3 ms·
Public shaming and vigilante sites are always a bad idea.
by jonathanstrange 7y ago
Public shaming and vigilante sites are always a bad idea.
- illumanaughty 7y agoWhat's the better alternative? At at time like this we need immediate action. I value human lives over due process, personally.
- profunctor 7y agoWhy?
- monkin 7y agoThere is no authority behind them. Author will just remove the site/comment if first "we will sue you" letter comes. For example: https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1240769043776163840?s=20 https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1240769043776163840?s=20 DHH has huge respect in industry, they will not piss him off, but some site? Nah. ;)
- taneq 7y agoI dunno, if a twitter mob can wreck a company for posting something bad about <insert protected group> then I'd imagine a dedicated site with enough traffic could do likewise.
- brodouevencode 7y agoYou bring up a good point. Why take time managing and running the resources for such a site when you can just let Twitter do the hard work for you. You just provide the "face" of it.
- monkin 7y agoBecause this site doesn't have any author, privacy policy is just some template, etc. You don't see any difference between anon website & comments, and industry leader? :)
- fennecfoxen 7y agoAngry mob rule in the style of the 2 Minutes Hate with a “J’Accuse!” evidentiary standard is pretty corrosively toxic, and prone to abuse as well.
- jonathanstrange 7y agoMany reasons: - Ripe for abuse: There is always some angry customer or (ex-)employee seeking revenge. Especially anonymous forums are problematic. Most of the information may be wrong or intentionally false, or highly perspectival, missing the bigger picture, etc. - Blaming without discussion promotes vigilantism, sending the wrong signal to society. There should be a discussion of both sides of the story and a way for the other side to justify their actions. - Ulterior motives of such sites are hard to figure out. They could be run for political goals, by adversaries, competition, etc. How do you know? Is it controlled by an authority? - High potential for laws suits and subpoenas. The line between legitimate complaints and libel is thin. - If the action to be blamed is illegal, then authorities should handle it. If it's not illegal, then maybe what looks like a legitimate complaint for the maker of the site is just a matter of perspective (or, to put it worse, ideology). - The sites are adversarial by design, which is principally the wrong perspective. All they do is alienate one group from another, when in fact often both groups need to cooperate to solve the issue.
- marcinzm 7y agoThat's like saying all product review sites are bad. Knowing which companies don't value your life at all is a very useful piece of information when looking for future jobs.
- brodouevencode 7y agoReview sites also allow you to post things that are positive.
- kuzko_topia 7y agoThe whole point here is to not have those shady positive reviews, so why ask for them?
- luckylion 7y ago> Knowing which companies don't value your life at all is a very useful piece of information when looking for future jobs. How do you know this from reading anonymous messages? It might just as well be the competition or a 4chan troll telling you that Apple makes their employees cough each other in the face to improve morale.
- 40four 7y agoYeah, this looks terrible. I’m sure the creators pre populated all these initial posts. Anonymous, unverified ‘reports’? Analytics cookies with no option to decline? Seems like a great place for shit posting. Thanks but no thanks.
- dplgk 7y agoSource?