4 ms·
I don't think any protections are needed. People just need to stop participating in those "online mobs" and not take them seriously. It's the same tactic that
by js8 9y ago
I don't think any protections are needed. People just need to stop participating in those "online mobs" and not take them seriously.
It's the same tactic that needs to be employed against terrorists. The more seriously you take them, the bigger threat they are.
The people who fired Damore are the problem. They escalated the conflict. They are the ones who should have known better and not get involved in mob justice.
- curtisblaine 9y agoEveryone is. A company will always fire the troublemaker, because it's a PR nightmare if they don't.
- js8 9y ago> Everyone is. I think that sentence is missing a word that turns it into a point you wanted to make. > because it's a PR nightmare if they don't Why it should be a PR nightmare? Why cannot his bosses say, we are not doing vigilante justice here, and refuse to yield to "angry mob"? It seems to me like a morally better position to take. Compare this to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_carto...
- curtisblaine 9y agoMake no mistake: I completely agree with you. But it seems that companies these days are willing to go any length to avoid a PR scandal. The standard company response in highly-publicized "angry mob" cases seems to be firing. Justine Sacco, the "dongle" guys, Damore, etc. So I'm guessing that in their profit/loss charts, avoiding a PR scandal is higher than resisting the will of the mob.