3 ms·

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 ex

by 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.

by chippy 12y ago

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.