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

431–440 of 480 posts

Re: Life after an internet mob attack

#431

Post by Kye »

cousin_it wrote: post #11

If/when any of my friends get attacked by the mob, I hope I'll have the courage to stand by them publicly. A good recent test was the doxing of Scott Alexander. I signed the open letter against it with my real name and was happily surprised to see the names of many people I know. We should have more of these small but visible acts of resistance that let like-minded people find you.

I hope you'd ask them first. I see a lot of "cancellations" where the person at the center has already admitted fault and apologized while flying monkeys are swirling around screaming about censorship and mob justice, not realizing they're the mob and nobody asked for their help. They end up looking like idiots and make things worse.

Re: Life after an internet mob attack

#432

Post by tootie »

exporectomy wrote: post #214
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.

Same is true of lynch mobs in real life. Sometimes they do kill actual baddies. It's the tendency to be wrong that makes vigilante justice a problem.

Alright since this is still here and I'm being down voted, I'll explain what should be really obvious. Lynch mobs were expressly racist. They also typically resulted in death. They would lay an accusation of something that was either not an offense (like mixing with white people) or maybe sometimes an actual crime that could have been handed to the criminal justice system. Twitter mobs are just talking. Fully protected first amendment speech about things that happened to them that they dislike. Nobody gets harmed. Typically these are things like harassment or bullying that is socially unacceptable but not grounds for any type of legal action.

Re: Life after an internet mob attack

#433

Post by tootie »

mkishi wrote: post #261
tootie wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The parent comment (and others in this thread) seem to think that these kind of accusations are always bad. That's not what I gathered from the parent comment and it's not what "mobs do cause harm" mean, which is why I was confused by your rebuttal. > I tend to think that accusations are usually well-intentioned and well-founded. That might be the case, but we still have to deal with the times they aren't.

I think the statement that they "do cause harm" is pretty one sided. The fact is, they are intended to cause harm. The question is if they target someone who deserves it.

Re: Life after an internet mob attack

#434

Post by 1123581321 »

kodah wrote: post #405
1123581321 wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry to hear. I really tried to make clear that the whole point is to fight abuse from within as hard as possible, for those in any particular group.

Righteousness generally lends us to believing those things. I think my memories of it were that it was more harmful than good, though there was surely some benefit.

I think I know what you mean by the words righteous and moralistic. I’d definitely say I’m optimistic about these ideas, and obviously pessimistic about how rare they’re applied in the wild as I said a few comments ago. The criticism you’ve given me is exactly the kind of challenge and accountability I’m asking for, though, even though we aren’t in the same group aside from HN, so thank you!

Re: Life after an internet mob attack

#435

Post by lordloki »

krapp wrote: post #421
bendbro wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why you think I disagree with the idea of liberalism. I simply think if someone is a liberal, they should believe purely disagreeable speech should not have consequences; else, they are an idiot. There are of course more complexities where speech should result in consequences, but in general, if someone says something than another otherwise unrelated person simply disagrees with, the speaker should not h…

>There are of course more complexities where speech should result in consequences, but in general, if someone says something than another otherwise unrelated person simply disagrees with, the speaker should not have their relationship with their friends, family, employer, customers, businesses they use, etc harmed. So you do agree that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences after all. This is exactl…

"An actor or public figure whose politics I disagree with can and should be publicly criticized, and their suffering some financial harm due to the public boycotting their work is a legitimate consequence of their views."

So you think it's perfectly acceptable to attack an individuals livelihood because you disagree with them? The political climate in the US is split pretty evenly at the moment, so in your view we would have no actors or public figures expressing a political opinion. No matter what the opinion is there would be individuals, like yourself, who disagree with it and therefore the speaker should be cancelled. If everyone felt that way then nobody would be allowed to say anything because all expression would lead to cancellation. This goes completely against freedom of the individual as well as freedom of speech. It is a direct slide into authoritarianism and is diametrically opposed to liberalism. OP is correct you are not a liberal you are an authoritarian.

Re: Life after an internet mob attack

#436

Post by lordloki »

mcguire wrote: post #309
exporectomy wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps it would exclude complaints about what they do in their job but firing someone for things they do that are unrelated to their job could be protected, like what happened in their personal relationships or what they posted on the internet if it's not part of their work.

Picture someone you really dislike, for some good reason. Now imagine you hired that person before they did whatever, or before you found out. Now you're stuck with them. Now your company is known primarily for what they did and you are losing business.

If everyone knows the company can't fire them, then why target the company in the first place?

Re: Life after an internet mob attack

#437

Post by rkk3 »

alisonkisk wrote: post #426
rkk3 wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the accused should have the right to legally challenge a public defamatory statement. In this case... it probably wouldn't be a very strong case, just from a quick google search, my guess is they would struggle with 1 & 4 below. For 1) In civil, this is probably preponderance of evidence (>50% true) vs beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal. For 4) Theoretically this has no impact, you are just screaming into…

If you can't prove it didn't happen, denying the accusation is libel. Fair is fair. Maybe the real problem is firing someone from their job due to non credible accusations

> If you can't prove it didn't happen, denying the accusation is libel. Fair is fair.

Yes, Bill Cosby was sued this way. He was accused publicly, he denied the accusations & they sued him for defamation. Everything depends though, it can be harder to show a denial caused damages or is not an opinion ie; I disagree with the characterization of events.

> Maybe the real problem is firing someone from their job due to non credible accusations

Shouldn't an accusation have real potential consequences, like employment termination? In that case sue the accuser for libel.

Re: Life after an internet mob attack

#438

Post by kian »

zxzax wrote: post #417
caddemon wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The part that is new, or at least recently en vogue again, is how this behavior is seen as a positive. It is explicitly encouraged by current social dynamics. It is even encouraged to some extent in academic or "intellectual" circles.

Do you have any studies that actually quantify that? IMO large groups singling out and bullying individuals is not really a new thing, that has been happening for a long time.

Bullying individuals is not new. Arguing that bedrock principles of legal justice like innocent until proven guilty are quaint and antiquated in the face of the 'horrors' of the accusations (odd that they should apply to serial killers, but new modern thought-crimes are so much worse that they should not) is relatively new, especially as a mainstream position in intellectual, academic, and political circles.

Re: Life after an internet mob attack

#439

Post by randompwd »

alex_young wrote: post #239
randompwd wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linked receipts seem to be exactly that - receipts. I don't see what the confusion is.

Why post images of tweets rather than link to the source? Seems like cherry-picking out parts of a conversation to me.

> Why post images of tweets rather than link to the source?

Because at least one of those users had already deleted their twitter account.

Because if any other of the users delete their accounts, the tweets will disappear too.

There's nothing strange about posting an inline image of something.

> Seems like cherry-picking out parts of a conversation to me

?? It is a) better than not providing proof like the accusers failed to provide and b) those same accusers can post their own proof if it's contradictory.

Re: Life after an internet mob attack

#440

Post by karaterobot »

nullc wrote: post #121
cousin_it wrote: post #11

If/when any of my friends get attacked by the mob, I hope I'll have the courage to stand by them publicly. A good recent test was the doxing of Scott Alexander. I signed the open letter against it with my real name and was happily surprised to see the names of many people I know. We should have more of these small but visible acts of resistance that let like-minded people find you.

One issue is that your friend would often not want your public support. You throwing yourself onto the pyre will not rescue them, only destroy you too. In many cases it would be symbolic-- and really just another example of virtue signaling, just like the mob but signaling a different set of virtues to a different audience. Better that you stay employable so you can lend a financial hand if they aren't and protect yo…

Strongly disagree. Always stand by your friends, even if it's hard and costs you a lot.
Post reply on HN