5 ms·

It would be good to pass laws that make it illegal to fire someone over a twitter mob (or any kind of mob action). Anti-mob or anti-bullying laws. And/or initia

It would be good to pass laws that make it illegal to fire someone over a twitter mob (or any kind of mob action). Anti-mob or anti-bullying laws. And/or initiate class-action lawsuits against twitter for encouraging this kind of behavior or failing to prevent it, resulting in significant damage to people's careers. It's far from being the first time this happens, so there's definitely a case to be made that twitter has known for a long time that this is a problem. Edit: changed the choice of words.

zimpenfish 5y ago
> llegal to fire someone over a twitter mob [...] Anti-lynching laws Are you really comparing getting fired from your job to a lynching? Because one of them seems a whole lot less serious than the other...
- ewindal 5y ago
  Who told you that you can only compare things of equal severity? That would maje comparisons largely useless.
  - beakerbreaker 5y ago
    Nobody was lynched here so anti-lynching law would not apply. Given we're discussing mobs getting riled up over the wrongs of the "other", it also seems appropriate to place the actual outcome in a less exaggerated way.
    - snek_case 5y ago
      Kind of ironic that people are getting offended over my choice of words here, but we could call these anti-mob or anti-bullying laws instead. The point remains, it might make sense to make it illegal for institutions to fire people over the call of a mob.
- ResearchCode 5y ago
  Yes, they are very comparable. One tries to kill you outright, one tries to kill you by starvation or drive you to suicide.
- coldtea 5y ago
  >Are you really comparing getting fired from your job to a lynching? Blacks used to get fired (or not hired) from jobs, or thrown out of towns and establishments for being black on the demand of racist white mobs. Is that serious enough for someone to make a comparison with a historical issue like lynching, or it should involve a hanging too? Lynchings didn't always involve death, sometimes it was "just" beatings, not to mention the term has had a metaphorical issue for collective violence/threats, even merely verbal, for a century now. And the "right to work" (not to mention feed yourself and your family) is as important as the right to live.
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    Lynching was part of a framework of racial terror that kept (and by its legacies, continues to keep) black people from attaining social and economic equality. I'd say that very few things meet a sufficient standard for comparison with lynching, least of which is the occasional (and generally management-class or higher) white person losing their job. > And the "right to work" (not to mention feed yourself and your family) is as important as the right to live. "Right to work," at least in the US, is a series of laws designed to curtail labor rights by weakening unions (i.e., the institutions that usually keep people in their jobs, particularly in at-will countries like the US). Are you sure that's what you meant?
  - newbamboo 5y ago
    Before lynching were stonings. Bob Dylan said that he wouldn’t feel so all alone, if everybody got stoned. He was on too something.
- dudul 5y ago
  They surely are not equal, but I find them very comparable. When twitter mobs try to get people fired they're trying to prevent them from making a living, what are they after? Do they want the target to kill tthemselves? Also "comparing" by definition can be done between any 2 things, even if they don't have the same "value". I can compare oranges and dogs if I want to.
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  I think there some subliminal need for people to mention lynching when it's innapropriate. Happens far too much to be coincidence. Guy gets protested because he says 'providing support for historically discriminated-against groups in America is just like the Nazi regime' and you can almost guarantee someone is going to call it a lynching. I initially thought people were doing it to be intentionally provocative, but it appears to be some unintended impulse, probably the same 'imp of the perverse' thing that drove the initial guy to bring the Nazis into a discussion about affirmative-action as if that was going to add some clarity to his approach to the topic.
ResearchCode 5y ago
Yes, it is largely a labor law issue. Twitter mob is not just cause for terminating the employment of someone. Using anti-defamation laws against individual bullies is another possibility.
- ghaff 5y ago
  In general, in the US, there doesn't need to be a "just cause." Someone has become a headache or embarrassment for us--for whatever unprotected reason--is sufficient.
  - ta988 5y ago
    It is much more complicated when someone is tenured, and there was a reason academics were protected by that (but it is thinning now).
    - ghaff 5y ago
      Right. Hence, "in general." Getting rid of a tenured faculty member is much trickier than getting rid of some junior corporate employee.
  - coldtea 5y ago
    In the US sodomy was a crime too. Laws can change. Labour law is not written in stone. And even with current laws, where there "need not be a just cause", there are protections against unjust causes (e.g. because they found out you're jewish, or you're fat, or whatever) and "because a mob campaigned against one" can be added to that. "But, under current law the business could just say they fired them for their own neutral reasons?" Sure. Let them defend that in a lawsuit, if it happened to coincide with a mob campaign.
    - still_grokking 5y ago
      But there is than the next obstacle in the US system: You need to have very deep pockets to actually take a case in court. "Justice" is only available to the rich in the US. (And this doesn't seem to be a construction error if you look closer. But that's another topic).

zimpenfish 5y ago

> llegal to fire someone over a twitter mob [...] Anti-lynching laws Are you really comparing getting fired from your job to a lynching? Because one of them seems a whole lot less serious than the other...

ewindal 5y ago
Who told you that you can only compare things of equal severity? That would maje comparisons largely useless.
- beakerbreaker 5y ago
  Nobody was lynched here so anti-lynching law would not apply. Given we're discussing mobs getting riled up over the wrongs of the "other", it also seems appropriate to place the actual outcome in a less exaggerated way.
  - snek_case 5y ago
    Kind of ironic that people are getting offended over my choice of words here, but we could call these anti-mob or anti-bullying laws instead. The point remains, it might make sense to make it illegal for institutions to fire people over the call of a mob.
ResearchCode 5y ago
Yes, they are very comparable. One tries to kill you outright, one tries to kill you by starvation or drive you to suicide.
coldtea 5y ago
>Are you really comparing getting fired from your job to a lynching? Blacks used to get fired (or not hired) from jobs, or thrown out of towns and establishments for being black on the demand of racist white mobs. Is that serious enough for someone to make a comparison with a historical issue like lynching, or it should involve a hanging too? Lynchings didn't always involve death, sometimes it was "just" beatings, not to mention the term has had a metaphorical issue for collective violence/threats, even merely verbal, for a century now. And the "right to work" (not to mention feed yourself and your family) is as important as the right to live.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  Lynching was part of a framework of racial terror that kept (and by its legacies, continues to keep) black people from attaining social and economic equality. I'd say that very few things meet a sufficient standard for comparison with lynching, least of which is the occasional (and generally management-class or higher) white person losing their job. > And the "right to work" (not to mention feed yourself and your family) is as important as the right to live. "Right to work," at least in the US, is a series of laws designed to curtail labor rights by weakening unions (i.e., the institutions that usually keep people in their jobs, particularly in at-will countries like the US). Are you sure that's what you meant?
- newbamboo 5y ago
  Before lynching were stonings. Bob Dylan said that he wouldn’t feel so all alone, if everybody got stoned. He was on too something.
dudul 5y ago
They surely are not equal, but I find them very comparable. When twitter mobs try to get people fired they're trying to prevent them from making a living, what are they after? Do they want the target to kill tthemselves? Also "comparing" by definition can be done between any 2 things, even if they don't have the same "value". I can compare oranges and dogs if I want to.
ZeroGravitas 5y ago
I think there some subliminal need for people to mention lynching when it's innapropriate. Happens far too much to be coincidence. Guy gets protested because he says 'providing support for historically discriminated-against groups in America is just like the Nazi regime' and you can almost guarantee someone is going to call it a lynching. I initially thought people were doing it to be intentionally provocative, but it appears to be some unintended impulse, probably the same 'imp of the perverse' thing that drove the initial guy to bring the Nazis into a discussion about affirmative-action as if that was going to add some clarity to his approach to the topic.

ResearchCode 5y ago

Yes, it is largely a labor law issue. Twitter mob is not just cause for terminating the employment of someone. Using anti-defamation laws against individual bullies is another possibility.

ghaff 5y ago
In general, in the US, there doesn't need to be a "just cause." Someone has become a headache or embarrassment for us--for whatever unprotected reason--is sufficient.
- ta988 5y ago
  It is much more complicated when someone is tenured, and there was a reason academics were protected by that (but it is thinning now).
  - ghaff 5y ago
    Right. Hence, "in general." Getting rid of a tenured faculty member is much trickier than getting rid of some junior corporate employee.
- coldtea 5y ago
  In the US sodomy was a crime too. Laws can change. Labour law is not written in stone. And even with current laws, where there "need not be a just cause", there are protections against unjust causes (e.g. because they found out you're jewish, or you're fat, or whatever) and "because a mob campaigned against one" can be added to that. "But, under current law the business could just say they fired them for their own neutral reasons?" Sure. Let them defend that in a lawsuit, if it happened to coincide with a mob campaign.
  - still_grokking 5y ago
    But there is than the next obstacle in the US system: You need to have very deep pockets to actually take a case in court. "Justice" is only available to the rich in the US. (And this doesn't seem to be a construction error if you look closer. But that's another topic).