This is a thread inspired by Jon Ronson's new non-fiction book, "So You've Been Publicly Shamed." Here's a review of the book in the NYT which I recommend.
In this book, Ronson observes people who are guilty of real or perceived transgressions against groups and subcultures online, and he recounts the responses that are unleashed upon those people in retaliation. I would consider this book to be a study in empathy - or the lack thereof - with respect to online communication.
This thread might be a good place to discuss mob justice in the Internet era, and how faceless crowds can - without any real intent on the part of any individual - enact brutal penalties upon people for real and perceived missteps.
I feel weird about using talking about what people "deserve" in general, good or bad. But the reality is that digital public spaces are both more public and more anonymous than the physical public spaces people have made in the past, and there's a lot of collateral damage while the social rules of these new spaces sort themselves out.
People are both more free to say whatever they want with the possibility of little to no consequence than in the past, and more likely to face consequences of much greater scale than in the past.
Yeah, the private/public thing is part of this. Most of the time, the things we say online are only seen by a handful of people. But that's just because of our obscurity. This discussion right here is in a public forum and anyone can read it. And the newer waves of social media heavily skew towards real names. Your Facebook and Twitter posts are only as private as your privacy settings allow. Or Facebook's bugs.
As I said in the other thread, I second the recommendation of the book -- as with all of Jon Ronson's books, his unique investigative and storytelling style provide an interesting perspective on a tough subject.
(I also recommend considering the audiobook -- again, as with all his other books, hearing him actually tell the story really adds a lot to it.)
Thanks for the heads up on this book. I'll definitely check it out. I don't like where we're going as a culture online and I think it's often really destructive, needlessly so.
This episode of Reply All has an interview with Ronson as well as him telling the story of Lindsey Stone, who lost her job after posting a picture of a stupid joke she made at Arlington National Cemetery. Worth a listen. My reaction is, "There but the grace of God..." I'm now considering reading the entire book.
For a very different perspective, here's a non-fiction Twine piece about the appropriate response when you're the one called out So You've Been Called Out. It's not about mass-shaming dogpiling, but it is about navigating the experience of being called out for something you said.
I think part of the puzzle is that asking what someone 'deserves' means spending time and energy on that person's feelings and intent as opposed to time and energy spent fighting for the cause.
edit:
For a very different perspective, here's a non-fiction Twine piece about the appropriate response when you're the one called out So You've Been Called Out. It's not about mass-shaming dogpiling, but it is about navigating the experience of being called out for something you said.
However, we're not dealing with a debate or an academic argument, here. We're dealing with a real person's feelings. And even if those feelings don't make sense to you — and this goes especially if you are well educated — they are still valid and true.
One of the things I've come to realize is that a lot of people use the language of debate and academic argument, will gladly accept a debate or academic argument if it goes their way, but are actually asking you to deal with their feelings. Basically, don't trust people to not be passive-agressive.
The book sounds interesting - will need to check it out. As far as Justine Sacco and the woman at Arlington Cemetery go, I have what my drill sergeant used to say "a little bit of sympathy, but zero pity." Sacco wasn't some random yokel who says something stupid when a mic gets shoved in her face. She was a PR professional for a major corporation and should have known better. The woman at Arlington from what I understand was not on vacation but acting like an idiot while chaperoning students. That's incredibly unprofessional in both cases, and IMHO both women deserved to lose their jobs. They of course didn't deserve to be harassed for years afterwards or receive death and rape threats.
I find the whole evolution of internet culture worrisome because I know I made a lot of mistake on message boards back in the days before google was a glimmer (and I actually still remember searching up archives of things with Alta Vista...).
I had drama the way only a teenager can have drama and then the boards disappeared and the forums folded up into internet memories for the most part and the consequences only live on in my horrified brain. Nothing I said was derogatory to anyone, but it was certainly 100% hindsight stupid and mostly a lot of argumentative illogic and verbal flailing.
That someone could make a mistake and that mistake can follow them onto social media where potentially many thousands of people could then hammer them into the ground for it... scares me a bit. I only missed building my own infamy by half a generation of technological evolution.
Funny this thread popped up today. I heard a quote from Thurgood Marshall this past week, and paraphrasing it went along the lines of:
We should not let rage be the guiding force of justice
...or something like that.
Meh. I was totally ok with the internet mob shutting down that homophobic pizzeria in Indiana, so I don't see this as always being a concern. In Sacco's case, I don't think her misstep will dictate the rest of her life, because most people are willing to give second chances to repentent individuals.
Honestly, I can't think of many 'online mob attacks' in general that I didn't sympathize with.
But that aside, even if I wasn't ok with the general outcome of these situations, I don't see what can be done about this sort of thing. When a million individuals see something that outrages them, causing them to react as a group, how do you control it? Track them all down and order sensitivity training or fines for them? I don't think so.
You can't control online mobs. All you can do is try to avoid inciting them.
You can't control online mobs. All you can do is try to avoid inciting them.
Which runs the risk of dictating what can and can't be said publicly. Of course, one could argue that maybe that's the point. If you treat Twitter or Facebook like a public press release about yourself and not a place to hangout with friends then it makes these decisions a lot easier. Never go on Twitter and Facebook unless what you're saying is really really safe and / or you're willing to deal with the consequences.
I get disturbed when the mob agrees with me.
I mean, I'm sometimes swept up into the mob mentality in the heat of the moment, but when things calm down and I can take a closer look I'm often finding that I end up backing away. It's why I seldom retweet angry things, or reshare them on Facebook; there's been too many times in the past when I look into it deeper and discover that the original outrage is somewhere between misguided and outright lies.
And even if its true, the people most affected are seldom the hyper-privileged celebrities that have the resources to weather an outrage storm (and even they can get destroyed by it). If it's that bad for the somewhat privileged, it's clearly much worse for the less privileged.
Seems like this is an inevitable by-product of giving everyone the world's biggest megaphone. If you say stupid sh*t in a way that tens of millions of people can hear, you run the risk of pissing off tens of millions of people.
So, basically, what DS said:
Never go on Twitter and Facebook unless what you're saying is really really safe and / or you're willing to deal with the consequences.
I'm reasonably careful about my Facebook presence and it tends to be inoffensive comedy - F'rinstance, my latest post is about flying a micro-quadcopter into my nipple. Ain't no-one going to be firing me over that.
Of course, we're all having this conversation in just as accessible a format as Twitter, just one that currently has fewer eyes on it.
That makes it less accessible. Twitter's claim to fame is that it's a megaphone. Hell, it's the biggest billboard in the world. It's louder than a megaphone. It's high time people started seeing that.
Of course, we're all having this conversation in just as accessible a format as Twitter, just one that currently has fewer eyes on it.
I think about this constantly which is why I probably have less than 100 posts here in nearly half a decade of reading all these forums.
Jonman wrote:Of course, we're all having this conversation in just as accessible a format as Twitter, just one that currently has fewer eyes on it.
I think about this constantly which is why I probably have less than 100 posts here in nearly half a decade of reading all these forums.
And one that offers a larger degree of anonymity, as per the "wayback days" such a those of which Duchess speaks.
What I find interesting is that Google and Facebook seem to be hemming people in to their real identities; maybe de-anonymizing (much of) the Internet is a good thing.
Jonman wrote:Of course, we're all having this conversation in just as accessible a format as Twitter, just one that currently has fewer eyes on it.
I think about this constantly which is why I probably have less than 100 posts here in nearly half a decade of reading all these forums.
I think about it a lot too. To the point where the fact that I post pretty personal stuff here is basically me trusting the community in ways I trust few places on this earth. So I guess I went the other direction.
I never say that, but it's true. There's stuff I posted in my first few years here that I would love to delete. Things I'd like to unsay or take back. In the end I just hope that we continue to lay low and that I never do an employee profile or anything so high profile as to make some of the dumb things I've said too public.
Duchess wrote:Jonman wrote:Of course, we're all having this conversation in just as accessible a format as Twitter, just one that currently has fewer eyes on it.
I think about this constantly which is why I probably have less than 100 posts here in nearly half a decade of reading all these forums.
And one that offers a larger degree of anonymity, as per the "wayback days" such a those of which Duchess speaks.
What I find interesting is that Google and Facebook seem to be hemming people in to their real identities; maybe de-anonymizing (much of) the Internet is a good thing.
Is it? People have changed here on GWJ. By that I mean that I've witnessed and experienced personal growth as a human. I've learned about trans issues and gender issues and things I didn't realize were offensive. Things I said carelessly or tropes that slid right by my eyeballs and now I understand how devastating they can be. The ability to make mistakes, own up to them and try and be a better person is what you get to do in real life with friends and family. Having a diverse place where you can work out those kinks online is really special.
H.P. Lovesauce wrote:And one that offers a larger degree of anonymity, as per the "wayback days" such a those of which Duchess speaks.
What I find interesting is that Google and Facebook seem to be hemming people in to their real identities; maybe de-anonymizing (much of) the Internet is a good thing.
Is it? People have changed here on GWJ. By that I mean that I've witnessed and experienced personal growth as a human. I've learned about trans issues and gender issues and things I didn't realize were offensive. Things I said carelessly or tropes that slid right by my eyeballs and now I understand how devastating they can be. The ability to make mistakes, own up to them and try and be a better person is what you get to do in real life with friends and family. Having a diverse place where you can work out those kinks online is really special.
Maybe you're both trying to say this place is the best of both worlds? Or times, technically?
In the end I just hope that we continue to lay low and that I never do an employee profile or anything so high profile as to make some of the dumb things I've said too public.
There's an elementary truth in here - we all say dumb stuff, with varying degrees of amplitude and frequency .
Honestly, I can't think of many 'online mob attacks' in general that I didn't sympathize with.
Remember, this doesn't just include progressive mobs. It includes 4chan. It includes the targeting of the woman who posted complaining about a tech-conference dongle joke and lost her job, and the men she tweeted about that lost their jobs. It includes the attacks on Phil Fish. It includes the reason why Notch sold Mojang, because he was tired of the abuse he got online. I have a perception that the specific label of "call out culture" tends to get attached to progressive-leaning-callouts, but it doesn't really stop there.
In the end I just hope that we continue to lay low and that I never do an employee profile or anything so high profile as to make some of the dumb things I've said too public.
Well, at least that's one benefit of the user-post-search results being obtuse.
What I find interesting is that Google and Facebook seem to be hemming people in to their real identities; maybe de-anonymizing (much of) the Internet is a good thing.
I've been convinced for a while that the Penny Arcade "Greater Internet Dickwad Theory" is critically flawed as a reason to mandate anonymity. After all, being publicly known hasn't stopped either of the Penny Arcade guys from being dickwads on occasion.
Ronson's book focuses primarily on "sympathetic" mobs - mobs that are made up of well meaning people who appear to have valid criticisms.
That's a useful distinction. There's probably some disagreement about what counts as "sympathetic" as it shades into partisan issues, but as a broad category it gives us a way of talking about it.
I wonder, though, how much of it is because of conflicts over what the sympathetic thing is? That is, humans have a propensity to use collective shame against people who don't conform to the social norms. The exact definition of those norms changes by time and place. Rapid upheaval in norms plus the capability to globally shame someone seems like a possible cause. I assume Ronson at least touches on this in the book.
I've done and said a lot of things I'm ashamed of. I grew up after them and it would really suck to have the person I was years ago define who I am now. We are different people essentially.
I've done and said a lot of things I'm ashamed of. I grew up after them and it would really suck to have the person I was years ago define who I am now. We are different people essentially.
Lotta people here hate me for stuff I said years ago. I take responsibility for that and apologize when those topics come up. Past mistakes do define you - as do your response to them.
BoogtehWoog wrote:I've done and said a lot of things I'm ashamed of. I grew up after them and it would really suck to have the person I was years ago define who I am now. We are different people essentially.
Lotta people here hate me for stuff I said years ago. I take responsibility for that and apologize when those topics come up. Past mistakes do define you - as do your response to them.
Pretty much.
And despite the fact that the Internet is forever, it is also true that folks tend to have pretty short memories about stuff as long as you are cool about acknowledging and disavowing stuff that isn't you anymore.
I used to write compilers for push polls for conservative astroturf groups. I am not that person anymore.
I really, really like this: http://rembertbrowne.tumblr.com/post...
Being right online used to be the top priority, which in itself is terrible. But we’ve evolved well past that. Now it’s people seeing you be right. Or, more accurately, publicly identifying those who have been deemed “in the wrong.” The days of Twitter being a masturbatory vehicle simply to say anything that’s on your mind are long gone. Now it’s a never-ending process of climbing a moral and intellectual ladder–a ladder that doesn’t really exist–by way of constantly figuring out which side of history on each argument you should stand on, as quickly and loudly as possible, all in the name of publicly disassociating yourself from the wrongs while thirstily cozying up to the rights.
I really, really like this: http://rembertbrowne.tumblr.com/post...
Being right online used to be the top priority, which in itself is terrible. But we’ve evolved well past that. Now it’s people seeing you be right. Or, more accurately, publicly identifying those who have been deemed “in the wrong.” The days of Twitter being a masturbatory vehicle simply to say anything that’s on your mind are long gone. Now it’s a never-ending process of climbing a moral and intellectual ladder–a ladder that doesn’t really exist–by way of constantly figuring out which side of history on each argument you should stand on, as quickly and loudly as possible, all in the name of publicly disassociating yourself from the wrongs while thirstily cozying up to the rights.
Wow. Yes. This.
I've heard Rembert talk through something similar on podcasts on Grantland, so I assumed this was old. It looks like it was posted yesterday, though. I wonder what prompted it.
Pages