4 ms·

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

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.
  - spc476 18y ago
    How anonymous are you talking? Libelous remarks from someone calling themselves DeathFscker are bad, but can probably be isgnored. But what about the same libelous remarks coming from Wyatt Rupert Byrd, a name I just randomly generated? Those might be taken more seriously if found in the context of a Google search.
madmanslitany 18y ago
I mostly agree--many of the posters do deserve to be punished for what they said, but I think incidents like this one (and other somewhat similar stories like the fuss over JuicyCampus last year) point to a more fundamental societal problem than a dozen trolls trolling away; the only reason why sites like AutoAdmit are able to become headline news is because too many people take garbage gossip seriously that they should rationally be dismissing. This has always been a problem for human society, but the ease with which information spreads on the internet has heavily increased the amount of damage that it can do.
- prospero 18y ago
  Just to be clear, I don't really take issue with anything they said. Everything quoted in the article was the same locker room bullshit and wishful thinking that's been around since forever, and I don't buy that moving it to a permanent medium necessarily makes it a scourge on society. But it's just plain dumb to give self-important law students a chance to flex their legal muscles. I don't think the fallout was warranted, but it was obviously coming.
  - madmanslitany 18y ago
    I don't think it's the permanence that changes things, it's the visibility. Gossip about you from high school isn't that likely to turn up when you move out of your hometown to the big city, for instance. I don't really think that most of what they said is anything special, no--you're right, it's bullshit. But I think you're underestimating how many people take this kind of bullshit seriously, and I think that's a problem in and of itself.
    - jcl 18y ago
      I don't think it's the permanence that changes things, it's the visibility. This is what confused me most about the whole case. As the article says: "Many other websites control extremely salacious material either by using special coding to keep it to themselves (so that Google doesn’t pick it up)..." The major issue wasn't merely that there were false statements being issued, but that they were high on the Google results for the laywers' names. Why didn't the website merely turn off Google indexing for the problem forums?
time_management 18y ago
The members of the forums pretty much deserve whatever they get. These two girls were not posters on the board, and the things that were said about them were beyond repugnant. Although there are some good discussions and some really, really smart people on XO, the board's generally a cesspool. An educated cesspool, but a cesspool nonetheless. I think both sides went too far. I don't have any sympathy for the trolls, and "Pauliewalnuts" I know offline and he's a sociopath. But ruining Ciolli's career, because he was one of the few "outed" targets, was out of line. They hit him hard to pressure him into outing the real offenders, who were anonymous. Hence the countersuit.
kragen 18y ago
You're sorting through a pile of 50 resumes and you look up each person on Google. 15 of the searches turn up seriously negative results: apparently former co-workers who hated working with the people, accusations of theft, bribery, etc. You investigate further, and in only a week, you are able to substantiate the claims against 13 of the applicants. Your boss reprimands you for spending so much time on screening applicants for a single position. Six months later, you're sorting through a pile of 50 resumes and find 18 seriouly negative results. What do you do?

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.
- spc476 18y ago
  How anonymous are you talking? Libelous remarks from someone calling themselves DeathFscker are bad, but can probably be isgnored. But what about the same libelous remarks coming from Wyatt Rupert Byrd, a name I just randomly generated? Those might be taken more seriously if found in the context of a Google search.

madmanslitany 18y ago

I mostly agree--many of the posters do deserve to be punished for what they said, but I think incidents like this one (and other somewhat similar stories like the fuss over JuicyCampus last year) point to a more fundamental societal problem than a dozen trolls trolling away; the only reason why sites like AutoAdmit are able to become headline news is because too many people take garbage gossip seriously that they should rationally be dismissing. This has always been a problem for human society, but the ease with which information spreads on the internet has heavily increased the amount of damage that it can do.

prospero 18y ago
Just to be clear, I don't really take issue with anything they said. Everything quoted in the article was the same locker room bullshit and wishful thinking that's been around since forever, and I don't buy that moving it to a permanent medium necessarily makes it a scourge on society. But it's just plain dumb to give self-important law students a chance to flex their legal muscles. I don't think the fallout was warranted, but it was obviously coming.
- madmanslitany 18y ago
  I don't think it's the permanence that changes things, it's the visibility. Gossip about you from high school isn't that likely to turn up when you move out of your hometown to the big city, for instance. I don't really think that most of what they said is anything special, no--you're right, it's bullshit. But I think you're underestimating how many people take this kind of bullshit seriously, and I think that's a problem in and of itself.
  - jcl 18y ago
    I don't think it's the permanence that changes things, it's the visibility. This is what confused me most about the whole case. As the article says: "Many other websites control extremely salacious material either by using special coding to keep it to themselves (so that Google doesn’t pick it up)..." The major issue wasn't merely that there were false statements being issued, but that they were high on the Google results for the laywers' names. Why didn't the website merely turn off Google indexing for the problem forums?

time_management 18y ago

The members of the forums pretty much deserve whatever they get. These two girls were not posters on the board, and the things that were said about them were beyond repugnant. Although there are some good discussions and some really, really smart people on XO, the board's generally a cesspool. An educated cesspool, but a cesspool nonetheless. I think both sides went too far. I don't have any sympathy for the trolls, and "Pauliewalnuts" I know offline and he's a sociopath. But ruining Ciolli's career, because he was one of the few "outed" targets, was out of line. They hit him hard to pressure him into outing the real offenders, who were anonymous. Hence the countersuit.

kragen 18y ago

You're sorting through a pile of 50 resumes and you look up each person on Google. 15 of the searches turn up seriously negative results: apparently former co-workers who hated working with the people, accusations of theft, bribery, etc. You investigate further, and in only a week, you are able to substantiate the claims against 13 of the applicants. Your boss reprimands you for spending so much time on screening applicants for a single position. Six months later, you're sorting through a pile of 50 resumes and find 18 seriouly negative results. What do you do?