5 ms·

When anonymous attackers went after two Yale law students, they struck back

42 points by linhir 18y ago

colins_pride 18y ago
Somehow this vaguely reminds me of patent trolls
russell 18y ago
It's a very long, very good read about what happens when defamation and character attacks get out of hand at a site. The owners did nothing to tone things down or to remove offending posts. It's interesting to note that the victims went after the perps and may have detroyed the perps careers. I think we need a thoughtful discussion on how to deal with this or congress will do it for us.
- hexis 18y ago
  I understand what you mean, but I think we need much more than a thoughtful discussion. Congress is in a legislatin' mood and I don't think they're interested in arguments for self-regulation.
- time_management 18y ago
  Most of the perps settled in order to protect their anonymity. The one who really got smashed was Ciolli, co-manager of the site.
tokenadult 18y ago
This article is a good explanation of why it is wise to moderate online discussions. "One was finding out the firm where Ciolli would be working upon graduation and pressuring it to withdraw its offer. It turned out to be the Boston law firm of Edwards, Angell, Palmer & Dodge, which in April rescinded its offer. The message board violated 'principles of collegiality and respect that members of the legal profession should observe in their dealings with other lawyers,' the firm’s managing partner, Charles DeWitt, wrote Ciolli."
- mickt 18y ago
  That's a good point, and maybe without moderation users can act like a mob doing and saying things they normally wouldn't do.
  - jacquesm 18y ago
    The simple fact that they are anonymous is what gives them license to do this, if they were id'd then they'd never do any of this. Anonymity brings out the coward in people, and nowhere more so than online.
smanek 18y ago
Some of the comments were over the line (calling for physical attacks, etc), but most of the people being sued didn't actually say anything illegal (being 'mean' isn't illegal in the US). Jokes, opinions, and fantasy (no matter how lewd) shouldn't be illegal. The article only acknowledges this at the very end: "But many other posts, however cruel, might not be seen as extreme or outrageous enough to lose their First Amendment protection. As for defamation, the overwhelming majority of the comments could be construed as opinions, which are protected." These women are going way overboard, and abusing the court system (and the fact that they have sufficient resources to legally harass posters) to get what they want. Frankly, because of their litigious behavior, I don't think I would ever hire either of them.
- mickt 18y ago
  Imagine a employer or potential investor Googles your name and found such content. Don't you think that they might have second thoughts, and that it could harm your chances? I can imagine some people's thought processes: Because supposed some of it might be true, right? People wouldn't write that stuff if it was false, would they? A lot of this is because of good search and indexing techniques by Google and their ilk (and people wanting advertising revenue and opening up their sites to the spiders), because even a few years this stuff that wouldn't have been found at all, and would be a hurricane in a taecup. But, today I think it is a problem as this kind of crap has the possibility to seriously harm people's reputation.
  - smanek 18y ago
    Of course I understand that spreading a negative opinion about someone has negative consequences for the target. And I agree that a decent person shouldn't write that sort of thing. But, there is a world of difference between what I morally shouldn't do, and what I legally can't do. I think the Ku Klux Klan is horrible for spouting its bigoted hate speach about minorities - but I don't think we should make it illegal for them to do so. I (and the law) are in agreement that straight up libel, slander, obscenity, and calls to violence are not protected by free speech, but pretty much everything else is. By definition, an opinion can't be false (it's my opinion) - and you really don't want a court legislating which opinions someone should be allowed to express. You can be sued for outright lying (slander/libel), but you can not (and should not) be sued for stating an opinion. No matter how ill conceived or malicious that opinion is.
mickt 18y ago
This is something that can apply to us techies and just about anyone these days. Imagine a potential employer or an investor Google's your name and all they find is crap calling your character, or judgment, or skills into question. Bang goes the job or the funding ... Heck, I don't even want people I don't know to find my Facebook or Twitter page; all it can takes is someone to post a potentially inappropriate photo, or an inappropriately tagged photo of you for your reputation to be destroyed in some circles. Which is why I keep a professional identity on LinkedIn, and obfuscate my other personal online identities (friend's can find me pretty easily).
- time_management 18y ago
  I think Google needs to start treating searches on people as a special use case where user-generated websites like Autoadmit get low marks. It used to be that "public figures" could be scrutinized harshly, in print media, while private citizens had a certain degree of protection. It would be considered harassment for the paper to write an op-ed about John Q. Doe, store manager at the local Drug-Fix, being bad at his job. Now, it's worse to be a private citizen, because it's much easier to destroy a private person's "Google resume". I could talk shit about a prominent politician for days and wouldn't have much of an effect on his Google presence, but if I (or anyone) decided to go into "digital hit man" mode on Joe Q. Bloggs, it wouldn't take more than half an hour. Because there's so little content about him, it would be easy to make over 90% of web content about him be negative.
prospero 18y ago
I seriously question the judgment of anyone who uses anonymous, hyperbolic statements on the internet as criteria in any decision they make, let alone for a job application. Historically information in publicly broadcast mediums has been trustworthy, but that's simply not true anymore. We need, as a society, to realize that the signal to noise ratio has dropped precipitously in the last decade, and that this trend will only continue. That being said, it's astonishingly stupid to spend your free time making fun of the most litigious group of people on the face of the planet. The members of the forums pretty much deserve whatever they get.
- russell 18y ago
  The legal profession, medicine, and a host of others depend on personal reputation. I can see an employer, recognizing that it is all baseless, passing because he doesn't want to explain to clients or colleagues that it is all baseless, particularly when there are plenty of other candidates. Suppose you or your SO were Googling a potential pediatrician and got pages of molestation accusations?
  - prospero 18y ago
    Are these molestation charges backed by the names of real families, or are they anonymous? There's a world of difference between the two. There's also a clear distinction calling someone a child molester and calling someone "cheerful and big-titted". If a person isn't willing to put their name behind a statement, then we shouldn't lend it any credence. As lurid as the statements were, I don't think its any different from what went on behind closed doors fifty years ago. Barring wishful thinking, people didn't really believe third-hand rumors, so why should it be any different now? I wonder, though, if this story would even be a blip on the radar if the two girls' names were replaced by some pop star. Maybe it's just that the bar for celebrity has been lowered to the point that all it takes is to be an attractive girl at a prestigious law school.
    - jacquesm 18y ago
      That's all very true, but it won't help you one bit in the court of public opinion. People will take the path of the least resistance they're not going to go and look for a balanced weighing of all the pros and cons, they're going to go for a snap judgement and they'll be looking for negative stuff, not for positive stuff.
Locke 18y ago
I'm not convinced there was anything illegal about the threatening / abusive postings. I think we need to be careful about protecting our freedom of speech. However, I'm very happy that those individuals who were identified have faced social repercussions for their behavior. I would not want anything to do with any of those posters. If I were hiring, I wouldn't hire any of them. I would probably boycott any businesses that work with them. If they're free to be jerks, I'm free take my business elsewhere. Therein lies the more interesting issue. Anonymity. It's hard to exert social pressure on bad behavior if you can't identify the people involved. Do we have a right to be anonymous online? Do the pros outweigh the cons? I really don't know...
- kyochan 18y ago
  "Do we have a right to be anonymous online?" No. Not a right, especially when performing constitutionally-protected actions. I don't believe people should be required to identify themselves online, but I do believe that people who post anonymously should expect to be exposed eventually. A better question would be whether legal channels should be used in the exposure of an anonymous person. I believe so only if all other option are exhausted. "Do the pros outweigh the cons?" Yes, but only in place where free speech is not protected by the state.
- aston 18y ago
  I think the defendants of this case deserve a lot more sympathy than they're getting. The types of remarks you make when you're an anonymous dude on a message board of only marginal repute are not the same types of remarks you make when your name and identity are known. There's an argument for removing the ability to be anonymous, but I think it's pretty much superior to allow people to hide their identity, but take their statements with all of the doubt that you would an anonymous, gossipy rumor. Trolls will be trolls, and the best thing to do is ignore them, not try to out them and ruin their professional lives.
  - time_management 18y ago
    I would remark that the punishment of the defendants has been uneven and had more to do with whose identities were recoverable than who did anything wrong. About half the defendants were people who made one off-hand comment (e.g. "Get in line") and are now suffering extremely disproportionate consequences. Ciolli (Great Teacher Onizuka) didn't even take part in this behavior at all-- he was an outed lawyer-- and he lost his job over this. This smacks of opportunistic target-seeking. On the other hand, posters like Pauliewalnuts, lonelyvirgin, and :D bordered on being sociopathic and I feel like those guys are getting what was coming to them. I also think there's an enormous difference between, for example, expressing desire to have sex with someone (locker-room banter) and making jokes about becoming forceful with that person, which most women would take as a threat.
time_management 18y ago
180

42 points by linhir 18y ago

Somehow this vaguely reminds me of patent trolls

It's a very long, very good read about what happens when defamation and character attacks get out of hand at a site. The owners did nothing to tone things down or to remove offending posts. It's interesting to note that the victims went after the perps and may have detroyed the perps careers. I think we need a thoughtful discussion on how to deal with this or congress will do it for us.

hexis 18y ago
I understand what you mean, but I think we need much more than a thoughtful discussion. Congress is in a legislatin' mood and I don't think they're interested in arguments for self-regulation.
time_management 18y ago
Most of the perps settled in order to protect their anonymity. The one who really got smashed was Ciolli, co-manager of the site.

tokenadult 18y ago

This article is a good explanation of why it is wise to moderate online discussions. "One was finding out the firm where Ciolli would be working upon graduation and pressuring it to withdraw its offer. It turned out to be the Boston law firm of Edwards, Angell, Palmer & Dodge, which in April rescinded its offer. The message board violated 'principles of collegiality and respect that members of the legal profession should observe in their dealings with other lawyers,' the firm’s managing partner, Charles DeWitt, wrote Ciolli."

mickt 18y ago
That's a good point, and maybe without moderation users can act like a mob doing and saying things they normally wouldn't do.
- jacquesm 18y ago
  The simple fact that they are anonymous is what gives them license to do this, if they were id'd then they'd never do any of this. Anonymity brings out the coward in people, and nowhere more so than online.

smanek 18y ago

Some of the comments were over the line (calling for physical attacks, etc), but most of the people being sued didn't actually say anything illegal (being 'mean' isn't illegal in the US). Jokes, opinions, and fantasy (no matter how lewd) shouldn't be illegal. The article only acknowledges this at the very end: "But many other posts, however cruel, might not be seen as extreme or outrageous enough to lose their First Amendment protection. As for defamation, the overwhelming majority of the comments could be construed as opinions, which are protected." These women are going way overboard, and abusing the court system (and the fact that they have sufficient resources to legally harass posters) to get what they want. Frankly, because of their litigious behavior, I don't think I would ever hire either of them.

mickt 18y ago
Imagine a employer or potential investor Googles your name and found such content. Don't you think that they might have second thoughts, and that it could harm your chances? I can imagine some people's thought processes: Because supposed some of it might be true, right? People wouldn't write that stuff if it was false, would they? A lot of this is because of good search and indexing techniques by Google and their ilk (and people wanting advertising revenue and opening up their sites to the spiders), because even a few years this stuff that wouldn't have been found at all, and would be a hurricane in a taecup. But, today I think it is a problem as this kind of crap has the possibility to seriously harm people's reputation.
- smanek 18y ago
  Of course I understand that spreading a negative opinion about someone has negative consequences for the target. And I agree that a decent person shouldn't write that sort of thing. But, there is a world of difference between what I morally shouldn't do, and what I legally can't do. I think the Ku Klux Klan is horrible for spouting its bigoted hate speach about minorities - but I don't think we should make it illegal for them to do so. I (and the law) are in agreement that straight up libel, slander, obscenity, and calls to violence are not protected by free speech, but pretty much everything else is. By definition, an opinion can't be false (it's my opinion) - and you really don't want a court legislating which opinions someone should be allowed to express. You can be sued for outright lying (slander/libel), but you can not (and should not) be sued for stating an opinion. No matter how ill conceived or malicious that opinion is.

mickt 18y ago

This is something that can apply to us techies and just about anyone these days. Imagine a potential employer or an investor Google's your name and all they find is crap calling your character, or judgment, or skills into question. Bang goes the job or the funding ... Heck, I don't even want people I don't know to find my Facebook or Twitter page; all it can takes is someone to post a potentially inappropriate photo, or an inappropriately tagged photo of you for your reputation to be destroyed in some circles. Which is why I keep a professional identity on LinkedIn, and obfuscate my other personal online identities (friend's can find me pretty easily).

time_management 18y ago
I think Google needs to start treating searches on people as a special use case where user-generated websites like Autoadmit get low marks. It used to be that "public figures" could be scrutinized harshly, in print media, while private citizens had a certain degree of protection. It would be considered harassment for the paper to write an op-ed about John Q. Doe, store manager at the local Drug-Fix, being bad at his job. Now, it's worse to be a private citizen, because it's much easier to destroy a private person's "Google resume". I could talk shit about a prominent politician for days and wouldn't have much of an effect on his Google presence, but if I (or anyone) decided to go into "digital hit man" mode on Joe Q. Bloggs, it wouldn't take more than half an hour. Because there's so little content about him, it would be easy to make over 90% of web content about him be negative.

prospero 18y ago

I seriously question the judgment of anyone who uses anonymous, hyperbolic statements on the internet as criteria in any decision they make, let alone for a job application. Historically information in publicly broadcast mediums has been trustworthy, but that's simply not true anymore. We need, as a society, to realize that the signal to noise ratio has dropped precipitously in the last decade, and that this trend will only continue. That being said, it's astonishingly stupid to spend your free time making fun of the most litigious group of people on the face of the planet. The members of the forums pretty much deserve whatever they get.

russell 18y ago
The legal profession, medicine, and a host of others depend on personal reputation. I can see an employer, recognizing that it is all baseless, passing because he doesn't want to explain to clients or colleagues that it is all baseless, particularly when there are plenty of other candidates. Suppose you or your SO were Googling a potential pediatrician and got pages of molestation accusations?
- prospero 18y ago
  Are these molestation charges backed by the names of real families, or are they anonymous? There's a world of difference between the two. There's also a clear distinction calling someone a child molester and calling someone "cheerful and big-titted". If a person isn't willing to put their name behind a statement, then we shouldn't lend it any credence. As lurid as the statements were, I don't think its any different from what went on behind closed doors fifty years ago. Barring wishful thinking, people didn't really believe third-hand rumors, so why should it be any different now? I wonder, though, if this story would even be a blip on the radar if the two girls' names were replaced by some pop star. Maybe it's just that the bar for celebrity has been lowered to the point that all it takes is to be an attractive girl at a prestigious law school.
  - jacquesm 18y ago
    That's all very true, but it won't help you one bit in the court of public opinion. People will take the path of the least resistance they're not going to go and look for a balanced weighing of all the pros and cons, they're going to go for a snap judgement and they'll be looking for negative stuff, not for positive stuff.

Locke 18y ago

I'm not convinced there was anything illegal about the threatening / abusive postings. I think we need to be careful about protecting our freedom of speech. However, I'm very happy that those individuals who were identified have faced social repercussions for their behavior. I would not want anything to do with any of those posters. If I were hiring, I wouldn't hire any of them. I would probably boycott any businesses that work with them. If they're free to be jerks, I'm free take my business elsewhere. Therein lies the more interesting issue. Anonymity. It's hard to exert social pressure on bad behavior if you can't identify the people involved. Do we have a right to be anonymous online? Do the pros outweigh the cons? I really don't know...

kyochan 18y ago
"Do we have a right to be anonymous online?" No. Not a right, especially when performing constitutionally-protected actions. I don't believe people should be required to identify themselves online, but I do believe that people who post anonymously should expect to be exposed eventually. A better question would be whether legal channels should be used in the exposure of an anonymous person. I believe so only if all other option are exhausted. "Do the pros outweigh the cons?" Yes, but only in place where free speech is not protected by the state.
aston 18y ago
I think the defendants of this case deserve a lot more sympathy than they're getting. The types of remarks you make when you're an anonymous dude on a message board of only marginal repute are not the same types of remarks you make when your name and identity are known. There's an argument for removing the ability to be anonymous, but I think it's pretty much superior to allow people to hide their identity, but take their statements with all of the doubt that you would an anonymous, gossipy rumor. Trolls will be trolls, and the best thing to do is ignore them, not try to out them and ruin their professional lives.
- time_management 18y ago
  I would remark that the punishment of the defendants has been uneven and had more to do with whose identities were recoverable than who did anything wrong. About half the defendants were people who made one off-hand comment (e.g. "Get in line") and are now suffering extremely disproportionate consequences. Ciolli (Great Teacher Onizuka) didn't even take part in this behavior at all-- he was an outed lawyer-- and he lost his job over this. This smacks of opportunistic target-seeking. On the other hand, posters like Pauliewalnuts, lonelyvirgin, and :D bordered on being sociopathic and I feel like those guys are getting what was coming to them. I also think there's an enormous difference between, for example, expressing desire to have sex with someone (locker-room banter) and making jokes about becoming forceful with that person, which most women would take as a threat.

time_management 18y ago

180