We Live in Fear of the Online Mobs

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-22/we-live-in-fear-of-the-online-mobs

by imartin2k • 9 years ago

153 187 9 years ago

For every time people pat themselves on the back about getting some nazi fired, consider there's others where the mob gets it wrong (see: Reddit and the Boston bombers).

This stuff is dangerous.

aaron695• 9 years ago

Why are you patting yourself on the back for getting a nazi [sic] fired.

The fact this is consider acceptable is the whole problem.

We should not be using cop outs of 'where the mob gets it wrong'.

The only reason you should get someone fired is they are bad at their job and they have been given a chance to improve.

erikpukinskis3• 9 years ago

At a high level, it's a reaction to the fact that the system seems incapable of dealing with certain crimes. Rape, any crime committed by police, war crimes, white collar theft, inmate abuse, biased promotion, harassment... so many of these things are really hard to get police to care about.

So people are turning to alternative means. It worries me, but at the same time I want to see justice. I feel conflicted about it.

Politically, on the one side you have people screaming about the rule of law. I think that would be ideologically consistent if they also supported increased law enforcement pressure on these kinds of crimes. But they generally don't.

On the other side, you have people arguing we need to take the law into our own hands and fight back against "fascism", white supremacy, all of these things. But those same people don't generally want to take responsibility for the crimes they are complicit in (war crimes, theft of indigenous land, soft racism, etc).

I don't see a clear resolution, although I think the whole situation is a reaction to the internet forcing increased self-awareness on us, and us not being able to deal with the possibility that we're genuinely bad people. The internet showed us how much violence we're complicit in, and we're reacting by getting real mad at whoever is far enough away for us to dissociate from.

alphaalpha1015• 9 years ago

some nazi fired

Did you actually read the memo? If he's a nazi, then so is 95% of the world's population.

ryan-allen2• 9 years ago

I think he was being sarcastic with the 'some nazi' part?

eksemplar• 9 years ago

I read it, wish I hadn't wasted my time on something as disgusting, but I did. I doubt 5% of the world would appreciate the message. Then again, I never saw equal rights as a threat.

I don't think he's necessarily a Nazi though, just a spoiled biggot who hasn't walked a mile in anyone's shoes, not even his own.

Overtonwindow3• 9 years ago

I've noticed a growth of righteous indignation from people, particularly over the past 10 years. It's not enough that one person disagrees with another, now this disagreement is manifesting itself in proactive rage. This rage gets directed in a vengeful, sinister effort to gravely harm someone, by getting them fired from their job etc. It seems like it's increasing, and no one is being held accountable. I've not seen this level of vitriol and other cultures, it seems uniquely American.

stevecalifornia2• 9 years ago

China is well known to have this culture as well.

rjeli• 9 years ago

I've never heard of this, please elaborate. What are the dividing topics?

zaptheimpaler2• 9 years ago

Some people need to find a bad guy to demonize so that they, by contrast can be the good guys.

linkregister• 9 years ago

The first example that comes to my mind of this manifesting over the internet would be the Korean woman harassed relentlessly over failing to pick up her dog's poop on a subway train in 2005. It was one of the major incidents that drove the country to implement a Real Name policy for Korean website operators.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07...

rtpg• 9 years ago

Lynching, soccer mobs, religious wars, boycott campaigns, advertising pushback...

I think the biggest change is that it's pretty low effort to send harassing tweets, relative to (say) figuring out someone's address and sending them threats via snail mail or phone call.

trprog• 9 years ago

There is nothing uniquely American about extreme aggression towards people holding differing views. Although the current state of American society isn't great it can get so so much worse. A couple of examples.

1) The Cultural Revolution (China) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution

Several hundred thousand to maybe a few million people were killed, often at the hands of angry mobs, for not being the right kind of communist, for not being communist enough or for just not being friends with the right people. A person could be accused by someone who didn't like them with zero evidence of any wrongdoing and still the victim would lose their home, all of the belongings and potentially their life. This lasted from the mid 60 until the mid 70s.

2) Something current https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Saudi_Arabia

Religious minorities do not have the right to practice their religion. Non-Muslim propagation is banned, and conversion from Islam to another religion is punishable by death

guildwriter10• 9 years ago

Speaking of religion, what this entire phenomenon really reminds me of is the advent of the printing press and Martin Luther.

http://www.economist.com/node/21541719

After Martin Luther printed his Ninty-Five Theses, Europe promptly lost its collective shit across the board. My European History is a bit rusty but a cursory glance at the Wikipedia topic should give a good idea of how much chaos the ability to spread ideas quickly and widely created.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation

We're talking years and years of civil war and strife. All because people who were once separated and thought they were alone found out they were not. If we use this as a barometer, we're in for some stormy seas.

guildwriter10• 9 years ago

It's not uniquely American.

Do some searches on Korea about the escalating fight between Feminist and Anti-Feminist groups. Megalia is probably the most well known and infamous organization. It's difficult to comment on due to the sheer . . . well. I'll give some links as an example:

http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/07/29/487...

https://www.10mag.com/megalia-south-koreas-radical-feminism-...

https://www.koreabang.com/2016/features/the-rise-of-radical-...

https://www.reddit.com/r/korea/comments/4vb3lb/megalia_south...

http://i.imgur.com/1uePL0H.png

I've given more than several different links for a reason. The difference in perspectives is really jarring and it's difficult to reconcile the two perspectives. Depending on who you talk to, Megalia is anything from a beleaguered feminist organization under attack from a misogynistic society, to a radical feminist group that is deeply hateful towards men of all kinds (straight/gay). If you dig deep enough, you'll see that a lot of important details in accounts on both sides get shaved away to create a compelling narrative. The end result is a real online bloodbath that has touched a lot of different aspects of Korean society.

mc32• 9 years ago

I've only heard of these kinds of vitriol in S.K --but I'm still surprised by the amount of all out hate outlined in your links --in an otherwise, at least on the surface, cohesive society.

I'm just grateful that so far, Korea seems an outlier of this, at the present moment --not that it doesn't happen elsewhere or that it could not happen in places where it's rather tame. I hope as a species we find ways out of this kind of unfettered rancor.

To be fair, not unlike a few other countries out there, S.K historically has been pretty patriarchal, so given this new outlet, this vehemence is not all that surprising as they learn to navigate these waters (who other might have to learn as well).

dvfjsdhgfv• 9 years ago

It's because women in S. Korea (and several other Asian countries) have been treated almost like animals, and it was a cultural thing. It's a backlash for something that's been happening for a very long time, and in a way arguably more violent than in the West.

remarkEon• 9 years ago

How disagreements used to happen: I think [idea]. Here's my evidence.

How they happen now: Speaking as a [member in X class], I believe [idea].

We've started to tie up our identities into our arguments, and when you do that you can't get around attacking who someone is as a person when they link their membership in a group to the epistemology of why they think something. This is my working theory for why people have started to equate speech with "literally violence". Disagreeing has become an attack on their identity, so it's only natural to interpret that in an extreme form.

jacalata3• 9 years ago

So, where is your evidence that people used to have more evidence based discussions? How does it reconcile the historic role of religion in guiding the average person's beliefs and politics? Hell, how does it reconcile the historic prevalence of religion?

xxXXxx-3• 9 years ago

You have a very, very misguided view of the past, we have always tied up our identities into our arguments. In fact, I would say less so now than in the past not moreso.

observation3• 9 years ago

I miss the days when nobody used their real name online and certainly didn't attach photos of their face to it.

Most of us would be better off if we went back to those days, I expect a lot of HN users already don't have social media profiles.

peter_retief4• 9 years ago

Also known as virtue signaling

gaius2• 9 years ago

by getting them fired from their job etc. It seems like it's increasing, and no one is being held accountable

It's because there's an asymmetry - students neither have jobs to be fired from nor the life experience to understand why it's such a serious matter to do it to someone. The accountability will come when the record of having been arrested for rioting/vandalism shows up in background checks when they do eventually enter the workforce. That's not much comfort I know to their victims. The wheels of justice turn slowly, but they do grind exceedingly fine.

matt407712• 9 years ago

Sorry to interrupt your revenge phantasy, but where do you get the idea that people opposing neo-nazis are exclusively college students, or that they commit crimes in any number that would be significant?

Looking at photos of the recent rallies in Boston as well as Charlottesville, I think any reasonable observer would conclude that those opposing the nazis tend to have better jobs than those they are opposing. I'm drawing this conclusion for the distinct difference in the amount of face tattoos between these two groups.

observation3• 9 years ago

I don't see this kind of thing in European countries, nowhere close to this level. It's clearly a moral panic.

stevecalifornia2• 9 years ago

Town squares used to be small so that mobs couldn't get too big. Now the town square is infinite and we are seeing the result.

Maybe in a hundred years we will have sorted out how to maintain free speech but limit the bloodthirsty mob. But in the meantime, we all need to survive through this period while as a culture we figure out the answer.

The only answer I can think of is to opt-out of social media, ignore trolls online and cultivate more meaningful in-person connections.

Overtonwindow3• 9 years ago

You might find this article about a blogger in South Korea interesting. The blogger was posting financial analysis and opinion, which was apparently causing disruptions in the market. No one would have known who he was if not for the South Korean system of mandatory Internet user registration. I doubt we will see this in America, but it's interesting to consider.

https://www.wired.com/2009/10/mf_minerva/

busterarm16• 9 years ago

The only answer I can think of is to opt-out of social media, ignore trolls online and cultivate more meaningful in-person connections.

I strongly concur with your assessment.

matt407712• 9 years ago

Town squares used to be small so that mobs couldn't get too big.

See, that's the sort of thing that must be terribly difficult to write, knowing that thousands were tortured, maimed, and killed by small-town mobs in the US: http://www.naacp.org/history-of-lynchings/

damnfine2• 9 years ago

How is that relevant at all to the discussion?

Areading314• 9 years ago

The wrongly accused suffered for thousands of years before public and fair courts became common.

The court of public opinion needs a counterpart for the social media age.

Proof-of-work juries might be a neat way to orchestrate fair voting in anonymous spaces

erikpukinskis3• 9 years ago

Maybe proof-of-empathy? Demonstrate that you understand how someone is thinking and feeling in their vote to be able to cast your own?

Or proof-of-research?

Proof-of-rationality?

guildwriter10• 9 years ago

I'd be for proof of empathy if it would somehow help reduce the number of straw men I see being constructed on a daily basis.

I wouldn't hold my breath for proof of rationality. Humans are rationalizing animals, not rational animals.

peter_retief4• 9 years ago

We could or should use online pseudonyms that can be erased if the mob attacks. Perhaps its time to protect our public personae with masks and sub masks. Why not the same for employment? Have a work personae as well. The mob are crazy and not very clever

peter_retief4• 9 years ago

Nature imitating art, the mob are mobilizing ;)

docdeek• 9 years ago

Social media seems to be living by the maxim “It’s not enough that I succeed, others should fail”.

It’s not enough to simply be a good person, win an argument, or see your personal political beliefs become widely adopted - you also have to point out how bad others are, how badly your opponent lost the argument, or how anyone holding a different political beliefe to you is a Nazi. There is value to social media in general and Twitter in particular, but it does appear to me to be increasingly toxic.

roceasta3• 9 years ago

Yes, labelling a person who disagrees with you Nazi seems like a perverse application of Godwin's Law. It means you are intentionally ending the discussion. Why do it?

jacalata3• 9 years ago

Because there are people marching with swastikas? http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2017/08/inventor-...

guildwriter10• 9 years ago

One way to think about rhetoric like this is that it serves as a method of forcing you to align with their view of reality. Either you agree with them, or they paint you into a corner that then frequently creates a hostile response. In other words, they aren't looking for a discussion. They're looking for a fight.

That kind of nuclear option rhetoric wise allows them to feel empowered both by denouncing an enemy and creating a call to arms within themselves and others. Furthermore, even if it antagonizes you, it draws you into their struggle, which legitimizes their world view. It creates a threat for them to fight against. If their rhetoric causes someone to radicalize to the other side, even better. It just strengthens the immediacy of their cause.

This is how Antifa and Neo-Nazis can have a weird kind of symbiotic relationship. Even if their methods don't recruit someone to their cause, forcing that person to become a part of the overall struggle legitimizes their world view, strengthening both parties at the same time.

mmaunder• 9 years ago

This is why public sentiment has become hard to measure. The result of elections, for example, will become increasingly harder to predict as individual opinions become more private. It used to be fun to share who you are voting for when randomly called. Now sharing your true beliefs or opinions comes with a risk of mob reprisal.

In future, the future will be less predictable.

intopieces• 9 years ago

I don't think people live in fear of the online mobs. People post vile opinions all the time in the Facebook comments sections of new stories, with open profiles and what is ostensibly their real names.

I agree that online mobs have changed the game as far as speech consequences go, and I agree that most of those changes are for the worse. I do not see a way out, however, except to delete your social media and do not post things to the Internet that could possibly be linked back to you.

I don't really like the Web anymore.

stubish2• 9 years ago

No, people really do live in fear of online mobs. You don't hear from them because they can't participate due to their anxieties. Sure, these fears can be irrational and overblown but they are real to them.

quaunaut• 9 years ago

This article sounds woefully out of touch with the realities of the modern web.

So many of the arguments surrounding Damore talk as if this is in a vacuum, when frankly, it isn't. Much of the message it carried(and did little to discourage) came off as insulting to a group of people who commonly spend every day harassed just for what they are, anytime they have gone online.

The article talks a lot about the fear of an online mob shaming people for doing something, yet completely ignores that many of those in said mob are harassed daily based on their mere existence, and often their "shaming" comes from a place of just not wanting to be hurt again.

Is it necessarily the most effective means of accomplishing this? Certainly not, and I'm not about to claim to support what it becomes, but to call question to that and speak from such a "Nice problem to have" place to people suffering a much worse version of what you're talking about reeks of "Let them eat cake".

skybrian3• 9 years ago

While I agree that the article is exaggerated, consider that being harassed doesn't prevent one from harassing others. The people in a crowd may have very understandable reasons for their behavior, and yet it might be a good idea to avoid their attention.

alphaalpha1015• 9 years ago

So many of the arguments surrounding Damore talk as if this is in a vacuum, when frankly, it isn't. Much of the message it carried(and did little to discourage) came off as insulting to a group of people who commonly spend every day harassed just for what they are, anytime they have gone online.

That would, presumably, be women in software? Because as far as I can tell, the only people being regularly harassed on Twitter are people that don't think women should get special rights...

adjkant12• 9 years ago

I can't speak specifically to online, but this is in general:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/why-is-...

xxXXxx-3• 9 years ago

You can't be serious. I literally got harassed by a stranger yesterday.

roceasta3• 9 years ago

I think she's correct to compare our situation now to a primitive band of people. Marshall McLuhan famously called this the global village. Close communication is paradoxically causing the fragmentation and balkanisation of the internet. A process which nations like China (with its own internet) and companies like Google (by getting into politics) are accelerating.

The goal of political correctness, adopting Daniel Dennett's intentional stance, is to control thinking. Individuals who are able to resist are in some ways more isolated now than the old communist dissidents. They at least got moral support from each other in prison.

http://www.beyondeasy.net/2015/09/mcluhan-new-tribalism-equi... https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/intentional-stance

skybrian3• 9 years ago

I don't know what you mean? The Internet makes it easier than ever to find people who think the same way you do.

roceasta3• 9 years ago

It has been easier. However if present trends continue and new forms of 'badthink' emerge it may be necessary to start looking under stones in dark places. This (a) is hard to do, and (b) presupposes that you know others are out there. Which you may not, especially if you are young.

mantas• 9 years ago

Yes. And then to stick to echo chamber with those people. So, fragmentation and balkanisation.

busterarm16• 9 years ago

Which internet? The one we made or grew up with, or the one with ~4 gatekeepers that can very effectively keep you from participating in the vast majority of it for posting views they disagree with?

tomkat0789• 9 years ago

Where is dystopian literature when you need it? Anybody know some good sci-fi exploring these ideas?

Overtonwindow3• 9 years ago

Daemon by Daniel Suarez comes to mind

sfRattan• 9 years ago

Not literature per se, but two episodes of Black Mirror come to mind:

"Hated in the Nation." Online mobs lead to death in real life because of a scifi twist involving artificial swarms/hives of bees. I won't get into details so as not to spoil the ending, but it deals rather directly with the issues raised in the article.

"Nosedive." Less directly related, but hits the nail on the head with respect to the employment concerns raised by the article.

forkLding2• 9 years ago

Isnt really online mobs the sort of thing we signed up for when people started using email and then Facebook?

See Zuck's own words: https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10100933624710391

Theres really two sides to this, one where the positive is that information is no longer closed and flows freely and the other is that negative information about other people flows so fast and wide that it cannot be fathomed.

Its an interesting feeling because its really similar to dystopian notions such as the Giver where too much of a good thing easily turns bad.

chrisco255• 9 years ago

Due to some bug (or is it a feature?) in human psychology, we seem to be predisposed to spread controversial or negative press (tweets, posts, articles etc) more than good press.

forkLding2• 9 years ago

probably both bug and feature, humans havent stopped evolving yet

Meekro• 9 years ago

I couldn't care less if people say mean things about me on Twitter, and I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't lose any friends if I became the target of an online mob. My significant other certainly wouldn't think less of me.

The scary bit is employment. If a bunch of Twitter users wrote me mean emails, I'd spend about a minute creating a filter to drop them all and then go back to my life. If those emails went to my employer, on the other hand, there is a very real chance that they would determine that I'm more trouble than I'm worth.

This is a new and unique security hole in our social fabric, and it's one that didn't exist 20 years ago. I don't have a good solution, but this will keep getting worse until we find one.

ZenoArrow2• 9 years ago

"I don't have a good solution"

You do. You're already using it (on HN at least). Pseudo-anonymity. The chances of someone doxxing you over a small-scale Twitter dispute is slim.

benjamincburns4• 9 years ago

I don't disagree that anonymity offers protection against situations like this, but bear in mind that anonymity is very much a factor in the lack of civil discourse online. I'm not suggesting for a second that stripping anonymity is a solution to any of these problems, but personally I feel like I'm less likely to engage in the sort of behavior which might invite an angry mob while posting under my real name.

busterarm16• 9 years ago

Have you been paying attention lately?

Doxxing has become the weapon of first resort, by all sides.

stubish2• 9 years ago

The article mentions the fear of exposure with emails being hacked. There are plenty of cases of people being 'outed', which is the chilling factor involved here. People don't trust their tools so can't use them to express their opinions. They lose their voice and the ability to challenge conventional thinking.

busterarm16• 9 years ago

I lost a great many friends just because I don't think it's okay to punch people. Good riddance honestly.

I've always tended to travel ahead of or away from the herds, but socially it's become pretty costly in the last few years.

This has been growing over a long time and is honestly pretty scary when I consider what this could turn into down the road. I'm doing my best to combat this by sticking up for what I believe in out in the open and I hope others do too.

ycombinete• 9 years ago

You didn't think it was okay to punch Richard Spencer, I assume?

adjkant12• 9 years ago

I lost a great many friends just because I don't think it's okay to punch people. Good riddance honestly.

I doubt you lost the friends for that. You lost friends likely because of the beliefs that you supported with this. While people can be pretty unreasonable, I would be cautious to paint them even more so. It's only going to strengthen any divide on issues that likely caused you to lose the friends.

Another part is the context of the argument. I'm pretty against punching people too. I'm not going to bring up that argument for Richard Spencer because I don't think people punching actual Nazi's is a big problem compared to the many others I support. What issues you choose to be outspoken about is a statement in itself.

Edit: This is all context based. See OP's thread below for specifics.

thaumasiotes• 9 years ago

This is a new and unique security hole in our social fabric, and it's one that didn't exist 20 years ago.

The 1935 Japanese novel Musashi, set in the seventeenth century, depicts the protagonist losing a job offer because of a one-woman public smear campaign consisting entirely of lies.

This may be more of a problem now than it was then, but it's certainly not new or unique.

matt407712• 9 years ago

This is a new and unique security hole in our social fabric, and it's one that didn't exist 20 years ago.

McCarthy is seriously annoyed that after being vilified, he's now being forgotten :)

(Note that there is a difference, because McCarthy was acting in his capacity as an elected Senator; And that it wasn't even the blacklisting of communists that people objected to, but the frequently fraudulent prosecution he initiated)

arca_vorago• 9 years ago

Personally I think the failing fourth estate has particularly enlarged this problem, since by not correctly performing their duty of informing the citizenry they instead fan flames for the clicks with halfassed writing lacking what used to be first year journalistic integrity.

guildwriter10• 9 years ago

I think it's worth saying that the fourth estate is also falling prey to the changing economic landscape of the times. It's not like the old days anymore where access to publishing tools was heavily gated. Everyone fights for eyeballs now. Everyone fights to be first.

The growing result is that we're seeing more and more news organizations gravitating towards providing a specific kind of narrative tailored to their target audience. People in general don't want to have their views challenged. That approach is tiring as you have to fight through your own cognitive dissonance each time. Rather, they want to hear what they believe to be already true. This is why Twitter and other social media companies drive us towards echo chambers. It's how they keep people coming back, and thus make themselves more appealing to advertisers.

It's easy to talk about the duty of the fourth estate, but writing a well balanced narrative does not pay the bills these days.

skybrian3• 9 years ago

These days, things often happen on social networks before the press starts writing about them. Can you really blame the news media when they're getting routed around? Many big controversies would happen without them.

ben_jones• 9 years ago

I mean historically speaking this is endemic of human nature. Revenge mobs today in Pakistan, lynching mobs in the US for over a century, ancient Rome, Greece, the 30s in Germany, regular riots against lenders in every ancient civilization. This is nothing new - but technology is undeniably aiding a different form of it. We need to address both technology's impact and how it seems to be rooted in our culture.

rasengan0• 9 years ago

How does the signal spread across the network?

What are the critical nodes (influencers) to disseminate the mob message?

This would be an interesting big data social science experiment to see how mob fire propagates.

And the data sets? https://thenewinquiry.com/taxonomy-of-humans-according-to-tw...

Disclaimer: I am not part of the Dalai Lama clique.

adjkant12• 9 years ago

The online mob fear is the result here. The source is people judging others by their morals (as people have for some time) and those shifting morals. It always goes back to that, which is what is causing the increasing divide in the US that then results in the growing power in these mobs.

The problem with that is that all of these arguments are clearly colored by what moral side the author is on. The author focused on Damore, but didn't mention the dozens of Google employees harassed and sent death threats online for being against his memo. The article is clearly coming from the perspective of conservative thoughts being reprimanded online, but lightly tries to hide behind the guise of generality. The "fear" is not felt on all sides really.

The level of inconsistency is another source of the divide on both sides. I think people need to be more willing to follow logic they use for their own beliefs and apply it to other issues and perspectives.

Edit: Not just follow the logic, but speak out about the issues in the same way. When someone uses logic X for issue Y and speaks out about it, but fails to speak out against issue Z when X is also applicable is a huge problem. It's usually one of the easiest ways to see through someone's beliefs when they try to be "objective". It's often even more obvious when Y is a much smaller issue in scope than Z. If you believe in logic X, how much you advocate/support each issue should be in proportion to the size of their scopes when X applies to both.

flukus4• 9 years ago

The author focused on Damore, but didn't mention the dozens of Google employees harassed and sent death threats online for being against his memo.

I think you might be doing what you're criticizing here. Damore and his supporters are likely getting just as many death threats and harassment, the "progressives" generally dish out just as much, it even get's tolerated at by the likes of twitter. The "conservative" side just doesn't make a big deal out of it.

adjkant12• 9 years ago

I wasn't aware of that - the ones I am mentioning are the ones who had their profiles directly posted in a targeted harassment attack. As far as I know, that hasn't happened in the opposite direction to be fair.

mychael• 9 years ago

Someone should let the members of these mobs know that they are not actually liberal or progressive. For example, they appear to prefer mob justice instead of due process; ideological blacklists instead of tolerance; and censorship instead of freedom of expression. The bedrock principles of a liberal society appear to be missing from their world view.

busterarm16• 9 years ago

To those of us who've been paying attention, those principles always have been missing from a large percentage of people.

gasof4• 9 years ago

It seems comfortable to be a fascist, your moral principles are simple and your path forward, too.

I wonder if the health upsides of having simpler and easier to follow moral principles, would outweigh the downsides of being offended and angry all the time.

I sure hope I won't have to find out. It's a privilege to be a non-partisan, although perhaps I can't quite say I am, because I despise communism even more than I despise fascism. The intellectual dishonesty with which mainstream (which is to say, leftist) media praise communism and attack Nazism is revolting.

matt407712• 9 years ago

Yeah, but where were you when an actual angry mob, with actual semi-automatic weapons was standing outside a synagogue, yelling violent threats at the congregation inside? Because it appears as if freedom of religion is also one of those bedrock principles, and at least to me, these weapons looked a lot more dangerous than Twitter. Plus, you know: they did actually kill someone.

(http://www.newsweek.com/charlottesville-police-refused-prote...)

js87• 9 years ago

Yes, that's dangerous and threat. Is there anybody questioning that?

I don't understand your contention here. You seem to complain that people do not spend more time discussing obvious thing (mob justice offline) rather than non-obvious thing (mob justice online). I think the reason for that is obvious. Or maybe you just want a "collective outrage" instead of discussion?

js87• 9 years ago

They are also not left, as many claim. To be on the left, you should care about (social and economic) equality of people in general, not just in particular social group.

flukus4• 9 years ago

Remember all the talk of "racist rednecks in flyover country" after the Trump election and "uneducated small Britain in rural towns" after brexit? To me that crystallized the utter contempt they have for the blue collar working class, not something you'd get out of the real left.

js87• 9 years ago

I don't think any protections are needed. People just need to stop participating in those "online mobs" and not take them seriously.

It's the same tactic that needs to be employed against terrorists. The more seriously you take them, the bigger threat they are.

The people who fired Damore are the problem. They escalated the conflict. They are the ones who should have known better and not get involved in mob justice.

curtisblaine4• 9 years ago

Everyone is. A company will always fire the troublemaker, because it's a PR nightmare if they don't.

js87• 9 years ago

Everyone is.

I think that sentence is missing a word that turns it into a point you wanted to make.

because it's a PR nightmare if they don't

Why it should be a PR nightmare? Why cannot his bosses say, we are not doing vigilante justice here, and refuse to yield to "angry mob"? It seems to me like a morally better position to take.

Compare this to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_carto...

lurrr6• 9 years ago

I will probably be down-voted to hell for this, but here's my 2c.

This is the result of a PC culture. It has made it impossible to have an open and honest discussion about anything. It is easier to just label someone a racist, sexist, or other "buzzwords", than to strengthen your argument. Where are the times when we fought ideas, not people?

From my observation the kind of people doing things like this are the ones losing the intellectual argument. If you KNOW someone is wrong, why not debate them? Why go after them personally?

I wrote this in a rush, I apologize for any mistakes or inconsistencies.

matt407712• 9 years ago

From my observation the kind of people doing things like this are the ones losing the intellectual argument.

So you're saying that, in your opinion, the KKK and those guys with the swastika face-tattoos are winning the "intellectual argument"?

Because that's literally what you're saying. Unless you're trying to say that this has been a learning experience; And that maybe there are instances where after, say, fighting a World War over the topic, it no longer needs further intellectual debate?

DarkKomunalec2• 9 years ago

the KKK and those guys with the swastika face-tattoos

They, and the violent parts of anti-fa, are not the only groups.

guildwriter10• 9 years ago

People not being able to talk to one another is definitely a big part of it. Another thing to think about is how much the mediums of communication have changed since the PC era began.

I don't think people appreciate just how much communicating in a specific format begins to change the way you think and perceive the world. If you talk frequently in a medium limited to 140 characters, that will affect the way you think and set up communication. Same goes with pictures, or only video. The means by which we interact and shape the world also shape us at the same time. Are we that surprised then that an outrage and drama driven culture emerge from tools that are driven by instant emotional reactions?

Another thing to think about. With everyone having access to the ability to mass produce and distribute content to the world, what you consume begins to matter more and more. If all you want to eat is mental junk food, then you have all the mental junk food you could ever want for eternity. No one is going to stop you. No one at the internet companies want to stop you. People have never had to watch for this sort of thing before. Are we surprised that people binge on content that strengthens their world view and neglect views that challenge their own? There is no way a balanced view of the world can survive when people don't think about what they spend their time consuming and adjust.

There is a lot more going on. It's a multi-system problem that feeds into itself and other systems at the same time.

lurrr6• 9 years ago

People have always felt threatened by world views different from their own, our history shows exactly that. Being constrained by the communication medium is not an excuse, consuming "bad" content is not an excuse, nor is it the problem. In my opinion the problem is caused by pampering these people and giving in to their demands just to shut them up, like we do with children. In both cases the result is disastrous.

Are we going to sacrifice the teachings of the enlightenment at the alter of political correctness? Are we going to remain silent just because reality is uncomfortable?

It is my belief that these people are a minority. They are just very loud.

matt407712• 9 years ago

"PC culture" is nothing new. In fact it's as old as humanity, and arguably even extends to other species.

Opinions, and speech, have power. Otherwise there wouldn't be a point in engaging in it. "Having power" is synonymous with the ability to cause harm. Therefore, some speech is harmful.

When someone spreads opinions that someone else considers dangerous, a deeply human mechanism kicks in: criticising/shaming/isolating.

These aren't new mechanisms. Beginning with the first species that formed groups of cooperation, i.e. societies, there was a need to establish and defend group norms. Today, the harshest mechanisms to correct people who behave in ways that are considered harmful are criminal laws. But long before we get to the level of crime, each one of us uses a repertoire of behaviours meant to inform you of your transgressions, and to put the perceived cost of them on you.

This starts with your father's raised eyebrow when you're interrupting your sister (again!). It's the teacher calling you out for being lazy. And it's the teammates not talking to you after you lost them the match.

These mechanisms escalate along with the perceived harm. It starts with subtle hints that you should work more diligently, and only when such attempts fail, it escalates to direct appeals, or even the loss of your job.

Political opinions aren't somehow exempt from the judgement by others. If there's a real danger that a reasonable employer will fire you for you political opinion, don't ask "who will be targeted next?". Ask just how far from the pack have you strayed?

guildwriter10• 9 years ago

These mechanisms escalate along with the perceived harm. It starts with subtle hints that you should work more diligently, and only when such attempts fail, it escalates to direct appeals, or even the loss of your job.
Political opinions aren't somehow exempt from the judgement by others. If there's a real danger that a reasonable employer will fire you for you political opinion, don't ask "who will be targeted next?". Ask just how far from the pack have you strayed?

Are you suggesting that the majority is always correct in what it deems is worthy of punishment?

lurrr6• 9 years ago

Political opinions aren't somehow exempt from the judgement by others

I agree. Nothing and no one is exempt from judgement or criticism. This is exactly what some people seem to refuse to understand.

Opinions, and speech, have power Nonsense. People have power.
Therefore, some speech is harmful

We are past the inquisition. Word's don't hurt, they don't kill, they don't destroy lives. People do that. There is the argument that they can encourage you to do all these things, but does it really happen outside an "echo chamber"? Throughout history this happened only when conflicting opinions weren't allowed.

In the free market of ideas the bad ideas will lose and the good ones will win. It is inevitable that the best "product" wins. These people know it, that is why they don't allow others to voice conflicting opinions. They will lose. The only sane and healthy way to fight what you called "harmful speech" (i.e. the kind that encourages violence and/or discrimination) is through debate. If we silence people and destroy their lives are we really better?

js87• 9 years ago

When someone spreads opinions that someone else considers dangerous, a deeply human mechanism kicks in: criticising/shaming/isolating.

Yes. But it's not the way to resolve interpersonal issues in a progressive society.

Do you personally condone this mechanism? (By the way, this bothers me. I sometimes hear an argument in the form: "be careful saying that, otherwise <unspecified people> will come after you, because it's human nature". Often it feels like a subtle warning, where <unspecified people> include the speaker, but without him saying it directly. For example, someone says "we should prevent immigrants coming to the country, because it will stir up racist sentiment"; without explicitly rejecting or affirming their racist beliefs.)

The way to do it properly is to have a rational discussion about why are the opinions in question considered dangerous by someone. Stop and think, where is the danger? And together, look into the merits of that claim. And maybe decide democratically about the best way to proceed.

EliRivers3• 9 years ago

There is always PC, and always has been PC. It used to be PC, for example, that women should stay at home and not trouble their minds with worldy affairs.

If it was broadly unacceptable to advocate that women should be socially equal, we'd have online mobs chasing down people who dared to suggest that. The current flavour of acceptable thought may change over time; the problem isn't the flavour, it's the mobs.

lurrr6• 9 years ago

There is a difference between political correctness and culture.

Political correctness is just a fancy way of saying: "You can't say that because <I> find it offensive!".

The mob isn't the problem, letting them run free is.

benjamincburns4• 9 years ago

If you KNOW someone is wrong, why not debate them? Why go after them personally?

Alternatively, just let them be wrong.

lurrr6• 9 years ago

Absolutely. I was trying to say that silencing someone just because they have an opinion which you disagree with is not they way to approach things.

zaptheimpaler2• 9 years ago

Duty calls... https://xkcd.com/386/

archagon• 9 years ago

What's the point of railing against "PC culture", though? There's no leadership; it's not centralized. From what I can see, "PC culture" and related/contrary forces are an emergent consequence of the Internet a) giving marginalized groups a loud collective voice, b) granting individuals the power of global publication, c) enabling echo chambers that reinforce and concentrate disparate opinions, etc.

It's neither good nor bad; it just is, and we must collectively learn to navigate these new waters. Parts will suck, parts will leave us better off as a society. I think it's an inevitable consequence of our exponentially increased global connectivity. You can't really stop it.

Personally, I've found that the best way to deal with difficult topics is to just not discuss them online. Those kinds of conversations don't really work when you can't have interruptions or interludes, can't react to your companions' body language, can't experience genuine empathy and pain -- can't even sense that there's a living, breathing creature on the other end of the line. On the internet, everything is a manifesto. In the real world, ideas are ephemeral and flexible.

"If you KNOW someone is wrong, why not debate them?"

To answer your question, you can read Kathy Sierra's article[1] on her interaction with gamergate. Basically, it's because there's no right answer and the questions never ever end. It's railing against a tidal wave of identical ideas, and the only apparent solution is to join an equally powerful wave heading in the opposite direction.

[1] http://seriouspony.com/trouble-at-the-koolaid-point/

elihu• 9 years ago

I think one of the backstops that would ordinarily prevent online mobs getting out of hand is good journalism. In the case of James Damore, I think there was a lot of shoddy journalism going on due to some combination of laziness, a desire to stir up controversy to drive ad views, a desire not to present complex ideas that readers might find uncomfortable, and willfully misunderstanding a point of view that's unpopular.

I'm inclined to put most of the blame on the rise of clickbait journalism. Explaining all sides of an issue takes effort, but feeding people enough information to make them angry while allowing them to fill in the details according to their own imagination is easy and cheap.

matt407712• 9 years ago

Yeah, this was really all about ethics in google journalism.

Or, alternatively, you just happen to be among the people in the manosphere that pretend the last 20 years didn't happen. Because otherwise there would have been a minimum of engagement with the actual argument, namely that some (alleged) statistical difference between the genders just isn't relevant, it's only confusing what is with what ought to be.

guildwriter10• 9 years ago

If clickbait journalism deserves most of the blame, how much responsibility do engineers bear for creating a world where responsible journalism struggles to survive financially? Or do we shrug our shoulders and say that this is the cost of a world where information should be free?

Khaine• 9 years ago

We use to live in fear of tyranny of the majority. The internet is so large that it can magnify extreme views of the minority, such that these views can rapidly have such large impact on people.

This happens on twitter where someone says something and then it gets signal boosted such that an online mob harasses, threatens and in some cases ruins livelihoods (the prototypical case is Justine Sacco)[1]

[1] http://www.salon.com/2013/12/23/justine_saccos_aftermath_the...

curtisblaine4• 9 years ago

We actually do live in fear of the mobs, and in the future I foresee more anonymous / distributed content on the Internet and more services / projects facilitating the publication of such a content (https://ipfs.io/, https://datproject.org/, http://telegra.ph/).

What if Damore circulated his memo anonymously an untraceably? He would still be at Google's. Just wait until anyone gets the hint. You can't really just shut people up :)

peter_retief4• 9 years ago

The overriding conclusion is that people online have the intelligence of a squirrel and we are fast approaching a Global Cargo Cult mentality

speby• 9 years ago

I have absolutely changed my behavior with regards to how public I decide to voice a view or opinion. Most of the time, it isn't that I hold some view that I know to be unpopular but rather it isn't always even clear to me which "thing" could cause reprisal from some zombie mob hungry minority that catches wind of something and decides a couple sentences voiced about something is now deemed worthy of crucifixion.

But perhaps more sinister than the mob responding to something said online is that as the moral landscape continues to shift (as it has since... forever) what you have said online a long time ago can ALSO come back to haunt you, even if at the time you said it was considered perfectly acceptable or normal or whatever.

This is why, I think, that social media in general is not really something I find very enjoyable to participate in. As they say, the internet never forgets.

We Live in Fear of the Online Mobs

Related Stories