I got a laugh out of that.
It makes me wonder how many 'no longer with the company' replies to mobs are similarly a technicality. Like, giving an employee unpaid leave until the mob dies down.
It makes me wonder how many 'no longer with the company' replies to mobs are similarly a technicality. Like, giving an employee unpaid leave until the mob dies down.
I'd rather have the people who run companies grow a spine and stand up to the mob. They should put out a message like "We will investigate this incident. We take the decision to fire people seriously and will make a decision that is best for this company." In essence, "We hear all you loud-mouths, but we get to decide whether to fire people, not you."
The mob is loud, but it has a short attention span. The truth probably would get leaked, but (depending on the issue) the mob would likely have moved on to the next thing by then.
> I'd rather have the people who run companies grow a spine and stand up to the mob. They should put out a message like "We will investigate this incident. We take the decision to fire people seriously and will make a decision that is best for this company."
That's probably an all around better response, too. Just "investigate" and give no updates until the controversy is old news.
The reporter is not interested in reporting a particular offense, instead they are already playing the executioner. They do not want a solution, they want punishment and retaliation. That behavior is both arrogant (not their call to make) and sadistic.
The reporter is not interested in what is best for your company either, as the "request" typically comes with threats. Comply or else...
The very nature of such requests means the reporter is the type of person to dig up personal information or old "offensive" posts, which is unhinged behavior. Likewise, the reporter was unable to come to a resolution with the "offender", so plays the snitch card instead.
It's a pile of red flags. Normal and reasonable people do not go after a person's job, even less so collectively. I wouldn't do that to my biggest enemy. That doesn't mean employees can't screw up, perceived or real. When they do, mob justice does not satisfy the very basic principles of justice. There's no defense, and without defense, there is no justice.
Most companies can safely ignore such requests. The mob has no patience nor are they typically a customer in the first place, so all economical threats are in vain. It's largely a temporary PR threat that is emotionally inflated versus the actual PR impact: close to zero.
Of course, I know, there's exceptions to all of the above.
I'd say it would be a good thing if there's legislation that protects against mob-triggered terminations. The reason I would opt for that is that mob justice goes beyond just the termination of a few. It has a larger societal impact in the sense that those few are to be seen as examples for other people to increasingly feel like they need to walk on egg shells: extreme political correctness, large silent majority, you get what I mean.
You could also say freedom of speech has limits, like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. If someone starts a mob, knowingly or unknowingly, encourages a mob, or information thereof is found to be incorrect it would make sense if there were consequences.
... was an analogy in a Supreme Court case from more than a hundred years ago, that was overturned nearly 50 years ago. Good reading: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...
I think making laws to stop a mob from forming would be very hard, complex, and have lots of hairy side effects. My idea instead is to look at it from an employer's side: one should not be able to fire somebody on the spot for fuzzy PR reasons. So the mob can still form, but the ultimate consequence, a termination, in most cases would be impossible.
As to stopping mobs from forming or doing their damage, I strongly believe social networks can do quite a lot too.
This is literally not by definition insane. There are plenty of valid reasons to request an employee be fired.
What would be insane is immediately taking the opposite extreme to a perceived extremity.
In most modern cases (social media triggered requests) the offense is unrelated to the person's employment. Going for one's employment is just the way to do maximum damage as it's almost everyone's weakness. That's insane, cruel and disproportional behavior.
In case the employee did show misbehavior in their official function to somebody in the public, you'd file a complaint at the company. As the company did you wrong. It's then up to the company to correct it. By demanding a termination, you skip about 5 steps in that process.
In case the employee did something truly criminal, you report it to the police. This too is no reason to go for someone's employment. You're not the justice system.
When needed, get a professional scapegoat to fire, less chance to see him again. And you can get the performance you want. Do you want an asshole who deserves it, or maybe you prefer a clueless bootlicker.
Of course, bosses will also be available to do the firing if you can't supply your own.
And while I am imagining things, I am sure that something like that exists in some form.
I look forward to the Launch HN.
So he came to talk to me. Asked if I had looked at the new cars and told me how reliable they were, and I should consider one.
So I asked (not loudly but not quiet conversation volume), “Is my new $model I bought from $this_manufacturer last year not reliable?”
Boy did he backpedal and move on to find something else to do real quick.
I found it hilarious.
[1] https://www.complete-review.com/reviews/pennacd/scapeg.htm
There are more than a few people that fetishize punitive actions for evil doers.
A single mediocre review could end a job, depending on how it’s weighted. A few bad reviews almost guarantees it. Even if the customer has no idea their review is applied to that particular worker—i.e. if they think they’re reviewing the business.
Knowing all this has also just generally helped me to be more patient with people when I’m on the other side of the “counter”. But a lot of people (a) don’t know it and (b) don’t have any other recourse.
A specific example so I don’t sound like I’m just abstracting the whole thing: if I order a meal on Grubhub, when I get asked for a review I get very specific questions about the delivery driver, vague questions about food quality from the vendor, and no prompt about Grubhub’s service itself. When I’ve had poor service (always from Grubhub or a direct consequence of their poor service), there isn’t even a way to give feedback that goes beyond the CS front line. Those poor souls are tasked with issuing refunds as rapidly as possible and moving on to the next chat. The best anyone can do to even register a complaint that might be heard is to call out a driver or restaurant, even if neither did anything wrong.
Customers don’t know they’ll probably get someone fired by taking this tack, they just know it’s the only way to be heard. And that’s not because they’re cruel, it’s because they’re horribly alienated from the thousands of tiny paper cuts they understand as conveniences, and some days their only options.
Most of the Twitter mob types calling people out for whatever
All the time. But, usually, that's not a laughable or desirable outcome. This is how bad cops who commit civil liberty violations or use excessive force continue to work for decades, or are eventually sidelined but continue to receive a salary.
While in this specific case we can excuse an intern who definitely didn't know better, and ultimately nobody was harmed, we shouldn't minimize or normalize administrative technicalities as a way to get away from outrage.
Angry mobs don't produce good outcomes. That's true even when they're angry about bad cops.
Angry mobs produce fantastic outcomes at identifying when the justice system’s outcomes fall outside of the norms they’re supposed to be enforcing but they’re terrible at functioning as judge and jury in individual cases.
Lately, most angry mobs start on twitter/facebook, and often are based upon exaggerations or lies, and have the aide of twitter/facebook amplification effects, which purposefully try to fan anger to drive more engagement.
Or...radicalized always-online bullies that simply takes joy in taking a political opponent down.
First note that mobs are ugly stupid irrational things in the first place.
Now ask your self. agree or disagree with the message, who is this mob attacking are they attacking their enemies? if so this is a legitimize mob, they have goals, objectives and are acting on them. you may be on the other side, they may be your enemy but the attacks are valid. leave the fight to them and the people they are attacking, or take a side.
however if the mob is targeting civilians, random people, causing willful destruction for the sake of destruction, that is, are they looting? This is an illegitimate mob, their message has no value, they have no right to exist and should be actively suppressed by all.
But when it comes to police, the problem is even worse. The justice system there is charged with enforcing itself, and the conflict of interest is apparent.
Dealing with police brutality is no different than dealing with bullying or harassment at work - it usually involves some form of "internal affairs" or "human resources", whose primary job is to minimize damage to the company, not bring justice to the aggrieved party.
Because upholding status quo is something people are willing other people to die for.
Any time you have power over the public (e.g., a cop), or present yourself as an expert in a way the affects the public (e.g., a medical doctor, civil engineer, politician) then by default you should be held to a much higher standard than the general public. There should be very little room for error or mistake and all errors/mistakes should be scrutinized for malpractice. The burden should be on the expert to prove they are qualified and should be allowed ("licensed") to hold the position.
If you can't handle that then find another profession.
In one of them, people who do bad things or even crimes, may be forbidden to do certain kinds of jobs, but the generally agreed-upon ethical framework says that discrimination is only permissible when the crime or malfeasance directly relates to job responsibilities.
For instance, it might be considered too risky to hire someone with a history of DWIs as a driver, or someone convicted of embezzlement to work in finance.
In that universe, there are even laws against discrimination that is unconnected to the offense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Daniel_Shaver#Bank...
I've previously seen many bodycams which to me changed the view on what american LEO (can) meet on a daily basis, and the zero-time switch from a completely docile event to a deadly encounter. This made me change how I look on us leo's often hardball and pseudo-militarian approach to such encounters, because there are so many weapons in everyday society and people willing to use them against leo's.
This Shaver encounter is not one of those. There were multiple rifles pointed at him, who was alone, drunk and terrified. You could clearly hear it from his voice, and he was completely compliant to the best of his abilities.
The officer in charge was going all-in Rambo on him and did nothing to calm the situation. All his commands was balls-to-the-walls aggressive and multiple threats to Shavers life. The commands was confusing, even to me all sober behind a screen, and to drunk Shaver they must've been greek. He was in panic.
Imo the officer giving commands, and the officer shooting, should both be considered guilty of manslaughter. They should not be allowed with guns, much less leo's.