Comments on: When does community action against an anonymous troll become a lynch mob?

By: M

Mon, 05 Nov 2012 20:46:56 +0000

If there were a consensus about what “common sense” amounted to in the context of public speech we could dispense with a number of annoying rules. But we need those rules because people have different ideas about what constitutes “gas”, and when (and in what varieties and quantities) it is appropriate to throw it. Freedom of speech isn’t unlimited. This article makes the point that to the extent it is appropriate for society to regulate speech, we may not want it done by an online mob because–just like in real life–that can cause repercussions that are at least as undesirable as the forms of speech we want to discourage.

By: DeathbyHanging

DeathbyHanging — Sun, 04 Nov 2012 02:29:18 +0000

“It will be fascinating to see where this goes”. Ah, I see myself – so your version of “seeing” equates to online rubbernecking which is a part of the online vigilantism and mob mentality being described here.

By: trudat

trudat — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 15:48:39 +0000

Loss of what? Who says the Internet should be constitutionally anonymous? Some whistleblower will be scared to post something, therefore any nut can say anything he or she wants without fear of discovery? Common sense needs to prevail and someone throwing gas (false information) onto a fire (the hurricane), should not only be revealed, he or she should be arrested. Like in real life.

By: M

Thu, 01 Nov 2012 18:17:31 +0000

In this case the information posted clearly was not useful, and was potentially harmful, which makes many of us feel okay about exposing the poster’s identity and watching the fallout it causes for him. But what if the next guy has something truly useful to say, but thinking it might not be well received, he chooses to remain silent rather than risk being exposed and persecuted? Is the satisfaction we get from seeing @ComfortablySmug chastised worth that loss?

By: JD

JD — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 18:16:51 +0000

How can anybody tolerate psychopathic behavior online or offline. We are giving too much credit for anonymity, freedom of expression etc. We need to draw a line and punish this guy and set an example.

Just think about it: Would you call/post/tweet that this guys parents/family were in pain (you can fill in the blanks..here) when it is not actually true? Just because I am anonymous online doesn’t mean that I can exaggerate an already challenging situation. Just unbelievable.

By: trudat

trudat — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 16:51:14 +0000

Except for satire — which Onion clearly is — I expect most things out of people’s mouths, or from their typing, to be basically truthful, or at least things they THINK are true. To casually say, hey, it’s only the Internet, who cares, makes the medium even crappier than it is now. Demanding a modicum of honesty isn’t some old-fashioned point of view. it’s a pointof view that needs to be reinstated. The Web can still be fun without spreading ‘false news.’

By: Guillaume Privat

Guillaume Privat — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 16:31:22 +0000

It is very interesting that this debate rages the day of the anniversary of War of the Worlds, when people truly believed that alien had invaded the United States, because the radio said so !
When did Twitter became a trusted source of information? Who set the expectation that all tweets have to be true and not fictional ? @ComfortablySmug is only a dick if you expect that all tweets are to be truthful and not fictional. What do you make of tweets from the Onion?

By: Trudat

Trudat — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 16:17:34 +0000

This is an interesting discussion, but I find it impossible to find any sympathy for someone who lies — let alone lies in a way that could affect thousands of people. Would it be acceptable for someone to come up to you in a supermarket and lie in person, saying the fruit is contaminated? Or to tell you there’s three feet of water at the stock exchange? Of course not. So why then is lying to thousands on the Internet somehow different, to be explained away as some social manifestation of a brave new world of mass interaction? Bah. It was lying in grade school and it’s lying now and yes, reveal the idiot’s name and shun him. Like you would in real life.

By: Anonymous (at least for now)

Anonymous (at least for now) — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 15:34:39 +0000

Won’t bore everyone with a lengthy discussion, but I find it somewhat concerning that this post so casually acknowledges, and even seems to promote, the idea that we will increasingly “live a large chunk of our lives online….”

By: Chris Taylor

Chris Taylor — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 14:32:31 +0000

This is the paradox…though the Internet allows anonymity (but not forever, it seems), things said anonymously should have far less gravitas than things said with a name behind them. Personally, I don’t enjoy reading LA Times reader comments because anonymity makes people do things they shouldn’t do…like how people behave in traffic.

And yet there’s a need to be able to say some things without repercussion. It is a tough balance to strike. I believe what @ComfortablySmug earned his outing because he used anonymity for potentially bad things. It will be fascinating to see where this goes.