should be punished. That's the job of the legal system.

Why do you think most accusations are correct?

Re: Life after an internet mob attack

#322

Post by egypturnash » Thu, May 27, 2021, 2:08 AM UTC

Zababa wrote: post #41

egypturnash wrote: post #28

[flagged]

That's an expression of your biais against right-wing people rather than a failure of the author.

No, that's an expression of my considered and long-standing opinion that Scott Adams is full of a whole lot of shit, which dates to well before he started making worshipful posts about how Donald Trump is a mind-controlling wizard. The turn to right-wing gadfly is just icing on the cake.

Re: Life after an internet mob attack

#323

Post by fastball » Thu, May 27, 2021, 2:10 AM UTC

newacct583 wrote: post #247

zozbot234 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You're not even presenting an accurate picture of the accusers side though. Two of them are apparently know each other literally because the original accuser told another accuser[1] that Pasquale was to blame.

[1] https://www.notion.so/image/https%3A%2F%2Fs3-us-west-2.amazo...

Re: Life after an internet mob attack

#324

Post by fastball » Thu, May 27, 2021, 2:11 AM UTC

ghostly_s wrote: post #273

SavantIdiot wrote: post #163

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…

You know, this seemed like an interesting case study right up until he quoted Scott Adam's take on "being cancelled."

How come?

Re: Life after an internet mob attack

#325

Post by eyelidlessness » Thu, May 27, 2021, 2:12 AM UTC

imgabe wrote: post #310

eyelidlessness wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is that line? I keep most of my Internet life relatively private. But this means I’m already hesitant to use the platforms I do have to describe things people did to harm me. I’m the one who’d be piled on if it got an audience. Adding the potential for expensive lawsuits just means I’ll be more hesitant to warn anyone that someone did something harmful, to me or to anyone else I believe. Why do I have to keep t…

We have laws because there are dishonest people. You might as well ask why do we have laws against stealing? I'm an honest person and if I go take something from someone's house without asking, I'll just bring it right back with no harm done. Some people aren't honest, though.

I... don’t understand what you’re trying to convince me of here? Are you trying to morally equate me hypothetically naming people who’ve abused me to stealing from them, if I couldn’t defend a non-legal claim of what happened in court? I sincerely do not understand what you’re saying should change.

Re: Life after an internet mob attack

#326

Post by fastball » Thu, May 27, 2021, 2:12 AM UTC

mcguire wrote: post #314

WDCDev wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes - and it's driving people further into tribes where the only way they feel "safe" is in and around their own "kind". This isn't civilization, but a regression and if it goes on for a few more generations it could be very damaging to our social fabric. I just hope it's a weird early-21st century "intellectual" movement that eventually dies out.

I hate to point this out, but this isn't a "regression" and it's been part of our civilization since our civilization became a civilization. It's just a change in who the targets are.

I think it is entirely plausible that social media / attention mining / etc are absolutely making society less civil than it could be / has been.

Re: Life after an internet mob attack

#327

Post by SamBam » Thu, May 27, 2021, 2:15 AM UTC

xbar wrote: post #257

renewiltord wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a Titania McGrath quote. She’s fictional. A parody.

Clearly. Effective parody exaggerates reality, which she does. The quote works because it sounds like a large number of similar, genuine ones.

"I'm passing this quote around, not attributing it to being satire, and then when that's pointed out saying it's exaggerated and it works because it accurately represents people's beliefs, even though I said it was exaggerated."

Re: Life after an internet mob attack

#328

Post by SavantIdiot » Thu, May 27, 2021, 2:16 AM UTC

valtism wrote: post #312

dang wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> EDIT: Watching the points on this comment swing from negative to positive in the span of minutes is telling. Please follow the site guidelines. You broke the second-last one: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html . (Btw, it's not "telling" of anything but that the topic is divisive, which we all know already.)

Hey dang. I think this post need to be taken down. I've followed this drama before and after reading a lot from both sides, it's pretty clear in my eyes that there is an ongoing harassment campaign from Pasquale. I was really shocked to see this getting so highly voted on HN. I think this post covers a lot of what is happening - https://savingjournalism.substack.com/p/vcbrags-pasquale-mit...

Seconded.

Re: Life after an internet mob attack

#329

Post by fastball » Thu, May 27, 2021, 2:24 AM UTC

wolverine876 wrote: post #134

fairity wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming that internet mobs only attack based on misconstrued online content, but that's far from true. I think the best solution here is to speak up on behalf of those who are unfairly attacked, in spite of the negative fallout from getting involved. The worst thing that can happen in cases like this is when nobody supports the victim. That can be profoundly traumatizing. For a more in-depth look at the impac…

> I think the best solution here is to speak up on behalf of those who are unfairly attacked The reality is that there is no easy way forward, no simple answer: You don't know the truth any better than the mindless mob. If someone is accused of sexual assault or harassment, do you want to risk defending them, only to find out later that you guessed wrong? When the video comes out showing the crime, do you want your n…

It's hard to know the truth from the outside looking in, but it is easy to be more mindful than a mindless mob.

Re: Life after an internet mob attack

#330

Post by imgabe » Thu, May 27, 2021, 2:29 AM UTC

eyelidlessness wrote: post #325

imgabe wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have laws because there are dishonest people. You might as well ask why do we have laws against stealing? I'm an honest person and if I go take something from someone's house without asking, I'll just bring it right back with no harm done. Some people aren't honest, though.

I... don’t understand what you’re trying to convince me of here? Are you trying to morally equate me hypothetically naming people who’ve abused me to stealing from them, if I couldn’t defend a non-legal claim of what happened in court? I sincerely do not understand what you’re saying should change.

I understand that you are telling the truth. Do you understand that sometimes people do not tell the truth?

The question is what level of consequence are you saying we should inflict on people before some kind of evidence beyond an accusation is required?

If it's "I tell my friends about what happened, and then they turn down opportunities to work with that person". I don't think anyone would or could sue for libel about that. I am not proposing that they be able to. I apologize if I gave the impression that that is what I was proposing.

If it's "I make an accusation, and that person should then be unemployed and destitute and indelibly branded a sexual predator for the rest of their life" then maybe somewhere in between those two extremes, there is a point where some evidence is required, and the level of harm being done to the accused requires some stronger justification. Maybe current libel laws do not accurately delineate that point because of the advent of the Internet and the possibility for a person to experience widespread harassment based on a few claims going viral. Is that reasonable?