3 ms·

She is a journalist/writer and wrote about her own views on the MeToo movement. She's paid to have opinions and write about them. People then started using her

She is a journalist/writer and wrote about her own views on the MeToo movement. She's paid to have opinions and write about them. People then started using her views as ammo to target her husband's business as a way to inflict collateral damage in her life. This is a pretty dirty way to say you disagree with a writer.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
>People then started using her views as ammo to target her husband's business as a way to inflict collateral damage in her life. This is a pretty dirty way to say you disagree with a writer. This is not new. Side channel attacks like this are how people and organizations with power make the lives of "inconvenient" people they don't like miserable. If you're the reporter constantly covering police brutality don't expect anyone who shares your address to ever get a warning from the police. If you're the guy who blew the whistle on some BS going on in state government expect your brother's restaurant to be much more scrutinized by the health department. Making people who are inconvenient miserable by putting pressure on the people around them is not something new. What is new is that now any one member of masses who can craft a compelling narrative (aka something that goes "viral") can harness the power of internet lynch mobs to make people miserable. Suddenly this power that a few had is potentially in everyone's hands and it's a Bad Thing(TM). I really don't like internet lynch mobs but they are just a product of technology giving everybody the power to try to rally people to a less than just cause. It will blow over. Social norms will adjust to make this sort of thing (screwing people for association with people who you find inconvenient) not acceptable or at least not as acceptable to do to this extent. Give it time.

3 ms·

She is a journalist/writer and wrote about her own views on the MeToo movement. She's paid to have opinions and write about them. People then started using her

by ironSkillet 8y ago

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
>People then started using her views as ammo to target her husband's business as a way to inflict collateral damage in her life. This is a pretty dirty way to say you disagree with a writer. This is not new. Side channel attacks like this are how people and organizations with power make the lives of "inconvenient" people they don't like miserable. If you're the reporter constantly covering police brutality don't expect anyone who shares your address to ever get a warning from the police. If you're the guy who blew the whistle on some BS going on in state government expect your brother's restaurant to be much more scrutinized by the health department. Making people who are inconvenient miserable by putting pressure on the people around them is not something new. What is new is that now any one member of masses who can craft a compelling narrative (aka something that goes "viral") can harness the power of internet lynch mobs to make people miserable. Suddenly this power that a few had is potentially in everyone's hands and it's a Bad Thing(TM). I really don't like internet lynch mobs but they are just a product of technology giving everybody the power to try to rally people to a less than just cause. It will blow over. Social norms will adjust to make this sort of thing (screwing people for association with people who you find inconvenient) not acceptable or at least not as acceptable to do to this extent. Give it time.