Internet Shaming Culture (food for thought)

[Cappy]

Is that because people will smarten up and (i) stop posting dumb things and/or (ii) stop harassing people who post dumb things? I don't see how something like that can be regulated externally (i.e. by laws or other restrictions)

.

I would think a little bit of both. People will definitely realize that their actions on social media have huge consequences and that anonymous is a thin veil easily pierced with the right knowledge and motivation.

But I also think that sooner or later some people will just stop wasting their time on crap like this. Who has the time to troll people like this? (I realize this is entirely subjective as, apparently, many people have the time) How many social justice warriors on twitter really think they are doing the world a service, and when will they realize that their twitter crusades do nothing. When will all these want-a-be comedians realize their lowest common denominator humour is not attracting the attention they so crave. Sooner or later people will smarten up right?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Cappy

.

I would think a little bit of both. People will definitely realize that their actions on social media have huge consequences and that anonymous is a thin veil easily pierced with the right knowledge and motivation.

But I also think that sooner or later some people will just stop wasting their time on crap like this. Who has the time to troll people like this? (I realize this is entirely subjective as, apparently, many people have the time) How many social justice warriors on twitter really think they are doing the world a service, and when will they realize that their twitter crusades do nothing. When will all these want-a-be comedians realize their lowest common denominator humour is not attracting the attention they so crave. Sooner or later people will smarten up right?

IMO there is a lot and they lurk everywhere. We have a few here. I'm all for quality moderation but some people take it upon themselves to be the voice of social justice and condemn the evil people of the internet that aren't 100% serious all the time about their discussions.

[handgroen]

Originally Posted by troutman

[/I]I'm sure I have been rude in the past, but now I pause to consider what I'm saying before I click "reply". Why can't we communicate in the same way we would to people who are across the table from us?

FWIW i'v always found you to be one of the more thoughtful and contemplative posters around here.

for myself calgarypuck is the only social media i participate in.
never had facebook etc. and while it's going to be annoying to see the pendulum of popular opinion shift back to web anonymity (i.e. folks bragging about getting off the social media grid, in much the same way people brag about not owning a tv.) I truly believe that what's offered to you through social media networking pales in comparison to the cost of what you expose to the online world about yourself by participating.

personal recognition can be a terrifying thing, and particularly when you are a fairly ordinary person who has no legitimate reason to garner such attention.

pretty big difference between:

this guy

Spoiler!

who sought out national attention and willingly subjected himself to scrutiny by becoming a tv personality

and this guy

Spoiler!

who has become the international internet symbol for ######bag because we hate his stupid face

[Itse]

Thanks for the thanks

Originally Posted by troutman

Is shaming a group (ex. anti-vaxxers) different than shaming an individual, because it is not personal?

I'd say mostly yes.

You should however IMO avoid punching down, and you should avoid being offensive towards people you should know you probably don't understand. (For example people much poorer and less educated than you, or people from clearly different cultures.)

Also, make sure you have your facts right. I think that's a major problem with many of these internet crusades. Like in the Justine Sacco case, she was probably not in fact being racist, just misunderstood. That's at best partially her fault.

Of course you should also always seriously consider the severity of the crime. Is it really something that everybody needs to know? When we're talking about vaccinations, yeah, it's kind of important that everybody agrees, and that's kind of s**t for the anti-vaxx crowd because no, that isn't something where everybody can just make their own minds.

When we're talking about some mid-level corporate employee somewhere being possibly slightly racist? Who cares.

At this point we come to the Social Justice Warriors I think. Or maybe it would be best to call the Culture Warriors.

I'm guessing that the people most prone to internet shaming tend to be the kind who feel a need to participte in the culture wars of our time, on one side or another. So like in the minds of the person writing that article, their personal attacks on some unknown person are a part of a larger war over what is acceptable and what is not.

The part where it gets really tricky is that those people are obviously kind of right. These kinds of personal attacks DO frame what is acceptable in our society, to some extent. As GGG said:

Originally Posted by GGG

Shaming to conform to social norms was maybe is and important part of our evolutionary make up. How do things like racisim, homophobia and others get changed. The first step is usually logic and converstaion but when that fails what are societies options to further in act positive change? Refusing to tolerate and objecting to the offending behaviour is the only way to stop it.

However, I disagree strongly on this part.

She problaby should lose her job for the tweet. I think that is reasonable for a public person.

I think this idea is the problem. To me, this idea that there should be an additional punishment on top of public shaming crosses the line between attacking an opinion, and attacking a person.

People have a right to have a a job and a life despite their opinions. In fact many countries have laws specifically protecting such rights, originally intended to protect people's right to participate in politics.

Obviously corporations fire people in these cases mostly because of the fear of public image damages and not because of the opinions as such, but those damages are only related to the corporation because of the number of people who seem to WANT to see some "concrete" form of punishment.

[Itse]

I also forgot to add this part:

As much as it's true that there is always some culture war going on about something that might or might not be acceptable to say, as in all wars I think people should think "legitimate targets only". So you don't go making public attacks against private people, and preferably you should focus on people who are more or less actively promoting an idea, not just commenting on it offhand.

And more focus on actions please, less on words. So more talk about people who actually commit domestic violence for example, and less about people who just say stupid stuff.

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

IMO there is a lot and they lurk everywhere. We have a few here. I'm all for quality moderation but some people take it upon themselves to be the voice of social justice and condemn the evil people of the internet that aren't 100% serious all the time about their discussions.

There have been whole threads of public shaming on here. Threads were people felt it was the best way to moderate. Sure public shaming does work, but not at huge levels like that.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Tiger

There have been whole threads of public shaming on here. Threads were people felt it was the best way to moderate. Sure public shaming does work, but not at huge levels like that.

I think there is a difference in Internet Shaming someone for their opinions and ideas when both parties are anonymous.

[Itse]

It's also vastly different if it stays within one forum.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Tiger

There have been whole threads of public shaming on here. Threads were people felt it was the best way to moderate. Sure public shaming does work, but not at huge levels like that.

I don't know if it ever works. What about the guy on the bus that didn't give a woman a seat? The whole thing was stupid because the woman handled things as poorly as the guy and it should have been one of those things that happened and was never heard from again and instead it spiraled into this big hate on for was essentially a guy being a jerk. He didn't hurt anyone nor did he break any laws yet he's looked at by hundreds of internet warriors as a detested villain. To make things worse at the end of the day you can argue he thrived on the attention as he was at it again later.

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I don't know if it ever works. What about the guy on the bus that didn't give a woman a seat? The whole thing was stupid because the woman handled things as poorly as the guy and it should have been one of those things that happened and was never heard from again and instead it spiraled into this big hate on for was essentially a guy being a jerk. He didn't hurt anyone nor did he break any laws yet he's looked at by hundreds of internet warriors as a detested villain. To make things worse at the end of the day you can argue he thrived on the attention as he was at it again later.

yes, your one example shows it is not 100% effective.

[Swift]

Who remembers Andy Greschner?

[jayswin]

What I hate more than anything is the petty public shaming from people who have no idea how bad things can get when people are victims of online shaming/bullying. Examples like that Calgary lady who didn't pick up her dog poop.

There's probably 800 000 or more Calgarians who have done something on par with or worse than that in their lives, but yet everyone becomes an internet warrior because it's easy and it's right in front of them, and people aren't smart enough to realize that their one comment, coupled with thousands more just like it and the public notoriety are really damaging. It goes so much further than most people realize.

I was pretty peeved when our own Regulator75 proudly brought that shaming to CP, I'd prefer our community stay away from that crap. I get the whole "Well don't do anything wrong and you won't have to deal with it" angle, but I hate it as much in relation to public shaming as I do when people apply it to police/privacy issues.

I think anyone that is fine to get involved in that stuff should also be fine opening up their perfect lives to the public to show that before they cast stones, they themselves have never done a single thing wrong............oh wait, they know they have, but don't give a **** because they're just online bullying someone and know it.

[rubecube]

I think it comes down to attacking the idea or the attitude, as opposed to the person. That said, there are some ideas and attitudes that just reflect so poorly on a person that they should probably be shamed (i.e. homophobia, racism, etc.). I guess I also don't understand why taking down someone of middle-class or lower status is something to crow up about. Their spheres of influence are very small. Taking someone like Donald Trump to task is completely different than going after some mid-level manager.

[rubecube]

This led to a backlash from the other end of the political spectrum. So-called men’s rights activists and anonymous trolls bombarded Richards with death threats on Twitter and Facebook. Someone tweeted Richards’s home address along with a photograph of a beheaded woman with duct tape over her mouth. Fearing for her life, she left her home, sleeping on friends’ couches for the remainder of the year.

Christ. Say what you will about SJWs, but MRAs always find a way to take it one step further.

[Sr. Mints]

Interesting read. I feel sorry for Sacco--and I vaguely recall taking a bit of joy watching her descent into this hell she's found herself in.

The shaming happens locally, too. Just two weeks ago, people in Calgary were publicly shaming kids climbing on the ice on the Bow, via Twitter. The first two people I noticed doing it had something to gain--one being a Calgary Herald employee, and the other, a local blogger whose 'fame' baffles me.

Just dial 911 and move on.

But nope. instead, these kids were in a sense used to bolster one's presence on social media, and things blew up from there. I never really thought much of it at the time, but now I don't like it.

[Party Elephant]

Who googles people they date? Is that really a thing that people do?

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Party Elephant

Who googles people they date? Is that really a thing that people do?

Since like maybe 2010... Everyone.

[Itse]

One major propagator of public shaming is of course various internet sites from gawker to buzzfeed to Jezebel. The last of which posted this magnificantly tone deaf response to the NYT article.

http://groupthink.jezebel.com/i-dont.../+markshrayber

It's at least gratifying to notice that the clear majority of commentators are pretty clearly against Jezebels line of thinking. So I guess the article has got some people thinking, at least for now.

How ever there are so many sites that pretty much make their living out of clickbaiting on Facebook, and their chosen method is all too often instigating hate on various individuals and outgroups.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Party Elephant

Who googles people they date? Is that really a thing that people do?

If someone knew your CP user name, they could quickly learn how you feel about everything (unfiltered).

[cracher]

Lots of examples of mild offences leading to unfair internet shaming.

What about violentacrez?