Dear Internet Vigilantes and Lynch Mobs
reddit.com
reddit.com
What else is new?
These are obviously people whose compassion for animals is a function of their cuteness. I don't see them organizing lynch mobs for similar but much more inhumane acts against farm animals happening in their own communities. Would people care if this was a litter of pigs? Or a litter of rats?
And leaving aside this specific example, most people on this planet in rural communities don't have the economic means to employ a dedicated medical professional to put down their excess cats and dogs.
For those people drowning the animals is a perfectly legitimate option, it sure beats watching them starve to death.
Ignoring all of this and going straight to "oh those poor puppies, what a horrible person" as most people seem to respond is, I think, a privileged western viewpoint.
They also seem to go after soft targets. I can't remember seeing one of these go after (for instance) a violent criminal rather than some ordinary schlub who's done something rather fucked up.
If I remembered his name, I'd grab the source right now, but I'm not about to go searching for this while at work. Anyone recall his name?
By hard targets, I mean someone who is actually scary in real life. Harassing the guy who's extorting protection money from local businesses, or people associated with organized crime rather than a middle aged woman who put a cat in a bin.
[1] It's possible they did get a dangerous pedophile off the streets but I can't help but be cynical when even the police led operations in these situations are sometimes downright shady: (http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2009/12/sexual-pr...)
(Side note: I can't believe people would think HN is turning into reddit, come on people)
I think when people say HN is becoming reddit, they mean the reddit of 2-3 years ago, not the reddit of today. At points, I've seen some of the same warning signs I saw on reddit. I was more worried about HN a few months ago than I am now, but every time I see a weak joke with 60 upvotes (maybe 5% of the jokes I've seen in HN comments are actually worth of upvotes) or someone's perfectly reasonable comment getting to -1 within 5 minutes in a vaguely political thread, it makes me a little nervous.
Sure, the motivations are different, but both groups consist of people falling prey to mob mentality and trying to enforce extreme levels of "justice".
Some day soon, I expect the falsely accused individuals will have legal recourse when their reputation, livelihood, etc. are damaged by these anonymous postings. Companies too. Court orders will be granted and presented to ISP's. "Show us what address posted this libelous content." And then the shoe will be on the other foot... provided there is enough money to litigate.
The days of the Wild West on the Internet are soon to end. And that's a good thing.
Not all of us agree with this. I'd rather that we all just chilled out about drunken Facebook photos, and that we start seeing court rulings that "it's impossible to accurately associate this posting with an individual, acquitted due to lack of evidence."
Those who give up their freedom for a little bit of safety deserve neither.
When someone attempts to remain anon for their own safety and privacy, then that is perfectly fine (providing they are not committing a crime). Political dissidents, celebrities, etc.
But when someone attempts to harm another via an anon posting to a forum and they think it's OK to do that, then that is wrong. Libel and slander are just that. Whether they occur in an Internet forum or in a newspaper. People doing this should know that they can (and will) be sued and that they are not anonymous.
You can't prevent libel and slander without encroaching on free speech.
Has anyone watched the video that spawned this post? There's no way someone's anonymity should be respected when they do something so blatantly horrible.