17 ms·

From the linked Notion "Receipts" page: > I've struggled to understand why so many people have piled on to these absurd accusations without facts. I watched a

From the linked Notion "Receipts" page: > I've struggled to understand why so many people have piled on to these absurd accusations without facts. I watched a similar situation play out in real time. A friend had to fire an employee who wasn't submitting work or even responding to communications. The employe retaliated by using their moderately large social media presence to disparage my friend and her company. Strangely enough, other people with zero experience in the matter were piling on to support the claims. It seemed they felt obligated to amplify and lend credence to the allegations of one of their social media friends. The experience was extremely stressful for my friend, but ultimately the former employee cooled off and deleted many of the posts. It's hard to tell how much damage was done in the process, but I was stunned at how someone with zero evidence and an obvious axe to grind could rally such disdain for someone else with little more than a few unsubstantiated social media posts.

WDCDev 5y ago
> I was stunned at how someone with zero evidence and an obvious axe to grind could rally such disdain for someone else with little more than a few unsubstantiated social media posts. I feel that this is due to the weird place victimization occupies in our culture combined with how anti-social social media is. It's extremely easy to issue accusations and threats and have them be read by literally millions of people. You would never dare vocalize these same threats and and accusations publically - and even if you did, in the pre-internet days, it would reach far far fewer people. At some point we to start thinking about strengthening our libel laws to act as a deterrent to this type of online behaviors. It's depressing to consider MORE litigation as the solution here, but I don't think we can depend on the good nature of people and rationality to ultimately prevail.
- pjc50 5y ago
  > strengthening our libel laws This nearly always advantages businesses and the wealthy, especially in false or ambiguous situations, and whistleblowers of all kinds. Litigation is incredibly expensive and slow. Do people really want to spend a house worth and several years on this kind of fight? (This is why the US felt it necessary to pass laws against UK libel judgements being enforced, it was infringing on US standards of free speech)
  - WDCDev 5y ago
    Whistleblowers have plenty of protections and can be exempted. Libel can be stated such that they only apply to private matters between individuals, where accusations that do not reach the felony level - which is exactly what is going on here. I have no doubt we could protect all interests, while limiting the power of the wealthy and powerful.
    - jhayward 5y ago
      Whistleblowers have functionally no protections, I don't know how anyone could have knowledge of whistleblower cases and claim otherwise. Any attorney will tell you - if you are going to blow the whistle on some entity that is powerful, you will lose your job, your home, your ability to work in your field, and your life will be in legal hell for decades.
  - imgabe 5y ago
    Truth is always an absolute defense to libel. If you can back up what you’re saying, libel isn’t a concern. And if you can't prove what you're saying is true, then why are you saying it?
    - fuzxi 5y ago
      Really? You've never talked about something that happened to you without photographic evidence of the event? Really?
      - imgabe 5y ago
        With the intent of siccing a mob of people on someone to harass them online? No, never. In the article, the problem is not that the women discussed the fact that they had received harassing emails, but that they attributed those emails to a particular person without any proof that that is true. "I received an anonymous harassing email" - true statement, not libel "I received an anonymous harassing email and it was definitely from this guy" - if you can't prove it, could be libel. See the difference?
    - 5y ago
- Vektorweg 5y ago
  > I don't think we can depend on the good nature of people and rationality to ultimately prevail. least not with the current common education.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > At some point we to start thinking about strengthening our libel laws to act as a deterrent to this type of online behaviors. I am unconvinced that there is anything that could be done to strengthen libel laws that would have this effect short of also shutting down essential freedom of expression, given that Western regimes with stronger libel laws are not free of it, and our libel laws tend to go pretty much right up to the limit federal courts have found the First Amendment to impose on them.
  - not2b 5y ago
    Might want to talk to folks in Singapore, where the government infamously uses strict libel laws to bankrupt and jail its critics.
- wslack 5y ago
  It's tricky because these accusations resonate because they remind us of things that really happen. (and in fact, lies can be formulated for maximum impact when truthtelling is usually more nuanced) Because powerful people have strong lawyers, the tools that the falsely accused can use to clear their name can be used, to more effect, by the guilty. There are no easy solutions here. The past looked calm only because people often had no recourse unless a newspaper took up their cause.
- 3grdlurker 5y ago
  > You would never dare vocalize these same threats and and accusations publically - and even if you did, in the pre-internet days, it would reach far far fewer people. It would reach far less people, yes, but we used to burn witches, too, so it seems that internet mobs are just a modern manifestation of that.
bhk 5y ago
“It is absolutely essential that we believe Jussie Smollett. If we don’t, other people who haven’t been attacked might not have the courage to come forward.” https://newcriterion.com/issues/2019/4/wokes-on-you https://newcriterion.com/issues/2019/4/wokes-on-you
- renewiltord 5y ago
  That’s a Titania McGrath quote. She’s fictional. A parody.
  - xbar 5y ago
    Clearly. Effective parody exaggerates reality, which she does. The quote works because it sounds like a large number of similar, genuine ones.
    - SamBam 5y ago
      "I'm passing this quote around, not attributing it to being satire, and then when that's pointed out saying it's exaggerated and it works because it accurately represents people's beliefs, even though I said it was exaggerated."
      - JPKab 5y ago
        It's blatantly obvious that it's satire, and the link makes that clear.
        alisonkisk 5y ago
        And yet people in this thread are using it as evidence.
    - stnmtn 5y ago
      Can you provide proof on even just 1 similar, genuine statement?
krmboya 5y ago
Social media companies seem to optimize for virality. In such circumstances there are users who will learn to wield such capabilities to suit their goals
- noobermin 5y ago
  That's the thing, the "internet mobs" are literally the result of "engagement" they optimize for so they have no incentive to stop it and all the more incentive to facilitate and perpetuate it actually.
mc32 5y ago
The unfortunate tendency of people not in the know is to pile on righteous indignation for the sake of peer brownie points. It’s often clear they’re just taking a birdshit on something that looks like it can earn them internet kudos. Dynamically it doesn’t seem far removed from a lynchmob.
- throwkeep 5y ago
  There's a similar tendency I've noticed with these, where people who have met or interacted with the person pile on with vague statements. This is a popular one: "I met him once and knew something was off! He had a creepy vibe". I'm sure it reflects their interaction in some cases, but it's so common with these witch hunts (including the one in question here), there may be more to it. Motivated reasoning or something?
  - batch12 5y ago
    People want those sweet, sweet internet points and will lie and whore themselves to the mob to get them. How else does one know their true worth?
    - JPKab 5y ago
      Attention whores, all of them, doing it to feed their pathetic dopamine addiction and mask their own lack of accomplishment.
  - mc32 5y ago
    I’m speaking about the more general pile on. Some of the more specific ones could be ex-post re-rationalizing. Like when someone discovers their neighbor was a crook, suddenly his or her demeanor in retrospect was suspicious, or had wide eyes or had eyes close together, said hi but said it fast, or never said hi, or something whatever it is that sets them apart from non crooks.
908B64B197 5y ago
To be completely honest, the whole thing reads like high school drama completely blown out of proportion. > I've struggled to understand why so many people have piled on to these absurd accusations without facts. The same thing happened with RMS. All they could get against him were anonymous blog posts and someone vandalizing the door of his office.
sizzle 5y ago
The only solution is to delete social media and not play the game. Be a ghost.
- dcolkitt 5y ago
  You may not be interested in culture war, but culture war is interested in you.

WDCDev 5y ago

> I was stunned at how someone with zero evidence and an obvious axe to grind could rally such disdain for someone else with little more than a few unsubstantiated social media posts. I feel that this is due to the weird place victimization occupies in our culture combined with how anti-social social media is. It's extremely easy to issue accusations and threats and have them be read by literally millions of people. You would never dare vocalize these same threats and and accusations publically - and even if you did, in the pre-internet days, it would reach far far fewer people. At some point we to start thinking about strengthening our libel laws to act as a deterrent to this type of online behaviors. It's depressing to consider MORE litigation as the solution here, but I don't think we can depend on the good nature of people and rationality to ultimately prevail.

pjc50 5y ago
> strengthening our libel laws This nearly always advantages businesses and the wealthy, especially in false or ambiguous situations, and whistleblowers of all kinds. Litigation is incredibly expensive and slow. Do people really want to spend a house worth and several years on this kind of fight? (This is why the US felt it necessary to pass laws against UK libel judgements being enforced, it was infringing on US standards of free speech)
- WDCDev 5y ago
  Whistleblowers have plenty of protections and can be exempted. Libel can be stated such that they only apply to private matters between individuals, where accusations that do not reach the felony level - which is exactly what is going on here. I have no doubt we could protect all interests, while limiting the power of the wealthy and powerful.
  - jhayward 5y ago
    Whistleblowers have functionally no protections, I don't know how anyone could have knowledge of whistleblower cases and claim otherwise. Any attorney will tell you - if you are going to blow the whistle on some entity that is powerful, you will lose your job, your home, your ability to work in your field, and your life will be in legal hell for decades.
- imgabe 5y ago
  Truth is always an absolute defense to libel. If you can back up what you’re saying, libel isn’t a concern. And if you can't prove what you're saying is true, then why are you saying it?
  - fuzxi 5y ago
    Really? You've never talked about something that happened to you without photographic evidence of the event? Really?
    - imgabe 5y ago
      With the intent of siccing a mob of people on someone to harass them online? No, never. In the article, the problem is not that the women discussed the fact that they had received harassing emails, but that they attributed those emails to a particular person without any proof that that is true. "I received an anonymous harassing email" - true statement, not libel "I received an anonymous harassing email and it was definitely from this guy" - if you can't prove it, could be libel. See the difference?
  - 5y ago
Vektorweg 5y ago
> I don't think we can depend on the good nature of people and rationality to ultimately prevail. least not with the current common education.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> At some point we to start thinking about strengthening our libel laws to act as a deterrent to this type of online behaviors. I am unconvinced that there is anything that could be done to strengthen libel laws that would have this effect short of also shutting down essential freedom of expression, given that Western regimes with stronger libel laws are not free of it, and our libel laws tend to go pretty much right up to the limit federal courts have found the First Amendment to impose on them.
- not2b 5y ago
  Might want to talk to folks in Singapore, where the government infamously uses strict libel laws to bankrupt and jail its critics.
wslack 5y ago
It's tricky because these accusations resonate because they remind us of things that really happen. (and in fact, lies can be formulated for maximum impact when truthtelling is usually more nuanced) Because powerful people have strong lawyers, the tools that the falsely accused can use to clear their name can be used, to more effect, by the guilty. There are no easy solutions here. The past looked calm only because people often had no recourse unless a newspaper took up their cause.
3grdlurker 5y ago
> You would never dare vocalize these same threats and and accusations publically - and even if you did, in the pre-internet days, it would reach far far fewer people. It would reach far less people, yes, but we used to burn witches, too, so it seems that internet mobs are just a modern manifestation of that.

bhk 5y ago

“It is absolutely essential that we believe Jussie Smollett. If we don’t, other people who haven’t been attacked might not have the courage to come forward.” https://newcriterion.com/issues/2019/4/wokes-on-you https://newcriterion.com/issues/2019/4/wokes-on-you

renewiltord 5y ago
That’s a Titania McGrath quote. She’s fictional. A parody.
- xbar 5y ago
  Clearly. Effective parody exaggerates reality, which she does. The quote works because it sounds like a large number of similar, genuine ones.
  - SamBam 5y ago
    "I'm passing this quote around, not attributing it to being satire, and then when that's pointed out saying it's exaggerated and it works because it accurately represents people's beliefs, even though I said it was exaggerated."
    - JPKab 5y ago
      It's blatantly obvious that it's satire, and the link makes that clear.
      - alisonkisk 5y ago
        And yet people in this thread are using it as evidence.
  - stnmtn 5y ago
    Can you provide proof on even just 1 similar, genuine statement?

krmboya 5y ago

Social media companies seem to optimize for virality. In such circumstances there are users who will learn to wield such capabilities to suit their goals

noobermin 5y ago
That's the thing, the "internet mobs" are literally the result of "engagement" they optimize for so they have no incentive to stop it and all the more incentive to facilitate and perpetuate it actually.

mc32 5y ago

The unfortunate tendency of people not in the know is to pile on righteous indignation for the sake of peer brownie points. It’s often clear they’re just taking a birdshit on something that looks like it can earn them internet kudos. Dynamically it doesn’t seem far removed from a lynchmob.

throwkeep 5y ago
There's a similar tendency I've noticed with these, where people who have met or interacted with the person pile on with vague statements. This is a popular one: "I met him once and knew something was off! He had a creepy vibe". I'm sure it reflects their interaction in some cases, but it's so common with these witch hunts (including the one in question here), there may be more to it. Motivated reasoning or something?
- batch12 5y ago
  People want those sweet, sweet internet points and will lie and whore themselves to the mob to get them. How else does one know their true worth?
  - JPKab 5y ago
    Attention whores, all of them, doing it to feed their pathetic dopamine addiction and mask their own lack of accomplishment.
- mc32 5y ago
  I’m speaking about the more general pile on. Some of the more specific ones could be ex-post re-rationalizing. Like when someone discovers their neighbor was a crook, suddenly his or her demeanor in retrospect was suspicious, or had wide eyes or had eyes close together, said hi but said it fast, or never said hi, or something whatever it is that sets them apart from non crooks.

908B64B197 5y ago

To be completely honest, the whole thing reads like high school drama completely blown out of proportion. > I've struggled to understand why so many people have piled on to these absurd accusations without facts. The same thing happened with RMS. All they could get against him were anonymous blog posts and someone vandalizing the door of his office.

sizzle 5y ago

The only solution is to delete social media and not play the game. Be a ghost.

dcolkitt 5y ago
You may not be interested in culture war, but culture war is interested in you.