8 ms·

But how can you go from "no personal information about leads unless you are really sure" to NOTHING? Is it correct to sacrifice catching the bad guy to protect

by t0 13y ago

But how can you go from "no personal information about leads unless you are really sure" to NOTHING? Is it correct to sacrifice catching the bad guy to protect the small chance that someone is wrongly accused? Reddit now simply holds their public image higher than justice. I would wager investors and senior management who have a financial interest made this decision.

tedunangst 13y ago
Yes.
peterwwillis 13y ago
No Reddit thread is going to "catch the bad guy". Professionals who have access to all possible information will. There is no "justice" Reddit can do. It's just a forum full of bored idiots, not an FBI forensics team. Please remove your head from your ass.
ketralnis 13y ago
> Is it correct to sacrifice catching the bad guy to protect the small chance that someone is wrongly accused? Large swaths of the US legal system seem to think so, it's why "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is a requirement for a criminal conviction. Whether that translates to moral correctness is up to you but in my opinion, yes, that's a reasonable sacrifice. And that totally ignores that the probability of a court of law getting something wrong being different from a bunch of internet vigilantes getting it wrong, which of course changes the equation quite a lot.
nemothekid 13y ago
Its more of a position that Reddit will more than likely be wrong. Truth be told, the last thing someone needs is an army of highly emotional armchair sleuths who are ready to take the law into the their own hands. This isn't about "sacrificing catching the bad guy", it's about giving proper due process. Look how wrong Reddit was about the boston bombers. Imagine if the guy they found was ultimately alive and someone found him and paraded him through the streets. Its no better than mob mentality. Truth be told, I can't really understand how people can not support Reddit's position. The "pseudo-anonymity" leads people to believe that somehow these Reddit sleuths can be trusted. Look at this way, if your local town to decided to carry pitchforks and hunt this man in the streets, clearly something is wrong and democracy has failed. I for one would not like to go back to burning and hangings.
- spangled 13y ago
  Truth be told, the last thing someone needs is an army of highly emotional armchair sleuths who are ready to take the law into the their own hands. Not a popular position on HN.
- amerika_blog 13y ago
  > Its no better than mob mentality. That's the internet post-Eternal September in a nutshell.
rodw 13y ago
You're assuming that /r/findnavyyardshooters/ has a greater chance of "catching the bad guy" than "wrongly accusing" someone. The Boston-bombing sub-reddit demonstrated precisely the opposite--several people were wrongly accused (or at least, wrong identified as serious suspects) and the actual bad guys weren't even mentioned. Photos of some of those wrongly accused were even printed on the front page of the NY Post, IIRC. As well intentioned as the contributors might be, there's every reason to believe that this subreddit will cause more harm than good. Reddit made the right call. (It's also probably the right call from a damage control standpoint, but there's reason enough to ban this sub-reddit anyway.)
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  >Photos of some of those wrongly accused were even printed on the front page of the NY Post, IIRC. Redditors didn't hack and deface the NY Post. What you're citing is an example that the NY Post is no better than any random person in an internet forum.
  - rodw 13y ago
    No, what I'm citing is evidence of real world harm done to innocent people as a result of a (well-intentioned) witch hunt on a very popular website. It's crappy journalism on the Post's part, sure. But it wasn't NY Post reporters that fingered these suspects or that made them newsworthy.
    - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
      It's not necessarily a harm for redditors to collate photos or other information. The harm comes when some fool acts on that information (especially when the info turns out to be false).
      - spangled 13y ago
        Repeating misinformation is acting on it, and harms attempts to get at the truth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_proof http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_proof http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_cascade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_cascade You may also want to reconsider your statement, substituting "intelligence agents" for redditors. If they collate photos or other information is it harmless?

by t0 13y ago

tedunangst 13y ago

Yes.

peterwwillis 13y ago

No Reddit thread is going to "catch the bad guy". Professionals who have access to all possible information will. There is no "justice" Reddit can do. It's just a forum full of bored idiots, not an FBI forensics team. Please remove your head from your ass.

ketralnis 13y ago

> Is it correct to sacrifice catching the bad guy to protect the small chance that someone is wrongly accused? Large swaths of the US legal system seem to think so, it's why "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is a requirement for a criminal conviction. Whether that translates to moral correctness is up to you but in my opinion, yes, that's a reasonable sacrifice. And that totally ignores that the probability of a court of law getting something wrong being different from a bunch of internet vigilantes getting it wrong, which of course changes the equation quite a lot.

nemothekid 13y ago

Its more of a position that Reddit will more than likely be wrong. Truth be told, the last thing someone needs is an army of highly emotional armchair sleuths who are ready to take the law into the their own hands. This isn't about "sacrificing catching the bad guy", it's about giving proper due process. Look how wrong Reddit was about the boston bombers. Imagine if the guy they found was ultimately alive and someone found him and paraded him through the streets. Its no better than mob mentality. Truth be told, I can't really understand how people can not support Reddit's position. The "pseudo-anonymity" leads people to believe that somehow these Reddit sleuths can be trusted. Look at this way, if your local town to decided to carry pitchforks and hunt this man in the streets, clearly something is wrong and democracy has failed. I for one would not like to go back to burning and hangings.

spangled 13y ago
Truth be told, the last thing someone needs is an army of highly emotional armchair sleuths who are ready to take the law into the their own hands. Not a popular position on HN.
amerika_blog 13y ago
> Its no better than mob mentality. That's the internet post-Eternal September in a nutshell.

rodw 13y ago

You're assuming that /r/findnavyyardshooters/ has a greater chance of "catching the bad guy" than "wrongly accusing" someone. The Boston-bombing sub-reddit demonstrated precisely the opposite--several people were wrongly accused (or at least, wrong identified as serious suspects) and the actual bad guys weren't even mentioned. Photos of some of those wrongly accused were even printed on the front page of the NY Post, IIRC. As well intentioned as the contributors might be, there's every reason to believe that this subreddit will cause more harm than good. Reddit made the right call. (It's also probably the right call from a damage control standpoint, but there's reason enough to ban this sub-reddit anyway.)

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
>Photos of some of those wrongly accused were even printed on the front page of the NY Post, IIRC. Redditors didn't hack and deface the NY Post. What you're citing is an example that the NY Post is no better than any random person in an internet forum.
- rodw 13y ago
  No, what I'm citing is evidence of real world harm done to innocent people as a result of a (well-intentioned) witch hunt on a very popular website. It's crappy journalism on the Post's part, sure. But it wasn't NY Post reporters that fingered these suspects or that made them newsworthy.
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    It's not necessarily a harm for redditors to collate photos or other information. The harm comes when some fool acts on that information (especially when the info turns out to be false).
    - spangled 13y ago
      Repeating misinformation is acting on it, and harms attempts to get at the truth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_proof http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_proof http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_cascade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_cascade You may also want to reconsider your statement, substituting "intelligence agents" for redditors. If they collate photos or other information is it harmless?