
Internet mob justice can easily destroy innocent lives (2019) - apsec112
https://observer.com/2019/05/internet-mob-justice-innocent-lives/
======
Thorentis
Humans love mobs. It makes them feel empowered, and gives them greater
"authority" than they would otherwise have. We have seen mobs throughout human
history cause all sorts of horrible incidents. But the difference between a
physical mob and an internet mob, is that in a physical mob you can be
identified, you are still risking some of your own safety, and you can usually
immediately see the consequences of your own actions.

In an internet mob you can remain anonymous, you don't need to actually carry
out any of the threats you make (others may do it for you, eg calling for
somebody to be fired), and you aren't risk any of your own reputation.

I absolutely loath seeing mainstream media write about what happens on
twitter/social media. It magnifies the mob far beyond reason. "Twttier in an
outrage", "Internet blows up" it's just insane. Not only does it give the
impression that vast majority of users on a platform are on the same side
(they're not), it gives them pseudo-credibility. And unfortunately, the next
step is for corporations to take them seriously.

The more I see these stories and see how social media has shaped and is
shaping the 21st century, the more I wish it was never created. It was fun at
first. But the dark side of humanity has been given a power it should never
have had.

~~~
Polylactic_acid
Companies already take them seriously to avoid the shit storm that comes
after. See the VS code "santa gate" where microsoft removed the santa hat on
christmas because one person opened a issue saying the santa hat was as
offensive as a swastika to them.

~~~
TravHatesMe
Wow I was not aware of this. The original github issue:

> The Santa Hat on vscode insiders and pushing of religion is very offensive
> to me, additionally xmas has cost millions of Jews their lives over the
> centuries, yet even if that was not the case, pushing religious symbols as
> part of a product update is completely unacceptable. Please remove it
> immediately and make it your top priority. To me this is almost equally
> offensive as a swastika.
> [https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/issues/87268](https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/issues/87268)

I didn't know that Santa Claus was a religious symbol, I celebrate with Santa
and I do not affiliate with any religion. But the status quo is to accommodate
every single person. People believe they are entitled to it: "Make it your top
priority" \-- OK boss! There needs to be a balance. Complete stubbornness is
not good. Bending over to every single request, regardless of its merit, is
not good either.

~~~
mmm_grayons
As I recall, the guy said it was a troll. The PC Police are enough to make
people take shitposting seriously. Further examples include stuff like the
"okay sign" being a hate symbol.

~~~
kangnkodos
The user's first name was "Christian". He claimed to be Jewish. Most people
ignored this bit of cognitive dissonance, and joined the mob. People only hear
what they want to hear.

~~~
mmm_grayons
The guy's picture was also a random one from the internet. Quote from a reddit
post:

> The guy isn't real. A quick reverse image search would have shown this guy
> is also known as "David Shiffer" based in Norway, apparently a CEO of
> ServiceLayer, yet no mention of him anywhere else on the internet -
> including LinkedIn (strange for a CEO) and another profile of his linking to
> a dating site.

------
mholt
This happened locally just a few days ago. Protesters were blocking the street
at an intersection where a vehicle came to make a legal right turn. Viral cell
phone footage showed protestors surrounding the vehicle before the driver sped
through the crowd, running over several (but not killing any) individuals.
Everyone on social media condemned the driver, a gentleman in his 60's who was
just going home after running errands, for plowing through protesters
(ironically in a "white Excursion").

Turns out the driver was shot at the intersection -- twice -- and was injured
and was trying to escape with his life.

When the police released the factual statement, it received almost no social
media attention compared to the original (and false) accusations.

------
nikanj
This happened recently to someone who had the misfortune of riding the wrong
bike trail:
[https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52978880](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52978880)

He had posted a Strava ride of the trail on the 28th, 29th, and 1st. The
incident happened on the 30th. To internet detectives, this clearly meant he
committed the crime on the 30th, and then deleted that ride from Strava.

It's scary to see how the mob was able to take exonerating evidence (him not
riding on the 30th) and spin it to be a smoking gun: An innocent man would not
have hidden the ride in question. Nobody even considered the possibility that
he wasn't on the trail that day.

------
nordsieck
If people want to understand this phenomenon better, there is no better
reference I could recommend than Rory Miller's Meditations on Violence[1] -
specifically what he calls the "group monkey dance"[2].

The simplified explanation is this: the target of the attack by the group is
no longer a person, but merely a target. Group members demonstrate their
loyalty to the group by gradually escalating the violence they do to the
target.

___

1\. [http://amazon.com/dp/1594391181](http://amazon.com/dp/1594391181)

2\. [https://ymaa.com/articles/violence-
dynamics](https://ymaa.com/articles/violence-dynamics)

~~~
malexw
I would say that Jon Ronson's book "So You've Been Publicly Shamed" (mentioned
in the article), is also excellent. I would especially recommend it for anyone
building social media tech.

------
umvi
Technically, any justice administered by a mob is targetting innocents. At
least, it used to be that things like fair trials were a requirement to
establish guilt. Now is just seems like internet bullies can just bypass
democratic processes and do anything they want to shout down, browbeat, hound,
or destroy the people/companies they don't like. And they can get away with it
as long as it has a thin veneer of the current moral issue...

~~~
dx87
Pretty much. I've started seeing a lot of people saying "innocent until proven
guilty only applies to courts" as an excuse for mob justice. It's mostly the
same people who say "freedom of speech only applies to government censorship".

~~~
unethical_ban
I mean, those are both really important to remember - while society needs to
find its balance and have respectful, intelligent conversation about tough
issues, there is no obligation to give clearly bad people the benefit of the
doubt within the community, nor is there an obligation to give objectively
horrible people a social media platform with which to spread hate.

~~~
froasty
It never ceases to flabbergast me that American civics has failed so utterly,
for decades, to produce nominally functional adults that can somehow think
that "clearly bad" and "objectively horrible" are Real Things That Exist _and_
then say in the next breath, without a shred of self-awareness, things like
True Objectivity Doesn't Exist or All Things Are Political.

Is _everyone_ in America so ignorant that they don't know what happens when
informal social standards become justifications for political suppression
based on who the "public" and not the law deems to be "clearly bad" and
"objectively horrible" people? You get lynchings and pogroms. You get informal
show trials and massacres. You carve the stick that the next batch of self-
righteous authoritarians stick up their ass to justify being inhuman,
indecent, monsters.

I can already hear the response forming: "But we _know_ that these people
exist, are evil, and are harming people _now_! We have _evidence_!"

Yeah. That's what they _always_ say.

I could list every group targeted throughout by self-righteous authoritarians
through just Western history--Christians, Jews, Manicheans, heretics, lepers,
Catholics, Protestants, witches, blacks, anarchists, communists, thugs,
Muslims--and always find a justification that began with some variant of "But
we have _evidence_ that they were _Clearly Bad People_!"

All those other Devils were ridiculous, made-up nonsense. But not yours.
_Your_ Devil is real.

~~~
unethical_ban
So, you're bitching about my perception of "clearly bad". And you are correct!
I say "clearly bad" and also know that it is my perception. I think I am
right, and people who think "all atheists/jews/muslims are bad" are wrong. I
hope that my view is the zeitgeist, and theirs is not.

You take my position and move it forward ten slots toward authoritarianism,
without any evidence or defense of your position.

You say that "as soon as the public has a collective moral standard to which
they hold the community, you get lynchings". What the fuck? So, we should not
have any collective moral standard? We should not have some shared sense of
what is right and wrong?

My line, the line that keeps your nightmare from occurring, is very clear: We
can have our shared sense of right and wrong, and yes, even shun or be angry
at those who don't fit that standard - but those people are defended by the
law, and the law grants equal protection to all. Vigilante justice against
people is not permitted under the law, and violators will be prosecuted.

Before you tear up my analysis, please give an "affirmative" \- that is, give
a vision of society and government that fits your worldview without putting it
in terms of what I have written.

~~~
froasty
In the interest of good faith, here's my affirmative. In short, it can be
found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as adopted by the United
Nations.^0

Articles in particular:

2\. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this
Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex,
language, religion, _political or other opinion_ (emphasis mine), national or
social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction
shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international
status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be
independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of
sovereignty.

10\. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an
independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and
obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

11\. (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed
innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he
has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. (2) No one shall be held
guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not
constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time
when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one
that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

12\. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy,
family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.
Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference
or attacks.

18\. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;
this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom,
either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest
his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

19\. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right
includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive
and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of
frontiers.

29\. (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject
only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of
securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and
of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general
welfare in a democratic society.

Whether this dialogue can progress further depends on whether we can agree
that, despite having no official jurisdiction, a social media mob attacking an
individual constitutes being charged with a criminal and penal offense worthy
of legal protections as illuminated by the above. If you believe that it not
being formal prosecution that such protections don't extend to the accused,
then there's no point in progressing further and I reiterate my original post.

\---

0 [https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-
rights/](https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/)

~~~
unethical_ban
I'll have to chew on it for a while. I would imagine, not being a scholar in
it, that the UDHR applies more stringently to government action and use of
force, rather than to a group of people without use of force or detainment.

Your definition of "mob", "attack" both would need examples. In a real world
analogy: If someone on my street waves a Nazi flag and says God hates Fags,
and our entire community were to shun him, refuse to interact with him, or at
times, warn others of his beliefs - do you believe that is a violation of his
fundamental human rights? That no person can be shunned or disliked for their
beliefs?

~~~
froasty
> I'll have to chew on it for a while. I would imagine, not being a scholar in
> it, that the UDHR applies more stringently to government action and use of
> force, rather than to a group of people without use of force or detainment.

I want to be very clear that formal consideration of the UDHR by established
authorities is not my contention. If you wanted solely an affirmative vision
of an ideal society, then the UDHR is it.

> Your definition of "mob", "attack" both would need examples. In a real world
> analogy: If someone on my street waves a Nazi flag and says God hates Fags,
> and our entire community were to shun him, refuse to interact with him, or
> at times, warn others of his beliefs - do you believe that is a violation of
> his fundamental human rights? That no person can be shunned or disliked for
> their beliefs?

I'm going to elide some details from your hypothetical.

"If someone on my street [...] and [...], and our entire community were to
shun him, refuse to interact with him, or at times, warn others of [...] - do
you believe that is a violation of his fundamental human rights? That no
person can be shunned or disliked for [...]?"

If the elided details merely included his race for example, would you consider
that a violation of his fundamental human rights? If the elided details
included his colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion,
national or social origin, property, birth or other status, at what point does
that become a violation of fundamental human rights? To me, the question boils
down to this: is redlining a desirable and/or legal practice if the target is
a law-abiding citizen in good standing, despite all other possible non-
essential attributes?

From my perspective, the homophobic Nazi has done nothing unlawful or contrary
to the UDHR, if we can agree that imminent harm is the baseline for where
speech can infringe upon others' liberty. If we disagree that imminent harm is
the baseline for acceptable speech, then we need to figure out the exact
location of that disjuncture to continue.

As a further point, censorship, shunning, or suppression do not resolve the
underlying processes that led to the emergence of the supposed undesirable
element in the first place. If this element is a Nazi, it does not address
_why_ this person identifies as a Nazi, _how_ he came to be radicalized as a
Nazi, and what cultural or societal forces led to him falling through the
cracks of the social contract to begin with. Similarly with racists,
homophobes, antisemites, misogynists, and all other self-righteous
authoritarians of whatever political identity.

Censorship, shunning, and suppression in fact lead to the opposite--it ignores
their provenance, lets them grow in the dark, and tempers their own narratives
of persecution and conspiracy. If the goal is a harmonious society predicated
upon love, or at the very least brotherhood, this is not reached by
excommunicating people from the very possibility of de-radicalization, de-
militarization, and rapprochement.

To quote the Buddha:

"Hostilities aren’t stilled through hostility, regardless. Hostilities are
stilled through non-hostility: this, an unending truth."

------
mindfulplay
These industries are spurned by growth-hacking companies that receive a lot of
VC funding to do just that: prove out "user value" which is code for "get as
many users as possible".

Twitter, Reddit, FB, Instagram all thrive on mediocrity amplified by the
loudest voices. And then these investors and founders brag about user
engagement, customer acquisition, retention and such meaningless numbers. None
of it maps to user value. Because this drives advertisements to their sites.

Unless there companies actively reduce this nonsense, things will never
change.

~~~
bassman9000
In addition to that, they delegated moderation to users, and some platforms
even actively sought certain ideas while suppressing others, thus compounding
on the mob effect. Twitter is notoriously guilty of this (although not the
only one): wrongthink is actively patrolled, and reputations/jobs, (sometimes
even worse), are routinely destroyed.

------
frereubu
I think the dismissal here of the Jon Ronson piece is unwarranted, and if
anyone here hasn't heard about it I'd definitely read that in preference to
this post. I find it much more interesting when there are grey areas and
nuance in the story rather than completely innocent people being blindsided.
(And after hearing her story in full I'd argue that there the woman who told
the stupid joke is effectively innocent too, if rather naive). There's a
series of BBC podcasts with abridged versions of the stories in his book here:
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07hj31g](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07hj31g)

------
WalterBright
It can destroy guilty lives, too. I.e. the punishment can far outweigh the
crime.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
It reminds one of the story of the Dazexiang uprising.

There were army units ordered to report to another location. On the way there
they were delayed by flooding. The penalty for being late was death. This was
no different than the penalty for insurrection, so guess what they did then.

Proportionality is important.

~~~
dredmorbius
Leaving someone nothing to lose is dangerous.

------
dahfizz
I think the only solution here is strict enforcement of anti harrassment laws.
Sending threats, harrassing someone's employer, doxxing someone, etc, should
result in a permanent ban on the relevant platform and possibly jail time.

~~~
monocasa
Why is informing someone's employer that their behavior is so abhorrent it
makes you not want to associate with the employer anymore so bad as to be a
bannable offence?

~~~
belorn
Is the purpose to cause harm to the individual? That is the common question
behind anti harrassment laws. Even if a person has a legit grievance, intent
to cause physical or psychological harm is still illegal.

If it is difficult to separate that question for someone who has political
abhorrent views, imagine a neighbor who acts abhorrent. Their dog is barking
all the time, leaves dog shits on your lawn, their car is blocking you, they
play loud music late at night, and so on. Are you allowed to call their
employer and try get them fired for being an awful person? If the answer is no
because that would be harassment then the answer doesn't change when their
abhorrent behavior is political rather than being an abhorrent neighbor.

~~~
monocasa
I'd imagine if you called their employer to tell them your examples, the
employer would laugh in your face.

There's a difference between 'their dog barks too much' and 'they're marching
through the streets advocating for genocide'.

~~~
axaxs
I think you should find some better way to spend your time.

~~~
monocasa
I think you should constrain your comments to what fit in HN guidelines.

------
squarefoot
That's the reason why we should never ever ever ever give "power to the
people", but rather to enlightened few who would do their best to understand
common people needs and take decisions accordingly. Giving today power to the
people plain and simple means we'll have light poles holding hanged people at
every street by next week.

There's a wonderful quote by Henry Ford regarding innovation which says "If I
had asked people what they wanted, they would have replied faster horses". I
find it very appropriate in this context too. People would definitely know
there's something wrong somewhere, but only knowledgeable ones would find how
to act, where to act and how to do that without producing collateral damages.

~~~
kilroy_jones
And how does one determine this enlightened few and how do they get out into
power? It seems like you're advocating for what would quickly become an
aristocracy,

People can work together, but an effective system of organization needs to be
in place which allows for check and balances. The internet has bypassed many
of our former checks and balances, so it's time to rework things.

~~~
dcow
I don't think it's actually that hard to choose a set of benevolent caretakers
willing to understand the needs to the common folk especially if you divide
the aristocracy up into a few different branches and put checks and balances
on the power the aristocracy has between each branch and preserve a core set
of individual liberties upon which the aristocracy shall not tread. But we've
seen that fall apart so at this point I'm more interested in a Neo-monarchist
experiment myself.

~~~
jdbernard
Is the hierarchy in your hypothetical situation hereditary? Are there benefits
to being the caretakers that the rest of society doesn't share? Obviously
power is one by definition, what prevents the caretakers from beginning in
benevolence but then turning to selflessness?

~~~
jki275
Sounds a lot like feudalism, doesn’t it?

Elevating one group over another never ends well. And that includes our
current political system.

~~~
dcow
Yeah my comment is half a facetious metaphor—making fun of the current state
of affairs, and half serious in that pure popular rule has also proven to
scale poorly.

------
lettergram
I wrote about this here:

[https://austingwalters.com/on-committing-
suicide/](https://austingwalters.com/on-committing-suicide/)

Social media is effectively amplifying the smallest segment of society. An
extreme left and extreme right, neither of whom really represent the vast
majority of people. Worse, I don’t think companies or representatives realize
how few even a few thousand retweets really are...

Further exasperating the issue is the fact we deplatform people with opposing
opinions. Now Reddit is even removing people who upvote stories or comments
differ from their ideology.

It’s getting real scary. That’s why my post linked above is called “on
committing suicide”. It’s a dual meaning, I think the country is murdering
itself and I’m also risking my entire career to say so.

~~~
AlexMax
> Further exasperating the issue is the fact we deplatform people with
> opposing opinions. Now Reddit is even removing people who upvote stories or
> comments differ from their ideology.

What are the opposing opinions and the differing ideologies that you're
worried about being silenced?

~~~
dcow
It actually doesn't matter. "Opposing opinions and differing ideologies"
_must_ be protected regardless of what they are. It's pointless to cherry-
pick.

~~~
jeromegv
What if that ideology encourages violence against a certain class of people?
Must that be protected?

~~~
TheAdamAndChe
The trouble is that what is considered "violence" varies from person to
person, and from ideology to ideology.

------
njharman
That's inherent in the definition of "mob [in]justice". The mob is driven by
passion, not justice.

At worst, at the instigation of charismatic or influential people with
ulterior motive. At best, missguided by fear and other emotions. Never
overflowing with rational thought.

------
catalogia
> _He eventually got an apology from the woman, who wrote a retraction post
> (though the retraction post only got 1 /50th of the views of the original
> post)._

Social media websites should be able to do better than this. They have a
record of everybody who saw the original post; they should be able to ensure
everybody who saw the original also sees the retraction.

I'm sure they don't care though. Making people feel ashamed for participating
in a mob is probably bad for "engagement."

------
curation
Yes. The first 20 years of internet was a mob that kept me from ever
commenting and the misogyny I encountered - art videos stolen and shared on
boards, attacks on my work - shaped my behavior forever. I do not believe in
the concept "innocent lives" \- but without placing this discussion about
cancel culture in context we just reproduce unequal relationships of power. A
better framework would be to do what I had to do to cope - do the inner work.

~~~
neonate
I'd be interested to hear more about the inner work you had to do, if you'd
care to share.

~~~
curation
Sure. It's reading. (happy to send you a reading list if you let me know your
own aptitudes and interests as a point of entry ). It's learning that Western
culture structures the normal as a white monyed male and any perspective that
interrogates that is too 'political.' This space right here _is_ political,
even when you disavow it as so. In this space my experience of working in tech
as a woman - which shares many perhaps most of what you experience - but then
there are the things you cannot imagine. Ask specific questions. When I post
an article about a woman's experience on this site, a user flags it right
away. ( see my last post here ). The good news is, all of this is becoming
more and more normal. Otherwise I would not even bother here, as I have lurked
for over a decade getting what I needed here and trying not to be to
demoralized by the shape of content and the common fantasy that one can
construct choose where, how and when the political intervenes.

------
kmnc
Why can’t Twitter and Facebook auto moderate the most basic harassment
comments? They have defined terms of service but rely on user reports where
the damage is already done. Why am I even able to make such comments? Maybe it
is a hard problem but even at a basic level there should be no reason certain
phrases are even possible to post.

~~~
Polylactic_acid
They do. And every 2 seconds people make an outrage post about how google bots
locked them out by mistake or how facebook deleted their post about breast
cancer. And if you are just banning certain words then these people invent new
words for the old meanings.

------
ryandrake
The thing about “the internet mob” is that it doesn’t affect you if you aren’t
paying attention to it. I’m not on twitter or facebook or reddit or any of
these social media places. Consequently, nobody there has any influence over
me. There could be someone flaming me on Twitter right now and I’d have no
idea and it would have no effect on my day tomorrow. I wonder how much of
these Social Media generated problems we have brought onto ourselves merely by
participating?

~~~
baumy
I see where you're coming from but I don't really agree. Consider a couple of
scenarios, both of which are equivalent to things that have actually happened:

\- Despite you not being on social media, someone who very actively is can
decide to take offense to something you said or did in meatspace and sic the
social media mob on you, resulting in you and your family being harassed, as
well as your employer to the point that they decide firing you is the path of
least resistance. Example:
[https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/08/17/54...](https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/08/17/543980653/kyle-
quinn-hid-at-a-friend-s-house-after-being-misidentified-on-twitter-as-a-rac)

\- Social media mob decides to take issue with something your
employer/hometown local government/etc did, and the relevant entity enacts
policy changes as a result to placate the outrage; these policy changes have a
negative impact on your life

You can remove yourself from the day to day outrage cycle by not participating
as you say, and I've done that as well. But that doesn't mean it can't
negatively impact your life, sometimes in extreme ways.

------
mindfulhack
I love the first paragraph of this article. It reveals exactly what's going
on.

The emotions and actions of mob mentality come from evolutionary social
psychology - to protect the tribe from disease and death - to protect from
bacteria, mould, and viruses entering and killing the whole group.

Unfortunately, because of how human emotions developed out of the survival
biology - and this probably happens in other species too - anyone who is
'sick', not just a physical way but a social or psychological way - like a
pedophile or a racist, etc - and/or anyone who is weak, and/or anyone who is
simply different - can trigger this mob mentality in most people's brains.
Kids do it at an early age at school. Kids are not inherently innocent.

We 'other' the individual carrier of the virus to protect the mob from being
infected. At its most extreme, we call for the person's death or swiftly kill
them.

It's disheartening. It's really difficult to live with.

I increasingly understand that my mission in life is to fight for diversity.
(I run a non-profit which contributes to that.) It's not fun, or easy, but it
must be done.

\---

It's also really important that you 'know thyself'. Since birth I have been an
'outsider' in my brain - not a member of the 'tribe'. I constantly buck up
against tribal thinking and mob mentality, and I probably always will, at
least, deep inside of me. But I'm increasingly accepting both my individualism
and 'the group', even if 'the group' might not return the same respect. I want
to help the 'group', after all. I don't desire to be alone. Just to be
accepted, and others who also are different.

People like me and other 'outsiders' are important for the healthy development
of our species or other intelligent life. That gives me relief from the
loneliness that I often feel, by being so 'different'.

------
HeadsUpHigh
If you can't control yourself to stay in strictly technical subjects or not
comment at all don't use twitter. It does nothing to you, it doesn't improve
your communication with people and participating in discussions doesn't
improve your knowledge either. Speak with private DMs or anonymously. You can
never be sure which tweet you made will be targeted.

I just use it as another RSS feed replacement but for actual people instead of
sites. Reddit and HN are aggregators for sites.

Never comment on anything non-technical. There's just no reason to.

------
qrbLPHiKpiux
> With great power comes great responsibility.

Words to live by while online. Most fail.

------
Threeve303
Something similar happened to me based on false accusations. Lately I've
started thinking about the current mob justice compared to the protests
against police brutality. Logically they are no different.

Both are situations with a skewed power dynamic where innocent people can be
harmed.

Often both camps are comprised of the same people who act as judge, jury, and
executioner.

That kind of justice goes against what I believe western justice should be
about.

For some, the judgement phase lasts much longer than 8 minutes and 46 seconds
too...

------
jamesjyu
I wrote a story about this a while back, where the premise is that a judge is
assigned to adjudicate and execute the mob's wishes:
[https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mbyy58/river-
rising](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mbyy58/river-rising)

------
aaron695
Sorry, but no.

If you think 'innocence' matters you are part of the problem.

All internet mob's need to be stopped.

I think this author is part of the problem. It's possible they are trying a
tactic of gradually disarming the internet mobs, but it doesn't feel that way.

------
lukev
Ok, so the HN consensus is that mob justice is bad. Great, excellent
affirmation of a nearly tautological statement. Mob justice can never actually
be just, except by accident.

What's more interesting to me, and a problem more befitting the intellectual
horsepower of folks here, is: what are the sociological causes of this
behavior? And what realistic mechanisms or release valves could we put in
place so people either didn't feel the need to do this, or when they did, the
ways in which we could ensure justice apart and aside from online
bandwagoning?

This is a broad and complex topic. I don't claim to have any answers. But I
think there are some interesting questions:

1\. To what extent does this dynamic align with the political spectrum? If it
doesn't align with the obvious left/right dynamic, is another way we can
identify those who think it's acceptable vs. those who don't, so we can pursue
appropriate policies?

2\. To what extent is online outrage driven by systemic factors that prevent
injustice from being addressed by other means? Arguably, the impetus behind
the #metoo or #blacklivesmatter movements is the fact that the status quo
systems are inherently weighted in favor of bad actors. The online bandwagon
angle would likely not exist if victims felt they had any other meaningful
recourse. Indeed, that's the whole point.

3\. Free association is also A Thing. Shouldn't we be free to disassociate
ourselves from those whose views we find distasteful, and (due to freedom of
speech) encourage others to do the same? And how is this different (or the
same) than an internet bandwagon?

4\. Is there a difference between bandwagon driven by a (misguided or not)
desire for justice, and pure spiteful trolling? Undoubtedly, both exist. But
can we make a distinction without making a value judgement between various
sociopolitical positions?

5\. Where does online behavior "cross the line"? Is near-universal criticism
and reprobation itself problematic? Or does it only become a problem when it
becomes targeted harassment? Or when the harassment begins to extend from the
internet to the real world (doxxing) or involve actual crimes (swatting)? What
happens when a concerned entity (e.g) an employer take entirely legitimate
action (firing a racist employee), but which they would not have otherwise
taken?

It's not enough to rail against the dynamic. We need to seriously grapple with
all the individual factors that go into it. Because (hopefully) the internet
and freedom of speech on the internet is here to stay. Reductive approaches
only serve you to shove you into one camp or the other. How can we try and
figure out how to make this very new informational landscape both sustainable
and just?

~~~
mirimir
Those are all excellent questions, and I've very tempted to discuss them. But
on the other hand, I didn't get much sleep last night, and I'm tired.

Also, in any case, I doubt seriously that any of that discussion will have any
impact on the current situation.

My solution (which I admit is easier for an old ~retired guy like me) is to
avoid attracting attention in meatspace. I have no social media presence, in
part to avoid attracting attention from my past activities. Hopefully most of
my old associates think that I'm dead ;) And now that we're all wearing masks,
being ~anonymous is much easier.

I'm quite active online, however. As Mirimir and other personas. But there are
absolutely no links to my meatspace persona.

So anyway, regarding "freedom of speech on the internet", ~anonymity and
compartmentalization are essential.

------
bezmenov
> In general, the victim of a struggle session was forced to admit various
> crimes before a crowd of people who would verbally and physically abuse the
> victim until he or she confessed. Struggle sessions were often held at the
> workplace of the accused, but they were sometimes conducted in sports
> stadiums where large crowds would gather if the target was well-known.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session)

~~~
cryptonector
I like your username. Of course it must be an allusion to Yuri Bezmenov.

------
jeffbee
Internet mob unleashed by Oklahoma police officer breaks into home, rapes
wrong woman.

[https://kfor-
com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/kfor.com/news/norman...](https://kfor-
com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/kfor.com/news/norman-pd-investigates-after-city-
councilwoman-claims-neighbors-rapist-had-wrong-woman-meant-to-rape-
her/amp/?usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%3D&amp_js_v=0.1#aoh=15937252362199&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fkfor.com%2Fnews%2Fnorman-
pd-investigates-after-city-councilwoman-claims-neighbors-rapist-had-wrong-
woman-meant-to-rape-her%2F)

~~~
maxheadrum
This is very strange logic. You would think someone who is capable of rape
would want less police so they would get away with it. Sounds like this guy
just made up an excuse to rape someone. You don't just wake up one day and
decide that rape is an option.

~~~
lukev
The police almost never prosecute rape, as a crime. When they do, it is an
incredible ordeal for the victim, who is forced to replay the incident
multiple times to convince the appropriate authorities it actually happened.

If you believe "the police" are a major obstacle to rape, then I encourage you
to actually read the accounts of victims and see if that reflects their
experience.

~~~
jki275
Police don’t prosecute anything.

District attorneys conduct prosecutions.

Rape prosecutions are often difficult, but I think you’d be hard pressed to
find a DA who would not bring charges if they thought they had any chance at a
conviction.

In military courts prosecution is mandated by law and minimum charges and
sentences are set by federal law.

------
LordFast
There's no need to go to war with a country if you can plant the seeds of a
toxic mindset, and then watch them tear themselves apart instead.

~~~
vbezhenar
That's how US destroyed USSR.

~~~
manigandham
They seemed to have been destroyed by more external forces like a failed
economy, mass starvation and political strife.

~~~
uncletaco
How is any of that external?

~~~
manigandham
Compared to an internal "mindset"?

~~~
uncletaco
The previous comment said something to the affect of how the US destroyed the
USSR but the problems you mentioned are all problems that are "internal" to a
nation. I don't see where the jump was made to talking about individuals vs
the internal problems that plagued the USSR.

~~~
manigandham
Maybe I understood it wrong because they said "mindset" instead of "internal".

To me, seeding ideas is internal to the people and society leading to chaos,
as compared to external and physical forces like starvation, oppression and
lack of infrastructure.

------
merb
why does a mob that tries to defame nazis, do nazi style tactics?!

~~~
monocasa
What are "nazi style tactics"? I don't see these people out killing all their
political rivals in a night of long knives.

~~~
rdiddly
Yeah you don't see them rounding people up in camps either. There are other
Nazi-style tactics in the ol' Nazi toolbag. For example, taking a complex
problem for which nobody is truly able to attribute a simple cause, and
saying, _But _I_ know why it 's happening, I know who's responsible... AND
THERE THEY ARE / THERE'S ONE OF 'EM NOW!_ That's a Nazi tactic.

~~~
monocasa
There are absolutely individuals responsible for contributing to societal
woes. Deplatforming them is not "a nazi thing", but an everyone thing.

------
suthakamal
One set of anecdotes after another. Easy to understand why PG acolytes might
enjoy this piece.

------
sandworm101
What about all the "mob justice" that the internet has prevented? People have
been forming ad hoc possies to dish out street justice for thousands of years.
In the past, local authorities controlled all the information. Any civil or
religious leader could leverage this control to whip up a local mob and do
some real damage. Book burnings, witch trials, lynchings, pogroms... they all
involve low-information people being enticed by a higher-information leader
with a bone to pick.

Sure, some internet-based conspiracies have lead to mob violence (5G,
pizzagate etc). But how many crazy theories have been put down now that we can
all check basic facts on our phones? Mayan end of the word? An asteroid on its
way? Satanic cults murdering children in daycares. Orson Wells would have a
much more difficult time convincing people that aliens have landed now that
radio isn't the only form of real time information. At lease it is now
possible to fact check the radio. While conspiracies are now more national in
scope and more easily witnessed thanks to the internet, the net result imho is
that fewer people are coming to actual physical harm.

~~~
krapp
>But how many crazy theories have been put down now that we can all check
basic facts on our phones?

Probably close to none.

>Mayan end of the word?

Plenty of people believed in that. Hell, one of the conspiracy theories around
the Mandela Effect is that 2012 _happened_ and everyone got pushed into the
current universe when it did. Oh yeah, and the Mandela Effect itself. The only
reason that blew up is because of an internet meme, and the internet's ability
to create reality bubbles around people is the only reason it's as big as it
is. The internet is the reason millions of people literally believe their
false memories are the result of interdimensional leakage.

>An asteroid on its way?

We never even notice those until it's too late, so the ones we know about get
reported on in the news, but speaking of that, plenty of people still think
Oumuamua was a spaceship.

>Orsen Wells would have a much more difficult time convincing people that
aliens have landed now that radio isn't the only form of real time
information.

Far, _far_ more people believe aliens have landed, now, than did in Wells'
time. They believe reptoids wearing human skinsuits control the world. They
believe the universe is a computer simulation and that most of the people
around them are NPCs. They believe grey fetus-monsters suck people up into
spaceships with orange beams and mess with their genitals. They believe the
world is flat and all of the airlines secretly know about it, and they project
holograms outside of the windows to fool passengers. They believe we never
went to the moon, because obviously we'd hit the crystal spheres if we tried.
They believe COVID-19 is a globalist population-control experiment, and that
Madonna spilled the beans on the plan last year in Illuminati code.

You think it's hard to convince people of stupid things nowadays? Calls to
poison control centers spiked after the President of the United States
suggested (jokingly, allegedly) that injecting disinfectants might be a cure
for coronavirus. People heard that and _immediately started drinking bleach._

>While conspiracies are now more national in scope and more easily witnessed
thanks to the internet, the net result imho is that fewer people are coming to
actual physical harm.

Give it time. That guy who stormed the pizza parlor armed to free the
nonexistent child sex slaves in the nonexistent basement comes to mind. True,
no one came to physical harm in that case, but that was only by luck. Reddit
and /pol/ are inspiring mass shooters. COVID denialists are threatening people
in the streets at gunpoint. If anything, conspiracy-inspired violence seems on
a slow upward curve.

~~~
Hyolobrika
If someone (who wasn't a writer or someone noteworthy enough to write about)
believed a crazy thing before the internet, how would we know?

~~~
krapp
We probably wouldn't, unless they were part of a local community, and there
were stories.

------
Tycho
Justice system is probably going down the pan anyway. Judges and jurors will
be harassed by online mobs.

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
Harassment is bad, but judges and jurors already face harassment from offline
mobs, including many within living memory who actively wanted to murder them.
The system's generally robust against that kind of thing.

~~~
Tycho
I don’t think it’s necessarily robust against the increased visibility and
coordination that social media brings.

------
mythrwy
Media have also been doing similar for a long time in search of sensationalist
stories that drum up outrage.

For example, the story a few days ago about the white couple in Lake Orion who
pointed guns at a black family. The couple were vilified in the press and
implications of racism were made.

The couple has been charged and in my opinion (and presumably of the law) they
were too quick to pull their (legally carried) guns out, and they will have to
answer for this and the man was fired from his job. However watching the full
video tells a very different story then the headlines implied.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZhdMcrBuDU&amp;feature=emb_...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZhdMcrBuDU&amp;feature=emb_logo)

~~~
0x00000000
The husband getting fired is extremely disturbing and the most fucked up thing
about the entire situation.

There was another one recently where a middle eastern grocery store in the US
had their lease pulled because of tweets by the owner’s teenage daughter.

Mob justice is bad, but mob justice against people simply for association is
terrifying.

Ask HN: Will you allow your children to have social media associated with
their real name?

------
29athrowaway
Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, but sometimes the evidence is just
overwhelming. If you are doing something wrong on camera, and it is very easy
to positively identify you and what you are doing, you are very likely to be
guilty.

However:

1) Mobs are not perfect at positively identifying people. And once an
identification mistake happens, it propagates quickly.

2) Mobs jump to conclusions very fast. If you see a bruised person claiming to
have been beaten, people take for granted that it happened, and that is the
wrong mindset.

I am not a MAGA person but a clear example of this was the January 2019
Lincoln Memorial Confrontation
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2019_Lincoln_Memorial_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2019_Lincoln_Memorial_confrontation))
where things were taken out of context to a ridiculous extent, and there were
mobs on every social network trying to dox the kid that was literally doing
nothing.

~~~
david422
This is one of the many events that show that you literally cannot trust the
media.

And another reason that mob justice is not justice.

