14 ms·

The Internet Shaming of Lindsey Stone

102 points by mjohn 12y ago

TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
This is the kind of thing justifying the Right to be Forgotten.
zedpm 12y ago
Stories like this are a window into an ugly facet of our culture: eagerness to see others punished. I'm not sure if it's Schadenfreude, exactly, but it's damn close. Sadly, between hideous talking heads like Nancy Grace, and the faceless multitudes on social media, there is a lot of encouragement to wildly overreact to any perceived wrong-doing, to assume guilt based on the briefest account of some incident, and to seek as much damage to the target as possible. Next time you see the crowd forming up, pitchforks in hand, try to be the person who counsels restraint and understanding. Some day it might be you they're after.
- kordless 12y ago
  I'm leaning toward the guys with the Twitter bot being malignant narcissists, so I agree with you. At a minimum, they are gas lighting the victim. I hate to have to watch the video, but I am.
  - kordless 12y ago
    I watched it and it's painful. I got up to this part where the bearded dude says this: > we're not doing it, its doing it. Actually they, the spambot owners, are doing it and saying they aren't doing it is a 100% lie and is very untrustworthy. While there is a slim chance they have no control over the bot, we can expect technology to quickly give them an 'out' on that particular accusation. Autonomous corporations will be capable of building their existences based on a simple set of rules put into place by us humans, and running autonomously. They will literally be uncontrollable from the standpoint of the creator. Excusing yourself from blame based on a presumed disconnect of intent has to be a type of cognitive bias as the argument "I'm not doing it, it's doing it!" is a fallacy.
    - kjs3 12y ago
      It's the classic Goebbels Defense: "I just wrote some speeches. I didn't kill any Jews.".
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
wanderingstan 12y ago
The bizarre side effect of online reputation management is the legions of writers that are being paid to produce content only for Google to "read". I met such a writer in Europe a few years ago and interviewed her for a podcast: http://7thkingdom.org/2013/05/episode-12-writing-google-seo-porn-for-online-reputation-management/ http://7thkingdom.org/2013/05/episode-12-writing-google-seo-... It is odd when a writer makes more money writing for Algorithms than for humans.
falcolas 12y ago
I'm reminded of the Roman Colosseum (albeit as portrayed in the movies). We are the mob, ready to boo and hiss and condemn a gladiator to death for the mistake of being on the wrong side of public opinion. And since the internet does not forget, those convicted in the court of public opinion can never repent, can never reform, and can never make amends. Their lives from that day forward are defined by that history. In a way, the chilling impact this has on our speech and our actions scares me a bit more than the government's effect on free speech. After all, the government's decisions can usually be challenged. The mob is, as phrased in the movie Gladiator, fickle. You could do nothing wrong and still be deprived of the ability to work, imprisoned by fear, all with no chance of appeal.
peterwwillis 12y ago
I would love to read an interview of someone who goes on YouTube and posts those horrible comments we all see. That's the average human brain/life at work; it'd be so fascinating to understand how that somehow becomes common or acceptable.
- ghaff 12y ago
  For the most part, as you suggest, they're average/"normal" people. Many are probably young/immature but many I'm sure are not. If you called them on it, I imagine many would mumble a bit and say something to the effect that they were "just having fun."
loso 12y ago
We have done this to celebrities for decades with the caveat that they asked for this life when they decided to become a celebrity. Now with social media we all get a chance to make ourselves mini celebrities and there is a price to be paid. I guess at this point it might be smart to have a class or two in school on how to interact online. Show people how once you put something online anyone can see it. And how something you think is funny can come back to haunt you. Forever.
logn 12y ago
The Internet outrage beast is fearsome. I wish more people would focus the attention on those in power. For every Lindsey Stone there are people with real influence who are actually disrespecting or harming the military. I know that lots of social injustice is deeply embedded at the lowest levels of common society, but average folks don't need scarlet letters and endless shaming or harassment. Education and awareness normally suffice. The elite who perpetuate wrongs only benefit when the peasants are infighting. If the outrage machine has any deserving target, it's those at the top.
- chippy 12y ago
  Allowing outrage and vengeance of "those at the top" versus "average folk" is exactly what those who engage with the Internet outrage beast think. The short explanation is that what is "the top"? They believe that their targets are those with power, or privilege, or money, or are an elite, or are not normal and average. It may be an accurate belief. But that's not the point. The point is that it is 100 times easier to convince yourself of someone else is a deserving target than it is to restrain the beast. Every example in the article was rationalised to have been deserving targets of the Internet outrage beast, which is why it attacked them. Far harder it is to step back and advise tolerance, understanding, empathy, patience.
  - logn 12y ago
    I don't think it's that hard. Normally these are people with multi-generational wealth and power, top bureaucrats, board members, and politicians. Add to that corporations, governments, and other institutions as a whole. I think some people get distracted by race, gender, or modest wealth thinking those confer natural power and influence, and they do to a degree, but they're not a valid endpoint of outrage at Internet scale.
    - ghaff 12y ago
      Oh, many of the people you list are indeed the endpoints of outrage at Internet scale--though some (like politicians) are certainly more visible than others. But we sort of expect politicians and the less-liked CEOs to be the regular targets of Internet vitriol and don't pay much attention when it happens. What described here is when it happens to people who aren't prepared for it and whose companies just want to wash their hands of the problem. (Note though the case of Brendan Eich--although it was a non-profit in that case which made the mob harder to ignore.)
nlh 12y ago
It's interesting -- I'd read about this story before but hadn't seen the actual picture. If you have even a mild sense of off-color humor it's really not that bad (I get the joke even without being "in" on it.) The problem is "the crowd" doesn't generally have even the slightest, subtlest sense of humor, so something like that going public is trouble. Call it the Mass Whoosh Effect :(
- imh 12y ago
  There's probably a bit of a Poe's Law thing going on. You see it in one context, your reaction is that it's a joke about the sign. You see it in another context, you think it's a comment about the cemetery.
- fenomas 12y ago
  What I find scary about cases like this is that nobody in the angry mob ever seems very hurt or genuinely upset - instead you see people thrilled and energized to be part of getting someone fired. If you remember the Justine Sacco thing (the woman who tweeted something before boarding a plane and went viral before landing) twitter was positively giddy about it. More than anything else it resembles the Two Minute Hate. People seem to really like having something to be righteously angry about.
  - sliverstorm 12y ago
    I'm not certain, but I think it could be described as sadism. The same reason people enjoy blood sport.
gk1 12y ago
There've been a few stories recently about internet shaming and their lasting effects.[1] Ironically, this seems to have caused old photos and negative articles to resurface. Now if you search for [Lindsey Stone] you will once again see the original photo and the negative stories about it. Her personal site and LinkedIn profile (presumably created by Reputation.com) are at the bottom of page 2... That is, nowhere to be found. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tweet-ruined-justine-saccos-life.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tw...
pnathan 12y ago
The Roman-derived justice systems are an attempt to stop this kind of behavior. The Rule of Law is the bulwark against "mob justice". It is utterly abhorrent. It's also interesting how the perpetrators' victim-blame too.
mc32 12y ago
This mob mentality is horrifying. The response is always disproportionate. The instigators, these antagonists, seem to be purposely unaware of the magnifying effect of their actions. This is the same ugliness which reared its head when the PR person tweeted a few tweets which were a bjt too clever, and upon arrival in South Africa the pitchforks were eagerly awaiting. People trip over themselves to point out the transgressions in others, especially when there is little consequence to the accuser for being incorrect in their assumptions. Like I said before, not only should the shamed suffer consequences, by definition in these cases, but these mob components should face consequences too. They should also face scrutiny when searching for jobs, etc. People involved in asymmetrical bullying should experience some sort of consequence for their irresponsibility. I think this is another example of the undesirability of politically correct attitudes. Here in this case it was politically incorrect to 'desecrate' a sign which symbolized respect for the dead. ironically, I think most of those dead, would have found in life retrospectively, fun in the statement of the photo. But I'm assuming feelings I should refrain from.
danso 12y ago
Wow, the OP opens with the longest side-anecdote I can recall from such an essay...it should be an essay in itself...though it doesn't really add much to the overall message of the piece. The public shaming that he instigated/felt happiness with was of a whole different magnitude than the kind Lindsey Stone underwent. The academics as portrayed by OP are insufferable...they did write a kind of mea culpa afterwards (including claiming that they weren't behind the bot http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/mar/30/how-bots-are-taking-over-the-world http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/mar/30/how-bot...)...actually, OP's reaction to the spambot seemed a little over-the-top, though I'm only saying that in the context of Twitter abuse that people face today. Edit: Maybe I shouldn't think of the headline as being the full representation of what this essay (book excerpt actually) is meant to cover...I'm surprised no one has discussed the Hacker News mention in the OP, specifically relating to the "dongle incident" at PyCon (maybe because most of us stopped reading after the comical description of what Reputation.com claims to do?)...I've always felt bad for Adria Richards, but equally bad for "Hank"...Richards did what those thousands of Lindsey-Stone haters did...make a snap judgement off of a seconds-long observation of someone much more complex than just his race, gender, and snarky jokes. And she nearly ruined his life. Let's not forget that...The harassment that happened to Richards is unconscionable, and I have no doubt that it ruined her life...but what she did also wrecked someone else's life...the fact that he was in a position to be able to recoup and stay anonymous (Richards waived that right when she tweeted to her followers) doesn't change that he, too, was unfairly punished by the Internet mob. It's terrible what happened to Richards but she comes off extremely poorly in this article, like a caricature drawn by the stereotypical mens-rights-anti-feminist advocate. > “Maybe it was [Hank] who started all of this,” Adria told me in the cafe at San Francisco airport. “No one would have known he got fired until he complained... Maybe he’s to blame for complaining that he got fired. Maybe he secretly seeded the hate groups. Right?”...Adria replied that she was happy to hear that Hank “wasn’t active in driving their interests to mount the raid attack”, but that she held him responsible for it anyway. It was “his own actions that resulted in his own firing, yet he framed it in a way to blame me… If I had a spouse and two kids to support, I certainly would not be telling ‘jokes’ like he was doing at a conference. Oh, but wait, I have compassion, empathy, morals and ethics to guide my daily life choices. I often wonder how people like Hank make it through life seemingly unaware of how ‘the other’ lives in the same world he does, but with countless fewer opportunities.” I empathize with Richards as she thinks she was standing up against oppressive effects at a tech conference...but just because someone's a white guy with more privilege doesn't make them less human.
thembones 12y ago
Ok, so I'll be the one to say it. It seems to me that no one who's commented here served in the military. The threats that were given to this women are horrific, yes, she didn't deserve any of them. That being said, she should have never taken that picture, regardless of what excuse she had for taking it. And that being said, she should have known better than to post on social media. And that being said, she should have known about privacy settings. This is equivalent to walking around shouting racist terms on the streets and hiding behind free speech after someone attacks you. She didn't ask for any of the threats she received, but she also had exceptionally poor judgement.
- joesmo 12y ago
  She has a different sense of humor. To compare that to racism is absolutely ridiculous. Racism has negative intention. The picture and her sense of humor don't. The only reason it was poor judgement is that she didn't account for the politically correct idiots of this world making a big deal out of it. The rest of your points about not posting to social media are quite valid.
- DanBC 12y ago
  People died to preserve her democratic right to freedom of speech - and that freedom totally includes the right to make bad jokes.
- Bahamut 12y ago
  I am a Marine, and HN is the first I have seen of this picture. Most know better & keep their mouths shut since it serves no purpose to further fan the flames, even if it is something disrespectful - that is part of what it means to serve. All in the Armed Forces know that they help defend the right for people to say/do what they want, as long as it is lawful.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
chris_wot 12y ago
These academics are awful! Before doing an experiment that involves a third party, normal ethical standards are to get consent, which they clearly did not do. It sounds like the Uni of Cologne forced them into taking down the spambot - probably for a number of reasons, including but not limited to: possibility of civil action being undertaken against the University (you might want to look up the Tort of Passing Off to start with, then perhaps defamation), the terrible publicity this was getting (largely caused by the smugness of the three academics, especially Dan O'Mara who contradicted himself a number of times and appears to have taken the position that their actions were the fault of Jon Ronson) and the unethical way the project was being conducted. There are conflicting views of the @jon_ronson bot in the Guardian article - a few people are saying it was created as a parody account to satirise Jon, yet it was being done by an automated bot that apparently had algorithms that took information (fairly badly) from Wikipedia. That's not satire, and it's not parody - and besides, the bot for some reason got confused quite often and there were clearly a number of unrepresentative comments made about Jon. I'd be very interested in seeing the code though - if this was for academic interest, then the academics should publish these algorithms for review because they appear to be faulty. It's remarkable that one of the academics wrote a response on The Guardian stating that they were trying to show the world the tyranny of how we are all being manipulated by the power of algorithms. Which they have done by targeting Jon Ronson to manipulate him to prove their point. That would be credible had their experiment been conducted in a more open, transparent and ethical way - and involved consent! It appears though that you are related to the academics - what exactly is your relationship to them?
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  It's worth keeping in mind that the interview is heavily edited and Ronson is being a bit disingenuous at several points, pretending to not understand things that he almost certainly must. David Bausola isn't so much an academic as some sort of artist/marketer combo. He's done some interesting Twitter bot things in the past. Strange and odd, but interesting. I've followed him and his experiments for years now, and it's just one of his things. I think he, at least, is genuinely interested in online identities and how people present themselves through Twitter and other social media. I don't believe at all he's a troll, though I do think his fascination with Ronson's responses is rather cold and clinical, and a bit more empathy would be appropriate. Having said all that, obviously they should have taken down the bot when Ronson was upset by it. My suspicion is they saw an opportunity to talk about what they do and get an audience for it, and they exploited that. Which is, of course, the wrong thing to do.
sago 12y ago
So looking forward to Jon's book on this. "Them" was superb. Also, was it just (white, male, non-Jewish) me, or did Adria come across really badly in that interview?
- Scramblejams 12y ago
  Yep, she certainly did.
  - xenadu02 12y ago
    It is merely luck that "Henry" as a developer is in extremely high demand and so got a new job right away. I'm not sure he would be so gracious and understanding about it if his family were suffering as a result of Adria's tweet. There's also the issue of blending in with the crowd... things like this can't really stick around for a white male average-looking "John Smith". But female developers are rarer and black female developers named Adria are rarer still, so in that sense the deck was stacked against her from the beginning and it doesn't surprise me in the least that she hasn't been able to find a new job yet; she also suffered a lot more as the recipient of the internet hate machine. Those things are bound to make her less happy about the whole situation.
    - sago 12y ago
      None of the victims came across as happy about the situation. Nor should they have. The things Adria suffered were despicable, deplorable and unimaginably distressing for most of us, I'm sure. But she did come across badly. Both relative to the other victims and generally. I've no idea if that was her or Jon's writing of her, but it was disappointing. My acknowledgement of my gender, race and religious privilege was intended as an invite for anyone to disagree, tbh. I'd like to know if someone who isn't male, white and non-Jewish reads the piece, whether they read her as being more sympathetic.
    - Scramblejams 12y ago
      Do we know that she hasn't been offered something? The whole thing was so high profile and she had so many defenders that I'd be quite surprised if no one had offered her a reasonable position. Now obviously whether she would have found it reasonable is another discussion.
ThrowAway5624 12y ago
I live in Denmark and it would have been impossible for the employer to fire her here unless her job involved working with veterans etc. However it's also almost impossible to fire much less likable individuals. Two cases come to mind: 1. Private company accidentally hires an openly Nazi right-wing extremist as a marketing intern. On the second day they discover his background and fire him but he sues them and win so the company is forced to pay him almost $5000. 2. This is very recent: The leader of an Islamophobic organization is also a child psychologist working for a Copenhagen municipality with many Muslim kids. 11 of his colleagues want him removed from the position and even though the case is ongoing, legal experts say that he is very likely to keep his job.
totony 12y ago
The joke about forking his repo was pretty good actually. Made me smile :) Stories like this are why my disliking for people keeps growing. Why can't they let people do whatever they want without always feeling concerned?
icehawk219 12y ago
What this story really tells me is that what I considered to be an extreme application of political correctness has reached absolutely absurd levels. If I go down to the store and buy the materials and make an exact copy of this sign in my living room, take it down to the local park, put it down and take this picture, will people still be so offended? People need to get over themselves and ... in a word, I guess "grow up"? I don't know. But people take unimportant stuff way too seriously and don't take important things seriously enough.
- jordanlev 12y ago
  Is the problem really with the substance of the complaints, though? Seems that the issue is more about the reaction and its massive scale... wouldn't it be the same problem if people were offended by something not having to do with political-correctness? For example, some religion-based complaint (like "look at this person doing work on a Sunday!"), or some arbitrary disagreement ("fucking hexagon patterns on a t-shirt?! What a jerkface!"). So I guess what I'm saying is it's the "extreme application" that's the problem, not the "of political correctness" part?
  - icehawk219 12y ago
    I agree that the extreme application is the bigger problem. I consider being politically correct a problem as well though because it creates a sense of entitlement. Now on its own that's not necessarily a terrible thing, it only really becomes a big problem when combined with the extreme application. But it does create an environment where the go-to response of "oh no, someone I've never met, across the country, did something I personally find offensive" is "I better start a crusade and get an apology for that!".
markbnj 12y ago
Humans are still in our infancy with respect to this new global interconnectedness and instantaneous access to everything and everyone. I suspect that over time people will generally value access to the global stage, but they won't want to live on it. What we see now is in many ways just different facets of the impulsive desire for attention and that fleeting Warholian moment of specialness. I believe people will learn reticence again, and many of them will learn it the hard way.
ianso 12y ago
Apposite: "Don't Pile On" - http://rc3.org/2015/02/14/dont-pile-on/ http://rc3.org/2015/02/14/dont-pile-on/
vorg 12y ago
> We were creating a world where the smartest way to survive is to be bland Perhaps many parents are now teaching their kids this. There's probably also many teaching their kids to attack first, by stripping away the privacy of their targets and smearing them.
jgamman 12y ago
i'm in the future now and it's all high school, all the time.
A_COMPUTER 12y ago
You could argue that 4chan (as instigators in Adria Richards' harassment) aren't "normal people in a normal online community", maybe slightly less plausibly with Twitter users. But I see embryonic mobbing instigations on my Facebook all the time. I see middle-aged mothers posting horrific violent imprecations and "find out where that person lives" in response to news articles about some outrage or another. Ordinary people have this hate and desire in their hearts and aren't embarrassed to show it.

102 points by mjohn 12y ago

This is the kind of thing justifying the Right to be Forgotten.

zedpm 12y ago

Stories like this are a window into an ugly facet of our culture: eagerness to see others punished. I'm not sure if it's Schadenfreude, exactly, but it's damn close. Sadly, between hideous talking heads like Nancy Grace, and the faceless multitudes on social media, there is a lot of encouragement to wildly overreact to any perceived wrong-doing, to assume guilt based on the briefest account of some incident, and to seek as much damage to the target as possible. Next time you see the crowd forming up, pitchforks in hand, try to be the person who counsels restraint and understanding. Some day it might be you they're after.

kordless 12y ago
I'm leaning toward the guys with the Twitter bot being malignant narcissists, so I agree with you. At a minimum, they are gas lighting the victim. I hate to have to watch the video, but I am.
- kordless 12y ago
  I watched it and it's painful. I got up to this part where the bearded dude says this: > we're not doing it, its doing it. Actually they, the spambot owners, are doing it and saying they aren't doing it is a 100% lie and is very untrustworthy. While there is a slim chance they have no control over the bot, we can expect technology to quickly give them an 'out' on that particular accusation. Autonomous corporations will be capable of building their existences based on a simple set of rules put into place by us humans, and running autonomously. They will literally be uncontrollable from the standpoint of the creator. Excusing yourself from blame based on a presumed disconnect of intent has to be a type of cognitive bias as the argument "I'm not doing it, it's doing it!" is a fallacy.
  - kjs3 12y ago
    It's the classic Goebbels Defense: "I just wrote some speeches. I didn't kill any Jews.".
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

wanderingstan 12y ago

The bizarre side effect of online reputation management is the legions of writers that are being paid to produce content only for Google to "read". I met such a writer in Europe a few years ago and interviewed her for a podcast: http://7thkingdom.org/2013/05/episode-12-writing-google-seo-porn-for-online-reputation-management/ http://7thkingdom.org/2013/05/episode-12-writing-google-seo-... It is odd when a writer makes more money writing for Algorithms than for humans.

falcolas 12y ago

I'm reminded of the Roman Colosseum (albeit as portrayed in the movies). We are the mob, ready to boo and hiss and condemn a gladiator to death for the mistake of being on the wrong side of public opinion. And since the internet does not forget, those convicted in the court of public opinion can never repent, can never reform, and can never make amends. Their lives from that day forward are defined by that history. In a way, the chilling impact this has on our speech and our actions scares me a bit more than the government's effect on free speech. After all, the government's decisions can usually be challenged. The mob is, as phrased in the movie Gladiator, fickle. You could do nothing wrong and still be deprived of the ability to work, imprisoned by fear, all with no chance of appeal.

peterwwillis 12y ago

I would love to read an interview of someone who goes on YouTube and posts those horrible comments we all see. That's the average human brain/life at work; it'd be so fascinating to understand how that somehow becomes common or acceptable.

ghaff 12y ago
For the most part, as you suggest, they're average/"normal" people. Many are probably young/immature but many I'm sure are not. If you called them on it, I imagine many would mumble a bit and say something to the effect that they were "just having fun."

loso 12y ago

We have done this to celebrities for decades with the caveat that they asked for this life when they decided to become a celebrity. Now with social media we all get a chance to make ourselves mini celebrities and there is a price to be paid. I guess at this point it might be smart to have a class or two in school on how to interact online. Show people how once you put something online anyone can see it. And how something you think is funny can come back to haunt you. Forever.

logn 12y ago

The Internet outrage beast is fearsome. I wish more people would focus the attention on those in power. For every Lindsey Stone there are people with real influence who are actually disrespecting or harming the military. I know that lots of social injustice is deeply embedded at the lowest levels of common society, but average folks don't need scarlet letters and endless shaming or harassment. Education and awareness normally suffice. The elite who perpetuate wrongs only benefit when the peasants are infighting. If the outrage machine has any deserving target, it's those at the top.

chippy 12y ago
Allowing outrage and vengeance of "those at the top" versus "average folk" is exactly what those who engage with the Internet outrage beast think. The short explanation is that what is "the top"? They believe that their targets are those with power, or privilege, or money, or are an elite, or are not normal and average. It may be an accurate belief. But that's not the point. The point is that it is 100 times easier to convince yourself of someone else is a deserving target than it is to restrain the beast. Every example in the article was rationalised to have been deserving targets of the Internet outrage beast, which is why it attacked them. Far harder it is to step back and advise tolerance, understanding, empathy, patience.
- logn 12y ago
  I don't think it's that hard. Normally these are people with multi-generational wealth and power, top bureaucrats, board members, and politicians. Add to that corporations, governments, and other institutions as a whole. I think some people get distracted by race, gender, or modest wealth thinking those confer natural power and influence, and they do to a degree, but they're not a valid endpoint of outrage at Internet scale.
  - ghaff 12y ago
    Oh, many of the people you list are indeed the endpoints of outrage at Internet scale--though some (like politicians) are certainly more visible than others. But we sort of expect politicians and the less-liked CEOs to be the regular targets of Internet vitriol and don't pay much attention when it happens. What described here is when it happens to people who aren't prepared for it and whose companies just want to wash their hands of the problem. (Note though the case of Brendan Eich--although it was a non-profit in that case which made the mob harder to ignore.)

nlh 12y ago

It's interesting -- I'd read about this story before but hadn't seen the actual picture. If you have even a mild sense of off-color humor it's really not that bad (I get the joke even without being "in" on it.) The problem is "the crowd" doesn't generally have even the slightest, subtlest sense of humor, so something like that going public is trouble. Call it the Mass Whoosh Effect :(

imh 12y ago
There's probably a bit of a Poe's Law thing going on. You see it in one context, your reaction is that it's a joke about the sign. You see it in another context, you think it's a comment about the cemetery.
fenomas 12y ago
What I find scary about cases like this is that nobody in the angry mob ever seems very hurt or genuinely upset - instead you see people thrilled and energized to be part of getting someone fired. If you remember the Justine Sacco thing (the woman who tweeted something before boarding a plane and went viral before landing) twitter was positively giddy about it. More than anything else it resembles the Two Minute Hate. People seem to really like having something to be righteously angry about.
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  I'm not certain, but I think it could be described as sadism. The same reason people enjoy blood sport.

gk1 12y ago

There've been a few stories recently about internet shaming and their lasting effects.[1] Ironically, this seems to have caused old photos and negative articles to resurface. Now if you search for [Lindsey Stone] you will once again see the original photo and the negative stories about it. Her personal site and LinkedIn profile (presumably created by Reputation.com) are at the bottom of page 2... That is, nowhere to be found. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tweet-ruined-justine-saccos-life.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tw...

pnathan 12y ago

The Roman-derived justice systems are an attempt to stop this kind of behavior. The Rule of Law is the bulwark against "mob justice". It is utterly abhorrent. It's also interesting how the perpetrators' victim-blame too.

mc32 12y ago

This mob mentality is horrifying. The response is always disproportionate. The instigators, these antagonists, seem to be purposely unaware of the magnifying effect of their actions. This is the same ugliness which reared its head when the PR person tweeted a few tweets which were a bjt too clever, and upon arrival in South Africa the pitchforks were eagerly awaiting. People trip over themselves to point out the transgressions in others, especially when there is little consequence to the accuser for being incorrect in their assumptions. Like I said before, not only should the shamed suffer consequences, by definition in these cases, but these mob components should face consequences too. They should also face scrutiny when searching for jobs, etc. People involved in asymmetrical bullying should experience some sort of consequence for their irresponsibility. I think this is another example of the undesirability of politically correct attitudes. Here in this case it was politically incorrect to 'desecrate' a sign which symbolized respect for the dead. ironically, I think most of those dead, would have found in life retrospectively, fun in the statement of the photo. But I'm assuming feelings I should refrain from.

danso 12y ago

Wow, the OP opens with the longest side-anecdote I can recall from such an essay...it should be an essay in itself...though it doesn't really add much to the overall message of the piece. The public shaming that he instigated/felt happiness with was of a whole different magnitude than the kind Lindsey Stone underwent. The academics as portrayed by OP are insufferable...they did write a kind of mea culpa afterwards (including claiming that they weren't behind the bot http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/mar/30/how-bots-are-taking-over-the-world http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/mar/30/how-bot...)...actually, OP's reaction to the spambot seemed a little over-the-top, though I'm only saying that in the context of Twitter abuse that people face today. Edit: Maybe I shouldn't think of the headline as being the full representation of what this essay (book excerpt actually) is meant to cover...I'm surprised no one has discussed the Hacker News mention in the OP, specifically relating to the "dongle incident" at PyCon (maybe because most of us stopped reading after the comical description of what Reputation.com claims to do?)...I've always felt bad for Adria Richards, but equally bad for "Hank"...Richards did what those thousands of Lindsey-Stone haters did...make a snap judgement off of a seconds-long observation of someone much more complex than just his race, gender, and snarky jokes. And she nearly ruined his life. Let's not forget that...The harassment that happened to Richards is unconscionable, and I have no doubt that it ruined her life...but what she did also wrecked someone else's life...the fact that he was in a position to be able to recoup and stay anonymous (Richards waived that right when she tweeted to her followers) doesn't change that he, too, was unfairly punished by the Internet mob. It's terrible what happened to Richards but she comes off extremely poorly in this article, like a caricature drawn by the stereotypical mens-rights-anti-feminist advocate. > “Maybe it was [Hank] who started all of this,” Adria told me in the cafe at San Francisco airport. “No one would have known he got fired until he complained... Maybe he’s to blame for complaining that he got fired. Maybe he secretly seeded the hate groups. Right?”...Adria replied that she was happy to hear that Hank “wasn’t active in driving their interests to mount the raid attack”, but that she held him responsible for it anyway. It was “his own actions that resulted in his own firing, yet he framed it in a way to blame me… If I had a spouse and two kids to support, I certainly would not be telling ‘jokes’ like he was doing at a conference. Oh, but wait, I have compassion, empathy, morals and ethics to guide my daily life choices. I often wonder how people like Hank make it through life seemingly unaware of how ‘the other’ lives in the same world he does, but with countless fewer opportunities.” I empathize with Richards as she thinks she was standing up against oppressive effects at a tech conference...but just because someone's a white guy with more privilege doesn't make them less human.

thembones 12y ago

Ok, so I'll be the one to say it. It seems to me that no one who's commented here served in the military. The threats that were given to this women are horrific, yes, she didn't deserve any of them. That being said, she should have never taken that picture, regardless of what excuse she had for taking it. And that being said, she should have known better than to post on social media. And that being said, she should have known about privacy settings. This is equivalent to walking around shouting racist terms on the streets and hiding behind free speech after someone attacks you. She didn't ask for any of the threats she received, but she also had exceptionally poor judgement.

joesmo 12y ago
She has a different sense of humor. To compare that to racism is absolutely ridiculous. Racism has negative intention. The picture and her sense of humor don't. The only reason it was poor judgement is that she didn't account for the politically correct idiots of this world making a big deal out of it. The rest of your points about not posting to social media are quite valid.
DanBC 12y ago
People died to preserve her democratic right to freedom of speech - and that freedom totally includes the right to make bad jokes.
Bahamut 12y ago
I am a Marine, and HN is the first I have seen of this picture. Most know better & keep their mouths shut since it serves no purpose to further fan the flames, even if it is something disrespectful - that is part of what it means to serve. All in the Armed Forces know that they help defend the right for people to say/do what they want, as long as it is lawful.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

chris_wot 12y ago

These academics are awful! Before doing an experiment that involves a third party, normal ethical standards are to get consent, which they clearly did not do. It sounds like the Uni of Cologne forced them into taking down the spambot - probably for a number of reasons, including but not limited to: possibility of civil action being undertaken against the University (you might want to look up the Tort of Passing Off to start with, then perhaps defamation), the terrible publicity this was getting (largely caused by the smugness of the three academics, especially Dan O'Mara who contradicted himself a number of times and appears to have taken the position that their actions were the fault of Jon Ronson) and the unethical way the project was being conducted. There are conflicting views of the @jon_ronson bot in the Guardian article - a few people are saying it was created as a parody account to satirise Jon, yet it was being done by an automated bot that apparently had algorithms that took information (fairly badly) from Wikipedia. That's not satire, and it's not parody - and besides, the bot for some reason got confused quite often and there were clearly a number of unrepresentative comments made about Jon. I'd be very interested in seeing the code though - if this was for academic interest, then the academics should publish these algorithms for review because they appear to be faulty. It's remarkable that one of the academics wrote a response on The Guardian stating that they were trying to show the world the tyranny of how we are all being manipulated by the power of algorithms. Which they have done by targeting Jon Ronson to manipulate him to prove their point. That would be credible had their experiment been conducted in a more open, transparent and ethical way - and involved consent! It appears though that you are related to the academics - what exactly is your relationship to them?

waterlesscloud 12y ago
It's worth keeping in mind that the interview is heavily edited and Ronson is being a bit disingenuous at several points, pretending to not understand things that he almost certainly must. David Bausola isn't so much an academic as some sort of artist/marketer combo. He's done some interesting Twitter bot things in the past. Strange and odd, but interesting. I've followed him and his experiments for years now, and it's just one of his things. I think he, at least, is genuinely interested in online identities and how people present themselves through Twitter and other social media. I don't believe at all he's a troll, though I do think his fascination with Ronson's responses is rather cold and clinical, and a bit more empathy would be appropriate. Having said all that, obviously they should have taken down the bot when Ronson was upset by it. My suspicion is they saw an opportunity to talk about what they do and get an audience for it, and they exploited that. Which is, of course, the wrong thing to do.

sago 12y ago

So looking forward to Jon's book on this. "Them" was superb. Also, was it just (white, male, non-Jewish) me, or did Adria come across really badly in that interview?

Scramblejams 12y ago
Yep, she certainly did.
- xenadu02 12y ago
  It is merely luck that "Henry" as a developer is in extremely high demand and so got a new job right away. I'm not sure he would be so gracious and understanding about it if his family were suffering as a result of Adria's tweet. There's also the issue of blending in with the crowd... things like this can't really stick around for a white male average-looking "John Smith". But female developers are rarer and black female developers named Adria are rarer still, so in that sense the deck was stacked against her from the beginning and it doesn't surprise me in the least that she hasn't been able to find a new job yet; she also suffered a lot more as the recipient of the internet hate machine. Those things are bound to make her less happy about the whole situation.
  - sago 12y ago
    None of the victims came across as happy about the situation. Nor should they have. The things Adria suffered were despicable, deplorable and unimaginably distressing for most of us, I'm sure. But she did come across badly. Both relative to the other victims and generally. I've no idea if that was her or Jon's writing of her, but it was disappointing. My acknowledgement of my gender, race and religious privilege was intended as an invite for anyone to disagree, tbh. I'd like to know if someone who isn't male, white and non-Jewish reads the piece, whether they read her as being more sympathetic.
  - Scramblejams 12y ago
    Do we know that she hasn't been offered something? The whole thing was so high profile and she had so many defenders that I'd be quite surprised if no one had offered her a reasonable position. Now obviously whether she would have found it reasonable is another discussion.

ThrowAway5624 12y ago

I live in Denmark and it would have been impossible for the employer to fire her here unless her job involved working with veterans etc. However it's also almost impossible to fire much less likable individuals. Two cases come to mind: 1. Private company accidentally hires an openly Nazi right-wing extremist as a marketing intern. On the second day they discover his background and fire him but he sues them and win so the company is forced to pay him almost $5000. 2. This is very recent: The leader of an Islamophobic organization is also a child psychologist working for a Copenhagen municipality with many Muslim kids. 11 of his colleagues want him removed from the position and even though the case is ongoing, legal experts say that he is very likely to keep his job.

totony 12y ago

The joke about forking his repo was pretty good actually. Made me smile :) Stories like this are why my disliking for people keeps growing. Why can't they let people do whatever they want without always feeling concerned?

icehawk219 12y ago

What this story really tells me is that what I considered to be an extreme application of political correctness has reached absolutely absurd levels. If I go down to the store and buy the materials and make an exact copy of this sign in my living room, take it down to the local park, put it down and take this picture, will people still be so offended? People need to get over themselves and ... in a word, I guess "grow up"? I don't know. But people take unimportant stuff way too seriously and don't take important things seriously enough.

jordanlev 12y ago
Is the problem really with the substance of the complaints, though? Seems that the issue is more about the reaction and its massive scale... wouldn't it be the same problem if people were offended by something not having to do with political-correctness? For example, some religion-based complaint (like "look at this person doing work on a Sunday!"), or some arbitrary disagreement ("fucking hexagon patterns on a t-shirt?! What a jerkface!"). So I guess what I'm saying is it's the "extreme application" that's the problem, not the "of political correctness" part?
- icehawk219 12y ago
  I agree that the extreme application is the bigger problem. I consider being politically correct a problem as well though because it creates a sense of entitlement. Now on its own that's not necessarily a terrible thing, it only really becomes a big problem when combined with the extreme application. But it does create an environment where the go-to response of "oh no, someone I've never met, across the country, did something I personally find offensive" is "I better start a crusade and get an apology for that!".

markbnj 12y ago

Humans are still in our infancy with respect to this new global interconnectedness and instantaneous access to everything and everyone. I suspect that over time people will generally value access to the global stage, but they won't want to live on it. What we see now is in many ways just different facets of the impulsive desire for attention and that fleeting Warholian moment of specialness. I believe people will learn reticence again, and many of them will learn it the hard way.

ianso 12y ago

Apposite: "Don't Pile On" - http://rc3.org/2015/02/14/dont-pile-on/ http://rc3.org/2015/02/14/dont-pile-on/

vorg 12y ago

> We were creating a world where the smartest way to survive is to be bland Perhaps many parents are now teaching their kids this. There's probably also many teaching their kids to attack first, by stripping away the privacy of their targets and smearing them.

jgamman 12y ago

i'm in the future now and it's all high school, all the time.

A_COMPUTER 12y ago

You could argue that 4chan (as instigators in Adria Richards' harassment) aren't "normal people in a normal online community", maybe slightly less plausibly with Twitter users. But I see embryonic mobbing instigations on my Facebook all the time. I see middle-aged mothers posting horrific violent imprecations and "find out where that person lives" in response to news articles about some outrage or another. Ordinary people have this hate and desire in their hearts and aren't embarrassed to show it.