Life after an internet mob attack • Hacker News Board

Re: Life after an internet mob attack

#441

Post by zxzax » Thu, May 27, 2021, 3:01 PM UTC

kian wrote: post #438

zxzax wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That has not been my experience, do you have any studies that quantify that? From my perspective, the entire concept of legal rights and due process is what is actually the new thing, considering the total span of history anyway. These were not things that anybody had 1000 years ago, and even now some political entities still don't really have it or consider it valid (unfortunately).

Re: Life after an internet mob attack

#442

Post by specialist » Thu, May 27, 2021, 3:03 PM UTC

UnpossibleJim wrote: post #69

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.

It shows that witch trials haven't gone away; they never really did. They just became more technologically savvy in their influence, both publicly and politically.

Socrates was an early victim of "cancel culture".

Every generation thinks they discovered sex. Kids rebel against the hierarchy. Elders complain about "kids these days."

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Re: Life after an internet mob attack

#443

Post by notacoward » Thu, May 27, 2021, 3:05 PM UTC

tootie wrote: post #432

exporectomy wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 protect…

> Nobody gets harmed.

That is very obviously untrue, and makes me wonder whether you read OP at all. Do you think only physical harm matters? The public nature of accusations and ensuing arguments can have a very significant effect on business/career prospects, personal relationships, etc. Even if you successfully prove that the accusations are false, people's impressions are colored by the acrimony itself. There's another story on HN right now about collusion rings in academic reviewing, which demonstrates this effect. This could do huge damage to many people's academic careers, regardless of guilt or innocence or which side they're on.

If you have never known anyone that this happened to, count yourself lucky. Most people who have reached any level of prominence in any field have probably seen it happen to a friend. Pretending that things aren't real unless they've happened to you is kind of noxious.

Re: Life after an internet mob attack

#444

Post by JeremyNT » Thu, May 27, 2021, 3:40 PM UTC

rossdavidh wrote: post #128

The book "So You've Been Publicly Shamed" by Jon Ronson, is an excellent look at this topic. He interviews a number of people who have been the focus of such "mob attacks", and spends enough time on each to show how they happen, and what the long term results are. It's an oddly thoughtful and reflective look at thoughtless and unreflective behavior.

Not only is "So You've Been Publicly Shamed" an excellent book that demonstrates Ronson's immense empathy, it came out way back in 2015 when the problem was far less obvious.

Ronson saw this all coming, and he warned us about what being attacked on the Internet can do to the real humans on the other side of the keyboard, who are far from the one-dimensional monsters that social media witch hunts tend to portray them as.

Re: Life after an internet mob attack

#445

Post by stnmtn » Thu, May 27, 2021, 3:44 PM 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.

Can you provide proof on even just 1 similar, genuine statement?

Re: Life after an internet mob attack

#446

Post by njwi332 » Thu, May 27, 2021, 3:51 PM UTC

alsetmusic wrote: post #335

fastball wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How come?

Scott Adam’s says some pretty bizarre things in public on his blog and on his podcast. He wrote about causing his readers to orgasm via his words.[0] The tone was not that of a person with a healthy attitude towards sexuality. I found it unpleasant and gross. He’s also expressed some pretty odd ideas. From the same link: > Regular readers know that I used my background in hypnosis to accurately predict nine-out-nine…

Even if you don't like Scott Adams (And I don't particularly like the guy myself), I don't think that should invalidate the specific statement that the article quotes, which should be able to stand on its own regardless of the background of the person saying it.

Re: Life after an internet mob attack

#447

Post by bhk » Thu, May 27, 2021, 4:39 PM UTC

stnmtn wrote: post #445

xbar wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Can you provide proof on even just 1 similar, genuine statement?

Here's just one I found with a quick search:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/believing-jussie-smollett-hat...

The article itself sums it up as: "Believe victims. Don’t let this story plant doubt in your mind when it’s possible that unconscious bias already lives there."

You must not apply critical thought to accusations, because, of course, you are racist/sexist/whatever and cannot be trusted to think critically.

Re: Life after an internet mob attack

#448

Post by tootie » Thu, May 27, 2021, 4:41 PM UTC

notacoward wrote: post #443

tootie wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 protect…

> Nobody gets harmed. That is very obviously untrue, and makes me wonder whether you read OP at all. Do you think only physical harm matters? The public nature of accusations and ensuing arguments can have a very significant effect on business/career prospects, personal relationships, etc. Even if you successfully prove that the accusations are false, people's impressions are colored by the acrimony itself. There's a…

Sorry, yes, I meant physical harm. Physical and irreparable harm. Sure a misdirected twitter mob can cause emotional or professional harm. I indirectly know a few people it happened to and they deserved it.

Re: Life after an internet mob attack

#449

Post by CoryAlexMartin » Thu, May 27, 2021, 4:44 PM UTC

eyelidlessness wrote: post #393

imgabe wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is there any point at which you would say it matters whether an accusation is true or not? Is it only if there’s a criminal investigation? > People who’ve been hurt by others don’t need to be legally scrutinized for saying so. The point is that not every person who makes an accusation is someone who has been hurt by others. If there is no scrutiny allowed, how are we supposed to tell which is which? You're looking…

> So is there any point at which you would say it matters whether an accusation is true or not? Is it only if there’s a criminal investigation? It always matters whether an accusation is true. Penalizing accusers doesn’t produce fewer false accusations. It discourages true accusations. > You're looking at this from the perspective of the person making the accusation, where you can know with certainty that is true. So…

> Penalizing accusers doesn’t produce fewer false accusations. It discourages true accusations.

Why would the rate of true accusations go down while the rate of false accusations remain the same? My intuition is that they'd both go down, with false accusations decreasing more than true accusations.

Re: Life after an internet mob attack

#450

Post by shkkmo » Thu, May 27, 2021, 4:52 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #77

mordae wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, we just need some real mods on social media. We have them literally everywhere else.

The very same people that are complaining about cancel culture will without a shred of irony start to complain about moderator censorship. I've touched on this in another comment, in another thread - if we are going to assume that people have the right to say whatever the hell they want, how do you reconcile that with the rights of a mob to pigpile someone for speaking their mind? The short answer is: "You can't." Th…

Please don't make assumptions about what people believe like you are doing here. It limits your ability to engage in any sort of meaningful discussion and encourages more of the pointless partisan bickering that is causing such great harm to our country.

You can make the same sort of point without such language. Rather than asserting that "everyone who beleives X also believes Y and that is contradictory", you should assert "believing X and Y together is contradictory".