3 ms·

Why?

monkin 7y ago
There 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    You 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 ago
    Because 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 ago
Angry 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 ago
Many 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.

Why?

There 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 ago
I 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 ago
  You 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 ago
  Because 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 ago

Angry 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 ago

Many 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.