5 ms·

It is deceptive to characterize angry comments posted online as a "lynch mob".

by foehp 12y ago

jerf 12y ago
Scale matters. And it has real-world effects... people get fired over this sort of thing, among other things. The only thing preventing the lynch mob from doing what things the physical lynch mobs used to do is simple, sheer lack of physical proximity, so A: I consider it a valid use of the term and B: It should not be viewed by any sane person as a normal and healthy social correction mechanism, it should be condemned by all. It is still dangerous, and if everyone acts like it's no big deal or even a good idea, it will get worse, until the lynch mobs do do what lynch mobs used to do. And I mean that 100% fully literally, with absolutely no exaggeration whatsoever. In the real world, the line between "dozens of death threats", which we've already handily reached, and "an actual attempt on your life" is very thin. As easy as it may be to tell others not to worry, if you personally were betting your life on that line, you would not be happy; it is not to be relied upon. There are crazy people out there. Failure to take that into account while passively accepting that online lynch mobs are OK is just stupid. This stuff isn't a joke. It's one of the foundational bricks between having a civilization and not having one. It is unwise to be so lackadaisical about it, if you like living in a civilization.
- spb 12y ago
  Sometimes I wish I could give Reddit Gold for comments on Hacker News.
mercurial 12y ago
Cyber-bullying is a thing, with real consequences (depression or suicide).
jimbokun 12y ago
It's hyperbole, as the victim doesn't actually die. But there are certainly similarities. They were able to get Sacco fired. They were able to mobilize someone to take her picture right after her plane landed. And she had to leave Cape Town because "no one could guarantee her safety". So, it could have easily escalated into a real lynch mob. How about people getting "swatted" by internet vigilantes? So the "not dying" part is about the only significant difference I can see in some of these more extreme cases, and, God help me, I wouldn't be overly shocked if someone actually does end up dead from an "internet shaming" some day.
- tjradcliffe 12y ago
  Not only is someone bound to end up dead, based on past human behaviour the majority of shamers will claim they deserved it, and feel no shame themselves for their part in the death of an innocent. Diffusion of responsibility is a terrible thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility
- throwaway09332 12y ago
  It's happened already: http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/online-trolls-whos-hounding-who/15966#.VN0V1VXF9so http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/online-trolls-w... (posting from a throwaway because I resolved to stop commenting here, but couldn't help myself here)

It is deceptive to characterize angry comments posted online as a "lynch mob".

by foehp 12y ago

It is deceptive to characterize angry comments posted online as a "lynch mob".

jerf 12y ago

Scale matters. And it has real-world effects... people get fired over this sort of thing, among other things. The only thing preventing the lynch mob from doing what things the physical lynch mobs used to do is simple, sheer lack of physical proximity, so A: I consider it a valid use of the term and B: It should not be viewed by any sane person as a normal and healthy social correction mechanism, it should be condemned by all. It is still dangerous, and if everyone acts like it's no big deal or even a good idea, it will get worse, until the lynch mobs do do what lynch mobs used to do. And I mean that 100% fully literally, with absolutely no exaggeration whatsoever. In the real world, the line between "dozens of death threats", which we've already handily reached, and "an actual attempt on your life" is very thin. As easy as it may be to tell others not to worry, if you personally were betting your life on that line, you would not be happy; it is not to be relied upon. There are crazy people out there. Failure to take that into account while passively accepting that online lynch mobs are OK is just stupid. This stuff isn't a joke. It's one of the foundational bricks between having a civilization and not having one. It is unwise to be so lackadaisical about it, if you like living in a civilization.

spb 12y ago
Sometimes I wish I could give Reddit Gold for comments on Hacker News.

mercurial 12y ago

Cyber-bullying is a thing, with real consequences (depression or suicide).

jimbokun 12y ago

It's hyperbole, as the victim doesn't actually die. But there are certainly similarities. They were able to get Sacco fired. They were able to mobilize someone to take her picture right after her plane landed. And she had to leave Cape Town because "no one could guarantee her safety". So, it could have easily escalated into a real lynch mob. How about people getting "swatted" by internet vigilantes? So the "not dying" part is about the only significant difference I can see in some of these more extreme cases, and, God help me, I wouldn't be overly shocked if someone actually does end up dead from an "internet shaming" some day.

tjradcliffe 12y ago
Not only is someone bound to end up dead, based on past human behaviour the majority of shamers will claim they deserved it, and feel no shame themselves for their part in the death of an innocent. Diffusion of responsibility is a terrible thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility
throwaway09332 12y ago
It's happened already: http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/online-trolls-whos-hounding-who/15966#.VN0V1VXF9so http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/online-trolls-w... (posting from a throwaway because I resolved to stop commenting here, but couldn't help myself here)