4 ms·

I think I follow. My understanding of your point is that in the past due to limited tools for organization and communication, this level of mass public shaming

I think I follow. My understanding of your point is that in the past due to limited tools for organization and communication, this level of mass public shaming or mob-based response wouldn't have been feasible. Is that a fair characterization? If so, while it's true that the scale was more limited, there are certainly ample examples of extrajudicial responses for unpopular ideas and actions, from simple social ostracizing, up to getting tarred and feathered (which happened to British loyalists during the American Revolution).

asabjorn 9y ago
Yes, that is my point. Technology acts as a large amplifier to extend reach and increase effectiveness. Previously you could at best expect to impose on a relatively small geographic area around you, and it was much harder to organize and needed a majority to agree with the action. It seems like the mobs, like before, are comprised of a minority while the quiet majority is trying to avoid the crosshairs. Unfortunately that quiet majority voted Trump when no one was looking. In the same way as belittling your partner rarely leads to anything good, doing the same at scale in a democracy does the same.