6 ms·
When a random internet citizen directly approaches your company with the explicit request to fire a named employee, this by definition is insane. The reporter
by fleddr 4y ago
When a random internet citizen directly approaches your company with the explicit request to fire a named employee, this by definition is insane.
The reporter is not interested in reporting a particular offense, instead they are already playing the executioner. They do not want a solution, they want punishment and retaliation. That behavior is both arrogant (not their call to make) and sadistic.
The reporter is not interested in what is best for your company either, as the "request" typically comes with threats. Comply or else...
The very nature of such requests means the reporter is the type of person to dig up personal information or old "offensive" posts, which is unhinged behavior. Likewise, the reporter was unable to come to a resolution with the "offender", so plays the snitch card instead.
It's a pile of red flags. Normal and reasonable people do not go after a person's job, even less so collectively. I wouldn't do that to my biggest enemy. That doesn't mean employees can't screw up, perceived or real. When they do, mob justice does not satisfy the very basic principles of justice. There's no defense, and without defense, there is no justice.
Most companies can safely ignore such requests. The mob has no patience nor are they typically a customer in the first place, so all economical threats are in vain. It's largely a temporary PR threat that is emotionally inflated versus the actual PR impact: close to zero.
Of course, I know, there's exceptions to all of the above.
I'd say it would be a good thing if there's legislation that protects against mob-triggered terminations. The reason I would opt for that is that mob justice goes beyond just the termination of a few. It has a larger societal impact in the sense that those few are to be seen as examples for other people to increasingly feel like they need to walk on egg shells: extreme political correctness, large silent majority, you get what I mean.
- kodah 4y ago> I'd say it would be a good thing if there's legislation that protects against mob-triggered terminations. You could also say freedom of speech has limits, like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. If someone starts a mob, knowingly or unknowingly, encourages a mob, or information thereof is found to be incorrect it would make sense if there were consequences.
- fleddr 4y agoI was looking at it from a different angle. I think making laws to stop a mob from forming would be very hard, complex, and have lots of hairy side effects. My idea instead is to look at it from an employer's side: one should not be able to fire somebody on the spot for fuzzy PR reasons. So the mob can still form, but the ultimate consequence, a termination, in most cases would be impossible. As to stopping mobs from forming or doing their damage, I strongly believe social networks can do quite a lot too.
- rootusrootus 4y agoWe could decide that doxxing amounts to a threat, and charge people who do it.
- mc32 4y agoDoxxing is a very interesting phenomenon. Sometimes it's in the interest of the public (someone who might document mr Epstein, for example), but it's not when someone on a plane, hears someone a seat up say something that upsets them and then they document that person in an act of unilateral vengeance for a real or perceived anonymous transgression. ("I heard this woman say Squaw Valley, I'm sure she knows it was changed and did it with the intention of offending the some members of some tribes that feel offended by the term and I found out this is her, she is the CFO at such and such")
- mwint 4y ago> shouting "fire" in a crowded theater ... was an analogy in a Supreme Court case from more than a hundred years ago, that was overturned nearly 50 years ago. Good reading: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...
- pstuart 4y agoThe analogy itself is worthy in a literal context -- the prosecution of anti-war protestors was horribly wrong.
- antifa 4y ago> When a random internet citizen directly approaches your company with the explicit request to fire a named employee, this by definition is insane. This is literally not by definition insane. There are plenty of valid reasons to request an employee be fired. What would be insane is immediately taking the opposite extreme to a perceived extremity.
- fleddr 4y agoPlease do supply those valid reasons. In most modern cases (social media triggered requests) the offense is unrelated to the person's employment. Going for one's employment is just the way to do maximum damage as it's almost everyone's weakness. That's insane, cruel and disproportional behavior. In case the employee did show misbehavior in their official function to somebody in the public, you'd file a complaint at the company. As the company did you wrong. It's then up to the company to correct it. By demanding a termination, you skip about 5 steps in that process. In case the employee did something truly criminal, you report it to the police. This too is no reason to go for someone's employment. You're not the justice system.