Since most Mobs don't even bother to verify their Information, People have gotten harassed, received death threats and lost their jobs on purely fictional Information. Or committed suicide, like Sunil Tripathi [1].
The point of the article—that it's important to remember that mob justice is no more appropriate when directed against a deserving than an undeserving target, precisely because the mob can't be trusted to decide who's 'deserving'—I think is well taken, but this seems a bit much:
> His dental practice is closed at the moment, and his harassers are gleeful that they are denying him an income. But this also inflicts harm on people who did not kill Cecil the lion. Palmer's family presumably relies on his income. So do his employees, whose livelihoods are now threatened as well. When a Reddit user pointed this out, over 1,500 users voted in support of the response that "His employees are better off working elsewhere." The mob, naturally, has shown no intention of helping to find new jobs for the innocent dental employees it is seeking to put out of work.
Presumably, the same, or almost the same, outcome (of his dental practice being closed, not the other harrassment) would occur if he were, say, imprisoned for his actions after a lawful trial, but no-one would claim that it was the court's responsibility to "find new jobs for the innocent dental employees it is [putting] out of work."
EDIT: I know downvote-complaining is out of place, but silent downvotes in response to serious argument is a pain. I certainly could be wrong, but I intended my contribution to be a constructive part of the discussion; please explain to me what's wrong or why you disagree!
maybe the rise of internet "mob justice" is in part due to the masses losing faith in traditional forms of justice. Doesn't make it right or wrong, just a reflection.
Yeah. Mob justice is not some tool of the oppressed.
The US had something like 5400 lynching between 1880 and 1980. It seems that a culture steeped in that behavior would help the internet like the winds help a roof fire.
This isn't really the same thing; lynching was primarily an expression of racial hatred. And the angry internet mob is definitely a worldwide phenomenon.
Mob justice is very definitely a response to feelings that the conventional justice system is either too slow, too narrowly drawn, or too favouritist to address actual problems. And it sort of works; I wonder how many hunting trips have been cancelled after this event? (Hard to know since they were secret and illegal in the first place.)
> And it sort of works; I wonder how many hunting trips have been cancelled after this event?
I think that the 'sort of' here is important. Mob justice is, presumably, very good at curtailing activities of which the mob disapproves; but, not only is there no guarantee that the mob disapproves only of 'bad' activities—as the Gamergate situation mentioned by the article proves—but, perhaps even worse, there is no guarantee that what the mob approves today it will also approve tomorrow, nor that what one mob approves another will not attack.
> maybe the rise of internet "mob justice" is in part due to the masses losing faith in traditional forms of justice. Doesn't make it right or wrong, just a reflection.
I meant neither to defend nor to condemn mob justice (except perhaps implicitly, by approving of the general thrust of the article), only to object to the specific grounds on which the paragraph I quoted criticised mob justice as opposed to traditional forms of justice.
I don't think it's about losing faith, so much as formalized careful justice being contrary to human nature.
I remember learning that ancient Athens had the same problem, with demagogues stirring up emotions to talk the assembly into doing all sort of stupid shit.
The more available group over-emotionality is, the more effort is required to suppress it in favor of reasoned responses.
This. 100% this. The left over ape in U.S. Yells "get um!" When it's angry. Formalized justice exists to mitigate this. The internet has just made it so much easier for mobs to organize.
> Presumably, the same, or almost the same, outcome (of his dental practice being closed, not the other harrassment) would occur if he were, say, imprisoned for his actions after a lawful trial, but no-one would claim that it was the court's responsibility to "find new jobs for the innocent dental employees it is [putting] out of work."
This goes back to the difference between an internet mob and a court. The internet mob acts on moral outrage. It is inconsistent for them to be outraged about the death of a lion and not outraged about innocents losing income.
The court acts on legal principles. Legally, if the dentist is to be punished, that's where it ends.
It ignores death threats, doxxing, bomb threats and mail threats that came from Vox's group of anti-gamergate supporters, while saying that we shouldn't endorse these things when it's 'our side' that does them.
"The formal justice system derives it decision-making from written laws and generations of precedent; it is adjudicated in a highly formal and regulated environment. It is often flawed, but is at least designed with the goal of fair and consistent treatment for both the accused and the accuser."
So if it fails while having had good intentions, there's nothing more to be done?
> So if it fails while having had good intentions, there's nothing more to be done?
I think that that is not what the article is saying at all; rather it is saying that your dissatisfaction (not you personally!) with the course of justice does not excuse your taking justice into your own hands.
Because of the formality and good intentions, the failure modes are in general less harmful than the failure modes of outraged mobs.
And when it fails consistently in some manner, the better answer is generally to figure out how to get it fixed rather than just ignore it in favor of mob action.
Well, if you have an army bearing down on you. Or if you might have an army bearing down on you. Or if you have something that someone wants. Or if you are in a place that someone wants to be. Or if people don't like you. Or if there's a natural disaster. Or if you want to do something that you can't afford, that will help other people too. Or if you want to walk around at night safely. Or if you want to have educated children. Or if you want to have an educated community. Or if companies are doing something bad. Or if companies are treating people poorly. Or if companies are selling dangerous products. Or if you ever want something accomplished, but don't have the money or power or people do get it done. Or if
Notice how none of these things requires a government to be fullfilled, much less the kind of governments we have now.
Merely coordinated action, which could also be spontaneous in some cases (we need X, we get together and build X), or constrained to the desired goal in others (we need an army, we devote some of our resources to that goal alone).
>Or if companies are doing something bad. Or if companies are treating people poorly. Or if companies are selling dangerous products.
In the real world, they mostly do those things in cohorts with governments.
Besides "companies" are a legal entity, their existence pressuposes a government (and a whole capitalist/market based ecosystem).
It isn't mob justice, it's media justice. Without enough money or reporters to report on serious news, they report on irrelevant outrage like this -- and then claim it's popular outrage, when they themselves fanned it.
Honestly no one but people over their 30s watches the news anymore. These are not the primary members of these mobs. The classical media is more or less over.
Gamergate, as far as I can tell, is not an “online harassment campaign”. I can see a lot of things that could be considered online harassment campaigns directed _toward_ that group(and anyone they can claim to be associated with them), for certain.
It has not been a movement of targeting women in technology, only people who seek to upset it for speaking fees and nervous group applause.
In short, "Gamergate" doesn't "do" anything, because it has no physical manifestation. Not only does it fail to be a noun, it fails also to be an adjective.
#GamerGate is actually just a hashtag, the context for the hashtag was(and for the most part continues to be) that some (gaming-related) rags, for example Kotaku, are deeply unethical and don't seem to care until it hurts their bottom line.
This is why for example, in response to the support drummed up in association with the #GamerGate hashtag, the Society of Professional Journalists is actually hosting an debate series on it (the event is called AirPlay, and will happen mid-August).
Because some of the people involved in the breaches of ethics surrounding media sites like Gawker-run Kotaku were "feminists", and as a result of the association of feminism as an ideology with women as a people: some people can't help but see #GamerGate as an affront to women because "feminists" are involved in the controversy, and on the other side.
Worse still, the typical #GamerGate poster is so consistently well-behaved that opposing commentators have relied on false-flag campaigns, one famously by a Gawker Media employee.
All the while, there's that tingling sensation of your brain realizing that it really is just a hashtag, and not an ideology.
> I can see a lot of things that could be considered online harassment campaigns directed _toward_ that group(and anyone they can claim to be associated with them), for certain.
> #GamerGate is actually just a hashtag
Well, if Gamergate is merely a hashtag, and so didn't do anything—then opponents of Gamergate aren't an online harassment campaign either, since they're merely the lack of a hashtag!
Whenever I see the Internet Hate Machine in full spin I'm reminded of the following quote:
"The sage of Toronto [Marshall McLuhan] had formerly spent several decades marveling at the numerous freedoms created by the ‘global village’ instantly and effortlessly accessible to all. Villages, unlike towns, have always been ruled by conformism, isolation, petty surveillance, boredom and repetitive malicious gossip about the same families. Which is a precise enough description of the global spectacle’s present vulgarity."
- Guy Debord, Comments on The Society of the Spectacle, 1988
I'm not very familiar with Debord or The Society of the Spectacle but the analogy always struck me as well suited to the darker, more banal side of the modern Internet.
Somewhere in this amazing 1967 documentary, McLuhan defines the global village as "everybody minding everybody else's business". It's astonishing how much he got right.
Interesting that Vox is the platform on which this article appears. They are as much a part of the internet justice mob as Facebook or Twitter. Several articles on their front page have clickbait articles and are designed to get people riled up. Look at "It's shockingly easy to exploit legal immigrant workers" and "How Planned Parenthood became Republicans' public enemy no. 1" as examples.
I don't think the internet mob is "out of control". I think it is working as intended. The media has always fabricated stories as distractions or as character assassinations against certain people. The internet mob is the next evolution of that. Cecil the lion is the latest mass distraction.
45 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 59.8 ms ] threadThis is inacceptable.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunil_Tripathi
In fact, he had already been missing a month when he was accused. And his body was found shortly after.
> His dental practice is closed at the moment, and his harassers are gleeful that they are denying him an income. But this also inflicts harm on people who did not kill Cecil the lion. Palmer's family presumably relies on his income. So do his employees, whose livelihoods are now threatened as well. When a Reddit user pointed this out, over 1,500 users voted in support of the response that "His employees are better off working elsewhere." The mob, naturally, has shown no intention of helping to find new jobs for the innocent dental employees it is seeking to put out of work.
Presumably, the same, or almost the same, outcome (of his dental practice being closed, not the other harrassment) would occur if he were, say, imprisoned for his actions after a lawful trial, but no-one would claim that it was the court's responsibility to "find new jobs for the innocent dental employees it is [putting] out of work."
EDIT: I know downvote-complaining is out of place, but silent downvotes in response to serious argument is a pain. I certainly could be wrong, but I intended my contribution to be a constructive part of the discussion; please explain to me what's wrong or why you disagree!
The US had something like 5400 lynching between 1880 and 1980. It seems that a culture steeped in that behavior would help the internet like the winds help a roof fire.
Mob justice is very definitely a response to feelings that the conventional justice system is either too slow, too narrowly drawn, or too favouritist to address actual problems. And it sort of works; I wonder how many hunting trips have been cancelled after this event? (Hard to know since they were secret and illegal in the first place.)
I think that the 'sort of' here is important. Mob justice is, presumably, very good at curtailing activities of which the mob disapproves; but, not only is there no guarantee that the mob disapproves only of 'bad' activities—as the Gamergate situation mentioned by the article proves—but, perhaps even worse, there is no guarantee that what the mob approves today it will also approve tomorrow, nor that what one mob approves another will not attack.
From what I understand of the climate at the time, the justice system was seen as wrong in turning against recognizing different classes of people.
I meant neither to defend nor to condemn mob justice (except perhaps implicitly, by approving of the general thrust of the article), only to object to the specific grounds on which the paragraph I quoted criticised mob justice as opposed to traditional forms of justice.
I remember learning that ancient Athens had the same problem, with demagogues stirring up emotions to talk the assembly into doing all sort of stupid shit.
The more available group over-emotionality is, the more effort is required to suppress it in favor of reasoned responses.
I wonder how large a part of the mob could not care less about the cause as long as they get some (flimsy) justification for harassing.
This goes back to the difference between an internet mob and a court. The internet mob acts on moral outrage. It is inconsistent for them to be outraged about the death of a lion and not outraged about innocents losing income.
The court acts on legal principles. Legally, if the dentist is to be punished, that's where it ends.
So if it fails while having had good intentions, there's nothing more to be done?
I think that that is not what the article is saying at all; rather it is saying that your dissatisfaction (not you personally!) with the course of justice does not excuse your taking justice into your own hands.
And when it fails consistently in some manner, the better answer is generally to figure out how to get it fixed rather than just ignore it in favor of mob action.
Merely coordinated action, which could also be spontaneous in some cases (we need X, we get together and build X), or constrained to the desired goal in others (we need an army, we devote some of our resources to that goal alone).
>Or if companies are doing something bad. Or if companies are treating people poorly. Or if companies are selling dangerous products.
In the real world, they mostly do those things in cohorts with governments.
Besides "companies" are a legal entity, their existence pressuposes a government (and a whole capitalist/market based ecosystem).
A single Reddit or 4chan post can assemble thousands of vigilantes.
It has not been a movement of targeting women in technology, only people who seek to upset it for speaking fees and nervous group applause.
Sounds like a bit of doublethink, if you ask me.
#GamerGate is actually just a hashtag, the context for the hashtag was(and for the most part continues to be) that some (gaming-related) rags, for example Kotaku, are deeply unethical and don't seem to care until it hurts their bottom line.
This is why for example, in response to the support drummed up in association with the #GamerGate hashtag, the Society of Professional Journalists is actually hosting an debate series on it (the event is called AirPlay, and will happen mid-August).
Because some of the people involved in the breaches of ethics surrounding media sites like Gawker-run Kotaku were "feminists", and as a result of the association of feminism as an ideology with women as a people: some people can't help but see #GamerGate as an affront to women because "feminists" are involved in the controversy, and on the other side.
Worse still, the typical #GamerGate poster is so consistently well-behaved that opposing commentators have relied on false-flag campaigns, one famously by a Gawker Media employee.
All the while, there's that tingling sensation of your brain realizing that it really is just a hashtag, and not an ideology.
> #GamerGate is actually just a hashtag
Well, if Gamergate is merely a hashtag, and so didn't do anything—then opponents of Gamergate aren't an online harassment campaign either, since they're merely the lack of a hashtag!
"The sage of Toronto [Marshall McLuhan] had formerly spent several decades marveling at the numerous freedoms created by the ‘global village’ instantly and effortlessly accessible to all. Villages, unlike towns, have always been ruled by conformism, isolation, petty surveillance, boredom and repetitive malicious gossip about the same families. Which is a precise enough description of the global spectacle’s present vulgarity." - Guy Debord, Comments on The Society of the Spectacle, 1988
I'm not very familiar with Debord or The Society of the Spectacle but the analogy always struck me as well suited to the darker, more banal side of the modern Internet.
http://dangerousminds.net/comments/this_is_marshall_mcluhan
I don't think the internet mob is "out of control". I think it is working as intended. The media has always fabricated stories as distractions or as character assassinations against certain people. The internet mob is the next evolution of that. Cecil the lion is the latest mass distraction.