4 ms·

When this is all over I hope there is a decent post-portem look at reddit and its relationship with the media, especially with the efforts to attempt to find th

by nikcub 14y ago

When this is all over I hope there is a decent post-portem look at reddit and its relationship with the media, especially with the efforts to attempt to find the Boston Marathon bombers. The story of 'internet wizards find Boston suspects' was too good to not publish. The media portrayed it as hackers using their intelligence and the resources of the internet to track down criminals, but it ended up being nothing more than some people flicking through photos and profiling based on race, appearance etc. In total I saw over two dozen people marked as 'suspects'. I open Facebook and my non-tech friends are all sharing homemade 'WANTED' posters with full pictures of the people identified. Everybody was suspect until they were 'cleared' - the very definition of a witch hunt. Digital vigilante justice. Nobody learned their lesson, because it was only a couple of hours later that the media were reporting that suspect #2 was the missing Brown kid. I switched on prime time news in Australia and the news that the Brown student was terrorist suspect number two was the top story!. Speechless. I tried in vain to get the reddit threads removed and shutdown (IMO they violate the 'no dox' rule) but got nowhere. The privacy right of individuals are being torn apart by online mobs (I was told in a reply that if I have nothing to hide I have nothing to worry about). It depresses me to think that nothing will be learned from this entire experience. This is exactly why the government feels like they should get involved in regulating the internet, because we aren't taking care of it ourselves. I can already see how a case will be put together next week using the reddit witch hunt threads as a reason why the internet needs censorship. Think about what our responses are going to be to that.

prawn 14y ago
I think the Brown student's name was mentioned by police as one of the two suspects and it went from there. There's probably a lesson in public reaction to information from police scanners to be had. Given that police mobilised near the suspects' apartment only around or after the time that their address was hitting social media, I suspect that at least in this case, many cops on the ground (and using their radios) were getting info at roughly the same pace as everyone else. e.g., if there's an official statement, it will be a press briefing or designated as something official.
- smoyer 14y ago
  I haven't found the part of the police radio transcripts where he's mentioned ... was he specifically mentioned as a suspect or was his name simply mentioned on the radio (possibly because he's missing)? While I suspect the Boston police department's number one priority is finding the marathon bombing suspects, wouldn't it be logical that their other cases would still be discussed? EDIT: I agree with the premise of this thread ... it's interesting to watch the real-time parts of the case, but drawing conclusions should be: a) Not be done in real-time b) Based on known facts c) Vetted by multiple sources
- pmorici 14y ago
  The brown student's name was mentioned by a woman on twitter in response to looking at the released photos. Apparently it looked like a friend of hers that had gone missing a month prior after dropping out of school and becoming depressed. There were already a few articles about the missing person case, predating the bombing, and those were being linked by reporters in twitter feeds. The name mentioned on the police scanner was yet another person, also not correct.
jre 14y ago
We already have the laws to handle that kind of witch hunt behavior (it's basically defamation), it's just that we need to have them enforced. Sadly, a lot of people seem to think that their responsibility for what they do stop once they're online.
- sharemywin 14y ago
  Pretty sure those aren't criminal and it's up to the person being demafed to sue.
danielweber 14y ago
I liked most of the FBI's press conference yesterday, but I also wish, in addition to "do not try to apprehend, leave that to the cops", they had also said "if you know their names, tell the FBI, and for God's sake don't post it on the Internet." Maybe the FBI should give out karma to tipsters. (This last sentence is sarcasm.)
- mkopinsky 14y ago
  Maybe the FBI can buy them reddit gold. :-)
bdg 14y ago
> This is exactly why the government feels like they should get involved in regulating the internet, because we aren't taking care of it ourselves. I can already see how a case will be put together next week using the reddit witch hunt threads as a reason why the internet needs censorship. Think about what our responses are going to be to that. What we do online is a reflection of what we do offline. To think that there aren't offline hunts and people who go around shouting those things without the internet is absurd. To suggest this is why we need internet censorship easily lends its self to the argument that people's every day offline lives need to be monitored and controlled.
- pc86 14y ago
  He's not suggesting that we need internet censorship because of this, he's suggesting this is why ignorant octogenarian legislators think we need internet censorship. Everything is scarier when it happens on a black box you don't understand.
- claudius 14y ago
  > What we do online is a reflection of what we do offline. To think that there aren't offline hunts and people who go around shouting those things without the internet is absurd. To suggest this is why we need internet censorship easily lends its self to the argument that people's every day offline lives need to be monitored and controlled. When you stand on a street corner shouting ‘This guy did it’ with a picture of said guy, how many people do you reach as compared to a similar post on Reddit? Conversely, what is the status of other mass-media (newspapers, radio, TV etc.) regarding the information they publish? Will a radio ever broadcast ‘This guy did it’ without some fact-checking? At least here (Germany), that is not/should not be the case. The very easy way to solve this problem would obviously be to improve defamation/libel laws to such an extend that wrongfully accusing someone of X gets you the maximum penalty for X as a minimum. At least people posting Wanted posters on Facebook should be easy to catch, then.
  - bdg 14y ago
    > When you stand on a street corner shouting ‘This guy did it’ with a picture of said guy, how many people do you reach as compared to a similar post on Reddit? Without going too deep into the hole of metaphors, a guy standing on the street corner shouting about anything has the same credibility as the author of http://www.timecube.com/ http://www.timecube.com/
tgflynn 14y ago
I've looked at the reddit threads a bit and it looked to me like a place where discussion was going on and people were trying to help. There is a big difference between sharing a photo and asking if it might contain a suspect and posting a "wanted poster" or having national media announce that someone is a suspect. The former is what I saw on reddit, if the later happened it wasn't on that site. There should be a way to have an online discussion without people jumping to conclusions.
- mnicole 14y ago
  Exactly, everyone was actively telling each other not to be heroes and report what they know to the FBI instead of speculating on the board. It didn't keep everyone from being stupid, but that's not what the majority of the spirit of those threads were about.
- paganel 14y ago
  > I've looked at the reddit threads a bit and it looked to me like a place where discussion was going on and people were trying to help. You're factually incorrect, or maybe you were just looking in the wrong place: http://i.imgur.com/R0CZtwR.png http://i.imgur.com/R0CZtwR.png and http://www.reddit.com/r/findbostonbombers/comments/1co0d5/hey_fuck_you_mods_sunil_tripathi_the_one_guy_you/ http://www.reddit.com/r/findbostonbombers/comments/1co0d5/he... and I guess there are countless others. Not to mention that I learned the names of the wrongly accused "suspects" from Hacker News first, but I guess we'll just keep digging our heads in the sand and carry on like nothing has ever happened.
  - tgflynn 14y ago
    I'm not saying that all comments posted to the threads were appropriate, I'm talking about the general tone of the discussion. Every (even arguably) inappropriate comment I saw was quickly responded to by others. EDIT (Added) : Of course given human nature it's inevitable that some people will jump to conclusions, but should that invalidate the discussion itself ? I don't think so. It seems to me like banning criticism of the government because some people might start a revolution.
  - 14y ago
trotsky 14y ago
Wait a minute, mob justice behavior on reddit has absolutely zero to do with why the "government wants to take control of the internet". Whatever trends there are along those lines are entirely related to state interests in espionage and critical services, media control, ip protection and interests in mass surveillance. Most of those people have probably never even heard of reddit yet along give two shits about some collateral damage in an investigation of terrorism.
trhtrsh 14y ago
https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Asuspect https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Asuspect Why did you try to get reddit threads closed, and not get the Australian TV news station closed?

by nikcub 14y ago

prawn 14y ago

I think the Brown student's name was mentioned by police as one of the two suspects and it went from there. There's probably a lesson in public reaction to information from police scanners to be had. Given that police mobilised near the suspects' apartment only around or after the time that their address was hitting social media, I suspect that at least in this case, many cops on the ground (and using their radios) were getting info at roughly the same pace as everyone else. e.g., if there's an official statement, it will be a press briefing or designated as something official.

smoyer 14y ago
I haven't found the part of the police radio transcripts where he's mentioned ... was he specifically mentioned as a suspect or was his name simply mentioned on the radio (possibly because he's missing)? While I suspect the Boston police department's number one priority is finding the marathon bombing suspects, wouldn't it be logical that their other cases would still be discussed? EDIT: I agree with the premise of this thread ... it's interesting to watch the real-time parts of the case, but drawing conclusions should be: a) Not be done in real-time b) Based on known facts c) Vetted by multiple sources
pmorici 14y ago
The brown student's name was mentioned by a woman on twitter in response to looking at the released photos. Apparently it looked like a friend of hers that had gone missing a month prior after dropping out of school and becoming depressed. There were already a few articles about the missing person case, predating the bombing, and those were being linked by reporters in twitter feeds. The name mentioned on the police scanner was yet another person, also not correct.

jre 14y ago

We already have the laws to handle that kind of witch hunt behavior (it's basically defamation), it's just that we need to have them enforced. Sadly, a lot of people seem to think that their responsibility for what they do stop once they're online.

sharemywin 14y ago
Pretty sure those aren't criminal and it's up to the person being demafed to sue.

danielweber 14y ago

I liked most of the FBI's press conference yesterday, but I also wish, in addition to "do not try to apprehend, leave that to the cops", they had also said "if you know their names, tell the FBI, and for God's sake don't post it on the Internet." Maybe the FBI should give out karma to tipsters. (This last sentence is sarcasm.)

mkopinsky 14y ago
Maybe the FBI can buy them reddit gold. :-)

bdg 14y ago

> This is exactly why the government feels like they should get involved in regulating the internet, because we aren't taking care of it ourselves. I can already see how a case will be put together next week using the reddit witch hunt threads as a reason why the internet needs censorship. Think about what our responses are going to be to that. What we do online is a reflection of what we do offline. To think that there aren't offline hunts and people who go around shouting those things without the internet is absurd. To suggest this is why we need internet censorship easily lends its self to the argument that people's every day offline lives need to be monitored and controlled.

pc86 14y ago
He's not suggesting that we need internet censorship because of this, he's suggesting this is why ignorant octogenarian legislators think we need internet censorship. Everything is scarier when it happens on a black box you don't understand.
claudius 14y ago
> What we do online is a reflection of what we do offline. To think that there aren't offline hunts and people who go around shouting those things without the internet is absurd. To suggest this is why we need internet censorship easily lends its self to the argument that people's every day offline lives need to be monitored and controlled. When you stand on a street corner shouting ‘This guy did it’ with a picture of said guy, how many people do you reach as compared to a similar post on Reddit? Conversely, what is the status of other mass-media (newspapers, radio, TV etc.) regarding the information they publish? Will a radio ever broadcast ‘This guy did it’ without some fact-checking? At least here (Germany), that is not/should not be the case. The very easy way to solve this problem would obviously be to improve defamation/libel laws to such an extend that wrongfully accusing someone of X gets you the maximum penalty for X as a minimum. At least people posting Wanted posters on Facebook should be easy to catch, then.
- bdg 14y ago
  > When you stand on a street corner shouting ‘This guy did it’ with a picture of said guy, how many people do you reach as compared to a similar post on Reddit? Without going too deep into the hole of metaphors, a guy standing on the street corner shouting about anything has the same credibility as the author of http://www.timecube.com/ http://www.timecube.com/

tgflynn 14y ago

I've looked at the reddit threads a bit and it looked to me like a place where discussion was going on and people were trying to help. There is a big difference between sharing a photo and asking if it might contain a suspect and posting a "wanted poster" or having national media announce that someone is a suspect. The former is what I saw on reddit, if the later happened it wasn't on that site. There should be a way to have an online discussion without people jumping to conclusions.

mnicole 14y ago
Exactly, everyone was actively telling each other not to be heroes and report what they know to the FBI instead of speculating on the board. It didn't keep everyone from being stupid, but that's not what the majority of the spirit of those threads were about.
paganel 14y ago
> I've looked at the reddit threads a bit and it looked to me like a place where discussion was going on and people were trying to help. You're factually incorrect, or maybe you were just looking in the wrong place: http://i.imgur.com/R0CZtwR.png http://i.imgur.com/R0CZtwR.png and http://www.reddit.com/r/findbostonbombers/comments/1co0d5/hey_fuck_you_mods_sunil_tripathi_the_one_guy_you/ http://www.reddit.com/r/findbostonbombers/comments/1co0d5/he... and I guess there are countless others. Not to mention that I learned the names of the wrongly accused "suspects" from Hacker News first, but I guess we'll just keep digging our heads in the sand and carry on like nothing has ever happened.
- tgflynn 14y ago
  I'm not saying that all comments posted to the threads were appropriate, I'm talking about the general tone of the discussion. Every (even arguably) inappropriate comment I saw was quickly responded to by others. EDIT (Added) : Of course given human nature it's inevitable that some people will jump to conclusions, but should that invalidate the discussion itself ? I don't think so. It seems to me like banning criticism of the government because some people might start a revolution.
- 14y ago

trotsky 14y ago

Wait a minute, mob justice behavior on reddit has absolutely zero to do with why the "government wants to take control of the internet". Whatever trends there are along those lines are entirely related to state interests in espionage and critical services, media control, ip protection and interests in mass surveillance. Most of those people have probably never even heard of reddit yet along give two shits about some collateral damage in an investigation of terrorism.

trhtrsh 14y ago

https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Asuspect https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Asuspect Why did you try to get reddit threads closed, and not get the Australian TV news station closed?