It's interesting to me you didn't just say "quoting Scott Adams is a mistake," instead you "were with them until they quoted Adams," implying a single quote you disagree with invalidates all their points.
Are you saying you believe they deserved it because those were consequences for being the person they are, ie. someone who quotes Adams? If that's not the case, why did you phrase it like that? At best, it sounds like because of the "affiliation" you suddenly don't care for something you were inclined to care, regardless of whether they have other points or not.
This seems similar to the dynamics that made it happen in the first place, people who didn't care about specifics or nuance speaking out with the most dismissive light on the situation, furthering the idea that they deserve the consequences because they are inherently bad people.
I'm not saying those were your intentions, but sometimes wording matters, and the multiplying effect of social media doesn't care about intentions.
I'm worried about what I call Internet Morality Hordes, and I think that's a very complex issue. Anytime you criticize this phenomenon (which is important to do, like with everything) there's a flurry of things you can be accused of by the Court of The People of The Internet: victim blaming; not being able to recognize your mistakes; involuntary sexism/racism; inability to recognize your own privilege.
Now, the problem is that all these accusations can be right in some cases. What we see is that the morality hordes tend to flip the tables the opposite way, and they use this accusation to condemn anyone based often on the victim's report. Saying that an accusation of a victim of anything should be carefully waged before taking it for granted (as it should be in a society that lives by the rule of law) you can be accused of defending the alleged perpetrator, and so on. You dare say the victim should explain better what happened? Monster! You've never hit a woman, but you have conservative views about marriage? Bigot! Just to clarify: my views are full-on progressive, pro-LGBTQ (I'm part of that), and mostly socialist-leaning. Yet I want a world where my conservative neighbor can argue for its view of the world in a democratic way, trough debate and peaceful confrontation. That's not what the hordes want.
Back to the D'Silva story. The guy who's writing the story started doing exactly what I describe, strategically framing the discourse the right way. Then boom, he quotes one of the more controversial, misogynistic, "cancel culture will kill us all" assholes you can find on Twitter. Someone who's exactly the perfect explainer of how, in this day and age, you should NOT talk about the issues he raises. I want to live in a world where people like Scott Adams are free to say things that I consider to be bullshit. But I also know that we live in a world where, if you want to bring your point across in a productive way about this issues, you don't quote someone backward-thinking like Scott Adams.
Therefore: he got me until he quoted Scott Adams.
Sorry if this all sounds a bit confusing, it's a complex issue I'm still trying to wrap my head around. I also want to point out that nobody deserves Internet Mob Attacks, whether they are guilty of what they were accused of or not. Just don't quote friggin' Scott Adams.
Edit: for fun I checked out Adam's twitter posts -- and have no respect left at all.
That is very obviously untrue, and makes me wonder whether you read OP at all. Do you think only physical harm matters? The public nature of accusations and ensuing arguments can have a very significant effect on business/career prospects, personal relationships, etc. Even if you successfully prove that the accusations are false, people's impressions are colored by the acrimony itself. There's another story on HN right now about collusion rings in academic reviewing, which demonstrates this effect. This could do huge damage to many people's academic careers, regardless of guilt or innocence or which side they're on.
If you have never known anyone that this happened to, count yourself lucky. Most people who have reached any level of prominence in any field have probably seen it happen to a friend. Pretending that things aren't real unless they've happened to you is kind of noxious.
Let me be clear: there are multiple actual murders and lynch mobs that were the direct result of someone starting a rumor online and it snowballing from there.
How many of those are acceptable? You're dismissing this with "oh chucks most times they are right as opposed to always wrong" when we aren't arguing they are never right.
That's not what I gathered from the parent comment and it's not what "mobs do cause harm" mean, which is why I was confused by your rebuttal.
> I tend to think that accusations are usually well-intentioned and well-founded.
That might be the case, but we still have to deal with the times they aren't.
Mobs do cause harm. Cars do kill.
I don't know anything about Massey but publishing on these sites makes me think a lot less about his credibility.