3 ms·

Internet-scale vigilantism has an awful side effect: it can never be entirely walked back. The damage has been done and the crowd is happy. They have their ci

by jfarmer 15y ago

Internet-scale vigilantism has an awful side effect: it can never be entirely walked back. The damage has been done and the crowd is happy. They have their circus.

potatolicious 15y ago
A single article, quoting sources, and even giving the founder a chance to respond right in the article itself, is not "internet vigilantism". We've seen the ugly side of internet vigilantism - anonymous accusations, no chance to respond, personal information posted online, threats and intimidation, the works. But yet, that's not what has happened here - it strikes me as disingenuous to try and color this with a weasel word like "vigilantism" when nothing of the sort has happened. In your books, me blogging about a terrible previous employer is "vigilantism". Unprofessional perhaps, but vigilantism? Get real.
jfarmer 15y ago
'A single article, quoting sources, and even giving the founder a chance to respond right in the article itself, is not "internet vigilantism".' Yes, it is. This isn't meticulously researched. This is not a 60 Minutes exposé. Did Anthony do any fact checking? Did he spend time researching the company and verifying these people's stories? No, he wrote an article in the Fox News style. Who needs fact-checking when you can just get people from two opposing camps to contradict each other? It was gossip. It worked. It's no better than an article about how such-and-such celebrity yelled at a waitress and made her cry. 'In your books, me blogging about a terrible previous employer is "vigilantism".' Again, yes, by definition. If you put your name to it I'd think it was distasteful and a little petty, assuming we're talking about bad management and not something criminal. If you didn't, I'd think you were a coward. (This is my last response, so you can have the last word if you care to.)
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

by jfarmer 15y ago

Internet-scale vigilantism has an awful side effect: it can never be entirely walked back. The damage has been done and the crowd is happy. They have their circus.

potatolicious 15y ago

A single article, quoting sources, and even giving the founder a chance to respond right in the article itself, is not "internet vigilantism". We've seen the ugly side of internet vigilantism - anonymous accusations, no chance to respond, personal information posted online, threats and intimidation, the works. But yet, that's not what has happened here - it strikes me as disingenuous to try and color this with a weasel word like "vigilantism" when nothing of the sort has happened. In your books, me blogging about a terrible previous employer is "vigilantism". Unprofessional perhaps, but vigilantism? Get real.

jfarmer 15y ago

'A single article, quoting sources, and even giving the founder a chance to respond right in the article itself, is not "internet vigilantism".' Yes, it is. This isn't meticulously researched. This is not a 60 Minutes exposé. Did Anthony do any fact checking? Did he spend time researching the company and verifying these people's stories? No, he wrote an article in the Fox News style. Who needs fact-checking when you can just get people from two opposing camps to contradict each other? It was gossip. It worked. It's no better than an article about how such-and-such celebrity yelled at a waitress and made her cry. 'In your books, me blogging about a terrible previous employer is "vigilantism".' Again, yes, by definition. If you put your name to it I'd think it was distasteful and a little petty, assuming we're talking about bad management and not something criminal. If you didn't, I'd think you were a coward. (This is my last response, so you can have the last word if you care to.)

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]