I love the Internet as much as the next guy... but unlike most people, I understand that anyone can post anything on an Internet forum and many times they do so anonymously (except for an IP address). The more savvy may use TOR when setting up forum accounts and postings, but most people don't know or care to do that.
Some day soon, I expect the falsely accused individuals will have legal recourse when their reputation, livelihood, etc. are damaged by these anonymous postings. Companies too. Court orders will be granted and presented to ISP's. "Show us what address posted this libelous content." And then the shoe will be on the other foot... provided there is enough money to litigate.
The days of the Wild West on the Internet are soon to end. And that's a good thing.
The Internet is a unique place of expression and that comes with the obvious downsides of such anonymity - child pornography, piracy, threats and trolls are just some examples. If governments continue their trend of monitoring and locking down the Internet, an alternative will crop up. I would be willing to bet large sums of money that you're wrong anyway.
When someone attempts to remain anon for their own safety and privacy, then that is perfectly fine (providing they are not committing a crime). Political dissidents, celebrities, etc.
But when someone attempts to harm another via an anon posting to a forum and they think it's OK to do that, then that is wrong. Libel and slander are just that. Whether they occur in an Internet forum or in a newspaper. People doing this should know that they can (and will) be sued and that they are not anonymous.
In many countries political dissidence is a crime. If you want to allow only the 'good guys' to be anonymous you need a perfectly trustworthy party to decide who the good guys are. Various governments have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to do this
You can't prevent libel and slander without encroaching on free speech.
Not all of us agree with this. I'd rather that we all just chilled out about drunken Facebook photos, and that we start seeing court rulings that "it's impossible to accurately associate this posting with an individual, acquitted due to lack of evidence."
Those who give up their freedom for a little bit of safety deserve neither.
A very good comment. It's interesting to think that the Internet lynch mobs of today are not entirely different than the lynch mobs from several decades ago.
Sure, the motivations are different, but both groups consist of people falling prey to mob mentality and trying to enforce extreme levels of "justice".
Not to mention indefensible levels of confidence. The scary thing about mobs to me (aside from the pitchforks) has always been how quickly and irrationally suspicion becomes verdict. Which I suppose is the whole point behind the post: you have no good reason to believe that the phone number anybody posts actually belongs to the cat murderer, much less any right to punish accordingly.
Good to see someone standing up to this sort of thing. Internet vigilantism is creepy, disturbing and usually disproportionate to the severity of the crime being punished.
They also seem to go after soft targets. I can't remember seeing one of these go after (for instance) a violent criminal rather than some ordinary schlub who's done something rather fucked up.
/b/ has gotten a dude to admit that he had sexual feelings for children and then send them a picture of his penis. I don't remember the rest of the details at the moment, but he did end up being convicted.
If I remembered his name, I'd grab the source right now, but I'm not about to go searching for this while at work. Anyone recall his name?
I'm pretty sure entrapping[1] some sad weirdo on the Internet is pretty much the definition of a soft target.
By hard targets, I mean someone who is actually scary in real life. Harassing the guy who's extorting protection money from local businesses, or people associated with organized crime rather than a middle aged woman who put a cat in a bin.
[1] It's possible they did get a dangerous pedophile off the streets but I can't help but be cynical when even the police led operations in these situations are sometimes downright shady:
(http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2009/12/sexual-pr...)
Oh totally, I agree. I have such a love/hate relationship with Chris Hanson's work, it's not even funny. Just something slightly more than cats, that's all.
I've been using reddit long enough to recognize warning signs. It used to be fine...then bad one-liners and left-wing conspiracies started getting voted up to the top, at first infrequently but more and more until 4chan comics on the front page became the norm and /r/politics became the mess it is today.
I think when people say HN is becoming reddit, they mean the reddit of 2-3 years ago, not the reddit of today. At points, I've seen some of the same warning signs I saw on reddit. I was more worried about HN a few months ago than I am now, but every time I see a weak joke with 60 upvotes (maybe 5% of the jokes I've seen in HN comments are actually worth of upvotes) or someone's perfectly reasonable comment getting to -1 within 5 minutes in a vaguely political thread, it makes me a little nervous.
reddit is tolerable if you unsubscribe from all popular reddits, especially the front page, and subscribe only to niche reddits with a small following. If any one of those sub-reddits gets too popular you move on, i.e. science->hard science.
Privileged westerners are getting their knickers in a twist because someone from a foreign country is drowning a litter of puppies. While they continue not to care about less cute farm and dairy animals being grown on a farm near them.
It's needless rhetoric. Many people who aren't privileged nor Western would think that that video was ... wrong. Also, many people do think about the cows on their local farm. Maybe the grandparent wasn't around for the "Ohio cow abuse" video, but there was equal, if not more, outrage.
I actually found it difficult to pick something that better described this phenomena.
These are obviously people whose compassion for animals is a function of their cuteness. I don't see them organizing lynch mobs for similar but much more inhumane acts against farm animals happening in their own communities. Would people care if this was a litter of pigs? Or a litter of rats?
And leaving aside this specific example, most people on this planet in rural communities don't have the economic means to employ a dedicated medical professional to put down their excess cats and dogs.
For those people drowning the animals is a perfectly legitimate option, it sure beats watching them starve to death.
Ignoring all of this and going straight to "oh those poor puppies, what a horrible person" as most people seem to respond is, I think, a privileged western viewpoint.
I' not sure what you mean. Anyway, rats can make fine companions, and the taste of meat is a direct consequence of the treatment of beasts. So, I say we should care, even for purely selfish reasons.
I want to believe the issue most people have is not that she killed puppies (who doesn't?) but the glee with which she threw them across the river, and her obvious enjoyment of the task as she asked to be filmed and then uploaded it on the tubes.
I am pro-Internet Vigilantes when they restrict themselves to digging up relevant information and reporting it to the authorities.
Has anyone watched the video that spawned this post? There's no way someone's anonymity should be respected when they do something so blatantly horrible.
Although it is good that reddit is taking this hardline stance against "internet vigilanties" I don't think it will do much good. Even if they start banning people for doing these actions I don't think it will deter people from taking part in these actions.
Sometimes I feel as though, even above child pornography and so-called cyber terror, /b/ is the real bullet we bite when we argue for internet anonymity.
31 comments
[ 252 ms ] story [ 1836 ms ] threadSome day soon, I expect the falsely accused individuals will have legal recourse when their reputation, livelihood, etc. are damaged by these anonymous postings. Companies too. Court orders will be granted and presented to ISP's. "Show us what address posted this libelous content." And then the shoe will be on the other foot... provided there is enough money to litigate.
The days of the Wild West on the Internet are soon to end. And that's a good thing.
When someone attempts to remain anon for their own safety and privacy, then that is perfectly fine (providing they are not committing a crime). Political dissidents, celebrities, etc.
But when someone attempts to harm another via an anon posting to a forum and they think it's OK to do that, then that is wrong. Libel and slander are just that. Whether they occur in an Internet forum or in a newspaper. People doing this should know that they can (and will) be sued and that they are not anonymous.
You can't prevent libel and slander without encroaching on free speech.
Not all of us agree with this. I'd rather that we all just chilled out about drunken Facebook photos, and that we start seeing court rulings that "it's impossible to accurately associate this posting with an individual, acquitted due to lack of evidence."
Those who give up their freedom for a little bit of safety deserve neither.
Sure, the motivations are different, but both groups consist of people falling prey to mob mentality and trying to enforce extreme levels of "justice".
They also seem to go after soft targets. I can't remember seeing one of these go after (for instance) a violent criminal rather than some ordinary schlub who's done something rather fucked up.
If I remembered his name, I'd grab the source right now, but I'm not about to go searching for this while at work. Anyone recall his name?
By hard targets, I mean someone who is actually scary in real life. Harassing the guy who's extorting protection money from local businesses, or people associated with organized crime rather than a middle aged woman who put a cat in a bin.
[1] It's possible they did get a dangerous pedophile off the streets but I can't help but be cynical when even the police led operations in these situations are sometimes downright shady: (http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2009/12/sexual-pr...)
(Side note: I can't believe people would think HN is turning into reddit, come on people)
I think when people say HN is becoming reddit, they mean the reddit of 2-3 years ago, not the reddit of today. At points, I've seen some of the same warning signs I saw on reddit. I was more worried about HN a few months ago than I am now, but every time I see a weak joke with 60 upvotes (maybe 5% of the jokes I've seen in HN comments are actually worth of upvotes) or someone's perfectly reasonable comment getting to -1 within 5 minutes in a vaguely political thread, it makes me a little nervous.
What else is new?
These are obviously people whose compassion for animals is a function of their cuteness. I don't see them organizing lynch mobs for similar but much more inhumane acts against farm animals happening in their own communities. Would people care if this was a litter of pigs? Or a litter of rats?
And leaving aside this specific example, most people on this planet in rural communities don't have the economic means to employ a dedicated medical professional to put down their excess cats and dogs.
For those people drowning the animals is a perfectly legitimate option, it sure beats watching them starve to death.
Ignoring all of this and going straight to "oh those poor puppies, what a horrible person" as most people seem to respond is, I think, a privileged western viewpoint.
Has anyone watched the video that spawned this post? There's no way someone's anonymity should be respected when they do something so blatantly horrible.