13 ms·

"We are in a world where moralistic mobs gather on social media and rise like a storm, falling upon newsrooms in an overwhelming blow. This requires immediate c

"We are in a world where moralistic mobs gather on social media and rise like a storm, falling upon newsrooms in an overwhelming blow. This requires immediate counter-measures by publishers, leaving no room for ponderation or meaningful discussions. Twitter is a place for furor, not debate. The most outraged voices tend to define the conversation, and the angry crowd follows in." This is a significant problem, not just for newsrooms, but for companies and individuals. Nuance is not permitted in 2019 - this is simply the latest flavor of puritanical outrage that grips humanity. From the Salem witch trials to the Red Scare to the Harry Potter book burnings of the early 2000s, we are now privy to the latest incarnation of something as old as homo sapiens themselves. The issue now is that the puritanical outrage stretches past the pulpit and Letters to the Editor and directly into your notifications, your DMs, your timeline; broadcast across the world and sending newsrooms and corporations scrambling with half-arsed apologies.

gfodor 7y ago
It does confuse me that these mobs have such power on decision makers at companies and media outlets like this. The interesting thing about Twitter "mobs" is that if you look away from the computer screen or hit the button on the side of your phone, they are suddenly silent and may as well not exist. You can, in fact, log out of Twitter and never log back in again. Most of the time doing so will have zero long term negative impact, since the mob is fickle, trapped in their filter bubbles, and will move onto the next outrage in days if not hours. The mobs that cause doxing or have credible threats of harm upon on individuals (like job loss or even violence) do in fact wield incredible, terrifying power though.
- the_snooze 7y ago
  Is there really much of a difference between the two? A sufficiently large angry only mob is bound to have at least a couple people who are willing to take things too far.
- _vertigo 7y ago
  What is confusing? Even if you yourself log out of Twitter, other people are still looking at it. In that sense, they don't cease to exist when you put your phone down, because other people are still paying attention to them. Sure, as long as they don't know who you are, then it's not such a big deal. An online mob that's mad at you but doesn't know who you are is easy enough to ignore - just log out, as you said. But increasingly it feels like it is less and less likely that the mob does not know who you are. A Twitter mob knows that its outrage is for naught unless it can cause lasting harm to its target, and so it goes to great efforts to dox those targets. Almost always, it seems, the target is doxxed and then their life is ripped to shreds.
- quietbritishjim 7y ago
  > It does confuse me that these mobs have such power on decision makers at companies and media outlets like this. The interesting thing about Twitter "mobs" is that if you look away from the computer screen or hit the button on the side of your phone, they are suddenly silent and may as well not exist. If you are a company then bad stories on Twitter could cause a significant drop in business. So if you just choose to ignore Twitter, that does not mean that it may as well not exist.
  - __i___ii____ 7y ago
    The angry vocal minority on twitter (people who may not even be customers, perhaps likely are not) really has such an effect on a company's sales? Got any examples?
    - Wistar 7y ago
      Well, there is the Uriah’s Heating and Cooling case in Ohio last year. https://www.dispatch.com/news/20180729/theodore-decker-column-racist-words-blow-back-on-man-family-and-business https://www.dispatch.com/news/20180729/theodore-decker-colum...
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - naasking 7y ago
    > If you are a company then bad stories on Twitter could cause a significant drop in business. But does it cause a drop seems like the pertinent question. New media isn't like the old media where bad press was big deal. Maybe it's just not anymore for exactly these reasons.
  - rwc 7y ago
    Sure ... here you go: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/10/us/oberlin-bakery-lawsuit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/10/us/oberlin-bakery-lawsuit...
    - 7y ago
- detaro 7y ago
  The criticism of the NYT cartoon wasn't just on Twitter, but had demonstrations in front of their office, other large organizations weighting in, ...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
colechristensen 7y ago
>the latest flavor of puritanical outrage For some time I have been searching for ways to express how the worst characteristics of religion people give for leaving persist widely with nonbelievers. This expresses it nicely.
- youeseh 7y ago
  Oh man, I think what you're trying to say is: You're trying to figure out how the worst characteristics of religious people also exist in nonbelievers. Is that right? There will always be people who have varying amounts of commitment to their inherited and / or adopted value systems. For example: I'm pretty gung ho about surfing. I'm all for property rights but turning beaches into private property... well now, shut the front door!
- yellowstuff 7y ago
  "Moral panic" is probably the term you want.
cm2187 7y ago
Except that the said newsrooms are more often than not the ones that amplify and give a legitimacy to these mobs by printing their reactions as if it was somehow the reaction of the people. The NY Times itself actively participated in many of these lynchings, like the Covington kids. To me it looks more like a newsroom that likes playing with fire, got burned itself, and decides to cut its exposure so it can keep playing.
- jdoliner 7y ago
  This is how I see it too, things like the Covington kids create a backlash against the newsrooms that promulgate them. And NYT gave them too perfect of an opportunity when they published a remake of a Nazi propaganda comic that could easily be portrayed as antisemitic.
  - eanzenberg 7y ago
    Correctness literally doesn't matter in the realm of politics. Only, who is the loudest and most persuasive.
    - kodz4 7y ago
      More like a bias towards people with the most energy. There are lots of loud and persuasive people around, but to stay relevant, social/news media selects for the ones that are tireless in performing their routines with robotic efficiency day in day out.
    - anomaloops 7y ago
      As an aside, is there a latin-based term for this kind of authoritative persuasion? I want to say it's ochlocracy, but generally it's not just any kind of mob I'm thinking of, but the mob that is the loudest. Rule by the loudest voices. A magnaocracy? (not to be confused with the fantastical magocracy)
      - nerfhammer 7y ago
        (-cracy words are Greek anyway)
rdtsc 7y ago
> The issue now is that the puritanical outrage stretches past the pulpit and Letters to the Editor and directly into your notifications, I think many people have realized that they can control the discourse by pretending to be offended. And it is not easy to figure out if someone is genuinely distraught at seeing a cartoon like that (or anything really) or they are just claiming they are.
- acqq 7y ago
  > And it is not easy to figure out if someone is genuinely distraught at seeing a cartoon like that (or anything really) or they are just claiming they are We should just not care. Somebody is always going to be offended with something. You can't please everyone. Somebody being offended in not an excuse to publish something. That's what's wrong with the present expectations -- the acceptance that "offending" someone is an excuse enough not to print something. We should simply stop accepting that somebody being "offended" is enough to produce a veto to publish anything. If anybody is scared they should also just admit that. But not accept that those who threat him or her have any right to do so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day "Molly Norris drew the original, poster-like cartoon on April 20, 2010, which declared May 20, 2010, to be the first annual "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day". The drawing showed various anthropomorphized objects, including a coffee cup, a cherry and a box of pasta, each claiming to be the likeness of Muhammad." "FBI officials reportedly notified Norris warning her that they considered it a "very serious threat."[143][144] "Norris has since changed her name and gone into hiding. According to the Seattle Weekly (her former employer), this decision was based on "the insistence of top security specialists at the FBI."" "As of 2015, Norris is still in hiding and jihadist threats against her life continue." We should publish exactly what is "offensive" until there is enough of it that nobody's life can be threatened. Otherwise we accept to be bullied. Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting "The gunmen burst into the meeting room and called out Charb's name to target him before opening fire. The shooting lasted five to ten minutes. The gunmen aimed at the journalists' heads and killed them." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director) "Van Gogh was shot with a HS2000 and stabbed by Mohammed Bouyeri while cycling to work on 2 November 2004 at about 9 o'clock in the morning." https://www.salon.com/2004/11/24/vangogh_2/ https://www.salon.com/2004/11/24/vangogh_2/ "On the morning of Nov. 2 in a busy street in east Amsterdam, a 26-year-old Dutch Moroccan named Mohammed Bouyeri pulled out a gun and shot controversial filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was riding a bike to his office. Van Gogh hit the ground and stumbled across the street to a nearby building. He didn't make it. As the Moroccan strode toward him, van Gogh shouted, "We can still talk about it! Don't do it! Don't do it." But the Moroccan didn't stop. He shot him again, slit van Gogh's throat and stuck a letter to his chest with a knife. He was slaughtered like an animal, witnesses said. "Cut like a tire," said one. Van Gogh, the Dutch master's great-grand-nephew, was 47 years old."
mratzloff 7y ago
I wonder how different humanity would be if anger and the fight-or-flight response could be disconnected, or the dopamine response from self-righteousness could be severed.
- mistermann 7y ago
  Psilocybin may provide somewhat of a reasonable approximation of this at appropriate dosages.
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    Lobotomy would help too.
    - mistermann 7y ago
      For real? Do you have a link I could read up on?
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
  - justforyou 7y ago
    Not sure why you are being downvoted on this.
    - mistermann 7y ago
      General popularity (or lack thereof) would be my guess :)
naveen99 7y ago
I wonder if there are any interesting flame wars between emacs and vim supporters on twitter.
mc32 7y ago
Sure there is ridiculous posturing and fake outrage on Twitter.... But this is the NYT (who stood for journalism at one point) and political cartoons — which is satire and lampooning of the political class and politics. Shying away from that is indicative of something gone wrong. I know the NYT only started political cartoons in the last few decades, but this can’t be good for political freedom.
nine_k 7y ago
The underlying issue is the assumption that nobody may have their views put to doubt, or worse, criticized. The right not to be offended, not written anywhere, somehow became holy. Not that I would offend people on purpose: it usually hampers real discussion and leave people more polarized and striving less for understanding. But for some, feeling offended and demonstrating that feeling as loudly as possible became an easy publicity tool. It exploits the natural propensity of people to help those who are hurt. It's very sad that few (or no?) large media ever was able to say: "Suck it up. Your opinion and this guy's opinion are different. This is how freedom works: by giving equal rights to people you don't like." (But freedom is not very valued by many, it seems; often definitely not as much as being right, or at least having the upper hand.)
ianschenck 7y ago
> Nuance is not permitted in 2019 Also, screwing up, learning that, changing your ways, admitting you were wrong, adapting is not permitted either. It will follow you forever, regardless.
dosy 7y ago
I really want to read the perspective of some great contemporary thinkers on this. Who were the thinkers writing about this in a compelling way and who it's likely that in 20 years or 50 years we'll be able to look back on and say their essays really understood the zeitgeist? What shocks me is how companies and organizations have reacted to this. Every time a significant decision is deferred to mob rule I feel a little bit of power departs civil and ordered society and is transferred to the mob. Which seems to me to validate the notion that we ought to be afraid of mobs. That's a pretty scary society to live in and doesn't really mesh with the principle of rule of law. The only reference point I have for this is historically the utilisation of and empowerment of angry mobs has coincided with times of great political turmoil such as a revolution. And that historically at least you could say that these mobs are created by breaking down the existing structures of authority. I think you can find a reference for that in Western society where the power of traditional moral authority or institutional symbols of authority have declined or been dismantled. Probably the least controversial idea I have as to a cause of all this is that there must be a huge amount of potential emotional energy present in the population that is being directed towards are tapped by these expressions of outrage and mob outburst. I think it's reasonable to say that this potential emotional energy was not created by these topics it was created elsewhere by foundational issues such as economics but it's being directed towards these topics perhaps as cathartic outlet.
Noos 7y ago
Said journalists and publishers try and whip up moralistic mobs in service of their goals, though. Then when it doesn't go their way, the shock and outrage happen. Everyone is happy when puritanism is what they like...HN's endless preening about riding bicycles, outlawing cars in cities, outlawing sugar, getting rid of facebook, and more are good examples. When their enemies use it though, watch out. Unfortunately the realization that a person themselves can be like that is hard won and hard to counter even when knowing it exists.
blueboo 7y ago
> From the Salem witch trials to the Red Scare to the Harry Potter book burnings some how a master of nuance missed that one of these things is rather not like the other...

gfodor 7y ago

It does confuse me that these mobs have such power on decision makers at companies and media outlets like this. The interesting thing about Twitter "mobs" is that if you look away from the computer screen or hit the button on the side of your phone, they are suddenly silent and may as well not exist. You can, in fact, log out of Twitter and never log back in again. Most of the time doing so will have zero long term negative impact, since the mob is fickle, trapped in their filter bubbles, and will move onto the next outrage in days if not hours. The mobs that cause doxing or have credible threats of harm upon on individuals (like job loss or even violence) do in fact wield incredible, terrifying power though.

the_snooze 7y ago
Is there really much of a difference between the two? A sufficiently large angry only mob is bound to have at least a couple people who are willing to take things too far.
_vertigo 7y ago
What is confusing? Even if you yourself log out of Twitter, other people are still looking at it. In that sense, they don't cease to exist when you put your phone down, because other people are still paying attention to them. Sure, as long as they don't know who you are, then it's not such a big deal. An online mob that's mad at you but doesn't know who you are is easy enough to ignore - just log out, as you said. But increasingly it feels like it is less and less likely that the mob does not know who you are. A Twitter mob knows that its outrage is for naught unless it can cause lasting harm to its target, and so it goes to great efforts to dox those targets. Almost always, it seems, the target is doxxed and then their life is ripped to shreds.
quietbritishjim 7y ago
> It does confuse me that these mobs have such power on decision makers at companies and media outlets like this. The interesting thing about Twitter "mobs" is that if you look away from the computer screen or hit the button on the side of your phone, they are suddenly silent and may as well not exist. If you are a company then bad stories on Twitter could cause a significant drop in business. So if you just choose to ignore Twitter, that does not mean that it may as well not exist.
- __i___ii____ 7y ago
  The angry vocal minority on twitter (people who may not even be customers, perhaps likely are not) really has such an effect on a company's sales? Got any examples?
  - Wistar 7y ago
    Well, there is the Uriah’s Heating and Cooling case in Ohio last year. https://www.dispatch.com/news/20180729/theodore-decker-column-racist-words-blow-back-on-man-family-and-business https://www.dispatch.com/news/20180729/theodore-decker-colum...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- naasking 7y ago
  > If you are a company then bad stories on Twitter could cause a significant drop in business. But does it cause a drop seems like the pertinent question. New media isn't like the old media where bad press was big deal. Maybe it's just not anymore for exactly these reasons.
- rwc 7y ago
  Sure ... here you go: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/10/us/oberlin-bakery-lawsuit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/10/us/oberlin-bakery-lawsuit...
  - 7y ago
detaro 7y ago
The criticism of the NYT cartoon wasn't just on Twitter, but had demonstrations in front of their office, other large organizations weighting in, ...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

colechristensen 7y ago

>the latest flavor of puritanical outrage For some time I have been searching for ways to express how the worst characteristics of religion people give for leaving persist widely with nonbelievers. This expresses it nicely.

youeseh 7y ago
Oh man, I think what you're trying to say is: You're trying to figure out how the worst characteristics of religious people also exist in nonbelievers. Is that right? There will always be people who have varying amounts of commitment to their inherited and / or adopted value systems. For example: I'm pretty gung ho about surfing. I'm all for property rights but turning beaches into private property... well now, shut the front door!
yellowstuff 7y ago
"Moral panic" is probably the term you want.

cm2187 7y ago

Except that the said newsrooms are more often than not the ones that amplify and give a legitimacy to these mobs by printing their reactions as if it was somehow the reaction of the people. The NY Times itself actively participated in many of these lynchings, like the Covington kids. To me it looks more like a newsroom that likes playing with fire, got burned itself, and decides to cut its exposure so it can keep playing.

jdoliner 7y ago
This is how I see it too, things like the Covington kids create a backlash against the newsrooms that promulgate them. And NYT gave them too perfect of an opportunity when they published a remake of a Nazi propaganda comic that could easily be portrayed as antisemitic.
- eanzenberg 7y ago
  Correctness literally doesn't matter in the realm of politics. Only, who is the loudest and most persuasive.
  - kodz4 7y ago
    More like a bias towards people with the most energy. There are lots of loud and persuasive people around, but to stay relevant, social/news media selects for the ones that are tireless in performing their routines with robotic efficiency day in day out.
  - anomaloops 7y ago
    As an aside, is there a latin-based term for this kind of authoritative persuasion? I want to say it's ochlocracy, but generally it's not just any kind of mob I'm thinking of, but the mob that is the loudest. Rule by the loudest voices. A magnaocracy? (not to be confused with the fantastical magocracy)
    - nerfhammer 7y ago
      (-cracy words are Greek anyway)

rdtsc 7y ago

> The issue now is that the puritanical outrage stretches past the pulpit and Letters to the Editor and directly into your notifications, I think many people have realized that they can control the discourse by pretending to be offended. And it is not easy to figure out if someone is genuinely distraught at seeing a cartoon like that (or anything really) or they are just claiming they are.

acqq 7y ago
> And it is not easy to figure out if someone is genuinely distraught at seeing a cartoon like that (or anything really) or they are just claiming they are We should just not care. Somebody is always going to be offended with something. You can't please everyone. Somebody being offended in not an excuse to publish something. That's what's wrong with the present expectations -- the acceptance that "offending" someone is an excuse enough not to print something. We should simply stop accepting that somebody being "offended" is enough to produce a veto to publish anything. If anybody is scared they should also just admit that. But not accept that those who threat him or her have any right to do so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day "Molly Norris drew the original, poster-like cartoon on April 20, 2010, which declared May 20, 2010, to be the first annual "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day". The drawing showed various anthropomorphized objects, including a coffee cup, a cherry and a box of pasta, each claiming to be the likeness of Muhammad." "FBI officials reportedly notified Norris warning her that they considered it a "very serious threat."[143][144] "Norris has since changed her name and gone into hiding. According to the Seattle Weekly (her former employer), this decision was based on "the insistence of top security specialists at the FBI."" "As of 2015, Norris is still in hiding and jihadist threats against her life continue." We should publish exactly what is "offensive" until there is enough of it that nobody's life can be threatened. Otherwise we accept to be bullied. Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting "The gunmen burst into the meeting room and called out Charb's name to target him before opening fire. The shooting lasted five to ten minutes. The gunmen aimed at the journalists' heads and killed them." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director) "Van Gogh was shot with a HS2000 and stabbed by Mohammed Bouyeri while cycling to work on 2 November 2004 at about 9 o'clock in the morning." https://www.salon.com/2004/11/24/vangogh_2/ https://www.salon.com/2004/11/24/vangogh_2/ "On the morning of Nov. 2 in a busy street in east Amsterdam, a 26-year-old Dutch Moroccan named Mohammed Bouyeri pulled out a gun and shot controversial filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was riding a bike to his office. Van Gogh hit the ground and stumbled across the street to a nearby building. He didn't make it. As the Moroccan strode toward him, van Gogh shouted, "We can still talk about it! Don't do it! Don't do it." But the Moroccan didn't stop. He shot him again, slit van Gogh's throat and stuck a letter to his chest with a knife. He was slaughtered like an animal, witnesses said. "Cut like a tire," said one. Van Gogh, the Dutch master's great-grand-nephew, was 47 years old."

mratzloff 7y ago

I wonder how different humanity would be if anger and the fight-or-flight response could be disconnected, or the dopamine response from self-righteousness could be severed.

mistermann 7y ago
Psilocybin may provide somewhat of a reasonable approximation of this at appropriate dosages.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  Lobotomy would help too.
  - mistermann 7y ago
    For real? Do you have a link I could read up on?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- justforyou 7y ago
  Not sure why you are being downvoted on this.
  - mistermann 7y ago
    General popularity (or lack thereof) would be my guess :)

naveen99 7y ago

I wonder if there are any interesting flame wars between emacs and vim supporters on twitter.

mc32 7y ago

Sure there is ridiculous posturing and fake outrage on Twitter.... But this is the NYT (who stood for journalism at one point) and political cartoons — which is satire and lampooning of the political class and politics. Shying away from that is indicative of something gone wrong. I know the NYT only started political cartoons in the last few decades, but this can’t be good for political freedom.

nine_k 7y ago

The underlying issue is the assumption that nobody may have their views put to doubt, or worse, criticized. The right not to be offended, not written anywhere, somehow became holy. Not that I would offend people on purpose: it usually hampers real discussion and leave people more polarized and striving less for understanding. But for some, feeling offended and demonstrating that feeling as loudly as possible became an easy publicity tool. It exploits the natural propensity of people to help those who are hurt. It's very sad that few (or no?) large media ever was able to say: "Suck it up. Your opinion and this guy's opinion are different. This is how freedom works: by giving equal rights to people you don't like." (But freedom is not very valued by many, it seems; often definitely not as much as being right, or at least having the upper hand.)

ianschenck 7y ago

> Nuance is not permitted in 2019 Also, screwing up, learning that, changing your ways, admitting you were wrong, adapting is not permitted either. It will follow you forever, regardless.

dosy 7y ago

I really want to read the perspective of some great contemporary thinkers on this. Who were the thinkers writing about this in a compelling way and who it's likely that in 20 years or 50 years we'll be able to look back on and say their essays really understood the zeitgeist? What shocks me is how companies and organizations have reacted to this. Every time a significant decision is deferred to mob rule I feel a little bit of power departs civil and ordered society and is transferred to the mob. Which seems to me to validate the notion that we ought to be afraid of mobs. That's a pretty scary society to live in and doesn't really mesh with the principle of rule of law. The only reference point I have for this is historically the utilisation of and empowerment of angry mobs has coincided with times of great political turmoil such as a revolution. And that historically at least you could say that these mobs are created by breaking down the existing structures of authority. I think you can find a reference for that in Western society where the power of traditional moral authority or institutional symbols of authority have declined or been dismantled. Probably the least controversial idea I have as to a cause of all this is that there must be a huge amount of potential emotional energy present in the population that is being directed towards are tapped by these expressions of outrage and mob outburst. I think it's reasonable to say that this potential emotional energy was not created by these topics it was created elsewhere by foundational issues such as economics but it's being directed towards these topics perhaps as cathartic outlet.

Noos 7y ago

Said journalists and publishers try and whip up moralistic mobs in service of their goals, though. Then when it doesn't go their way, the shock and outrage happen. Everyone is happy when puritanism is what they like...HN's endless preening about riding bicycles, outlawing cars in cities, outlawing sugar, getting rid of facebook, and more are good examples. When their enemies use it though, watch out. Unfortunately the realization that a person themselves can be like that is hard won and hard to counter even when knowing it exists.

blueboo 7y ago

> From the Salem witch trials to the Red Scare to the Harry Potter book burnings some how a master of nuance missed that one of these things is rather not like the other...