5 ms·

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 influ

by 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.)
  - chippy 12y ago
    Agreed, it's not hard to identify those at the source or root of most of the worlds problems. It would be great, but I think it would be very hard to permit and allow the Internet vengeance machine to only be unleashed on these select targets and to be restrained and forbidden on lesser offences, because the vengeance machine just wants righteous vengeance and doesn't care if the target is a lesser offender.
saraid216 12y ago
"those in power" have been receiving and handling things like the allegedly fearsome "Internet outrage beast" for millennia. It's impressive to people who can get stepped on, but Dubya is still Dubya, no matter what the Internet says about him. Lindsey Stone's situation was scary because there were people who held power over her, like employers, who would listen to popular opinion. But no matter how many "Fire John Boehner" things show up in social media, it isn't actually going to happen that way, because no one is scared of such political talk. The beast is only fearsome when it has leverage. And with "those in power", it doesn't. It's quaint, is what it is. "It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But the half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor."
- jsprogrammer 12y ago
  The difference between Lindsey Stone and John Boehner is that no one can fire John Boehner by calling him out to a parking lot and forcing him to hand over his keys. The only way for him to lose his current position of power is for him to not have more pieces of paper with his named marked on them than any other name, on a special Tuesday that occurs bi-annually, in schools, churches, and libraries in a certain, small geographical location [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio's_8th_congressional_district#mediaviewer/File:Ohio_US_Congressional_District_8_(since_2013).tif http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio's_8th_congressional_distri...
  - saraid216 12y ago
    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Federalist_(Dawson)/70 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Federalist_(Dawson)/70 Speaking of the Executive, but the same arguments apply.
- namlem 12y ago
  Well, except for that Howard Dean noise incident.
  - saraid216 12y ago

by logn 12y ago

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.)
- chippy 12y ago
  Agreed, it's not hard to identify those at the source or root of most of the worlds problems. It would be great, but I think it would be very hard to permit and allow the Internet vengeance machine to only be unleashed on these select targets and to be restrained and forbidden on lesser offences, because the vengeance machine just wants righteous vengeance and doesn't care if the target is a lesser offender.

saraid216 12y ago

"those in power" have been receiving and handling things like the allegedly fearsome "Internet outrage beast" for millennia. It's impressive to people who can get stepped on, but Dubya is still Dubya, no matter what the Internet says about him. Lindsey Stone's situation was scary because there were people who held power over her, like employers, who would listen to popular opinion. But no matter how many "Fire John Boehner" things show up in social media, it isn't actually going to happen that way, because no one is scared of such political talk. The beast is only fearsome when it has leverage. And with "those in power", it doesn't. It's quaint, is what it is. "It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But the half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor."

jsprogrammer 12y ago
The difference between Lindsey Stone and John Boehner is that no one can fire John Boehner by calling him out to a parking lot and forcing him to hand over his keys. The only way for him to lose his current position of power is for him to not have more pieces of paper with his named marked on them than any other name, on a special Tuesday that occurs bi-annually, in schools, churches, and libraries in a certain, small geographical location [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio's_8th_congressional_district#mediaviewer/File:Ohio_US_Congressional_District_8_(since_2013).tif http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio's_8th_congressional_distri...
- saraid216 12y ago
  http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Federalist_(Dawson)/70 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Federalist_(Dawson)/70 Speaking of the Executive, but the same arguments apply.
namlem 12y ago
Well, except for that Howard Dean noise incident.
- saraid216 12y ago