Hacker News Reader

Comment by dkhenry | Hacker News Reader

Hi internet vigilantes lets have a chat,

I know this lawyer has done something we think is both morally wrong, legally dubious, and unintelligent. However the real life harassing of this individual is not something a civil society should condone. I would hope that at least the mob of individuals who frequent this web site would be a little classier then both Matthew Inman ,and the internet at larges response.

Why does it appear the internet only has two modes, Blind Adoration and Violent Lynch Mob ?

View on HN

I would hope that at least the mob of individuals who frequent this web site would be a little classier then both Matthew Inman

Matthew Inman's response to this whole sorry affair seems to be primarily that he wants to write comics and not play at being a lawyer, and he'd prefer it if people just let him get on with that and enjoy the results. Given the flagrant copyright violation of the other site involved here, and the nature of the lawyer who is chasing Inman right now, I think he's been remarkably classy.

I suspect a lot of people in his position would instead have lawyered up, gone after the other site for a retirement-level scale of statutory damages, and gone after the other lawyer personally with the intent of ending his career. Frankly, I wouldn't blame them, and I almost wish Inman would do that as a matter of principle. However, I have to admire his focus on doing the work he wants to do and his choice to do something socially useful to make his point instead.

I don't mean what he said I mean how he said it. The picture of the bear is petty and juvenile.

...

Then perhaps you shouldn't visit the Oatmeal. His site is full of that kind of thing. Some people like it, some people don't. You're apparently in the second group. ;)

The picture of the bear is reasonable and appropriate, given the circumstances. Mature, even.

oh no -- don't hurt the extortionist's fee fees

Abusing the legal system is more than petty and juvenile, it degrades the fabric of all of civil society. It should be met with strong opposition, including petty and juvenile insults. But not real-world harassment or intimidation of course.

The picture of the bear is substandard to the other work on his site.

It is intentionally petty and juvenile to draw the comparison that the letter from FunnyJunk's lawyer is petty and juvenile.

Lynch mobs are real things and have a real history. Lynch mobs as defined, always results in the death of a person or persons at the hands of a mob. An attorney who bit off more than he can chew and as a result received a number of nasty emails is not the victim of a lynch mob.

Though it could be argued that a digital lynch mob could be defined as a group who "kills" someone online. If this gets any more out of hand, how much business or reputation do you think this lawyer would have left?

A digital lynch mob killed HB Gary Federal. It's happened before.

++edit++ guys, I wasn't arguing that this guy deserves reputation or has a right to do whatever he wants. I was arguing that a "lynch mob" can and does exist on the Internet. Like the parent said, lynch mobs harass and sometimes kill people. Digital equivalents to lynch mobs exist.

> If this gets any more out of hand, how much business or reputation do you think this lawyer would have left?

And what makes this lawyer deserve a good reputation? It was his responsibility to investigate the case, and apply his best judgement as to if FJ had any legal ground to stand on. From what is publicly known, FJ has no basis for their threat of legal action, and the situation appears so cut-n-dried that I doubt the existence of any hidden facts which could change this.

The lawyer had a choice to inform his client of the legal situation. The lawyer had a choice whether or not to represent FJ. And the lawyer is now paying for the consequences.

And what makes this lawyer deserve a good reputation?

Never made this claim. That was a hypothetical situation that I used to back up my argument of "Though it could be argued that a digital lynch mob could be defined as a group who "kills" someone online."

You don't have a right to business or a good reputation. If I act like a jerk and you accurately report it to people and they decide they don't like me because of it, the resulting damage to my reputation is my fault, not yours.

And remember, what LulzSec did to HBGary Federal is hack their servers and leak their private data. If LulzSec's techniques were limited to sending strongly worded letters, I don't think they would be controversial at all.

I sure wouldn't try and argue that a digital lynch mob "killed" HB Gary Federal or this attorney. If you look at these two cases and the resultant internet backlash you'll notice a pattern of escalating the issue at which point they eventually end up backing down once they realize how utterly stupid they look. Then once their incompetence is up for display for all the world to see they claim they where "killed" by a "digital lynch mob". Please excuse me if I'm less then sympathetic.

Well what is a lynch mob if not a group of people harassing someone (for good or bad) who then is forced to defend themselves (for good or bad) until the group get riled up enough to take them out (in any way, for good or bad)?

My argument was that this backlash could cause enough harassment to put the lawyer out of business, in an attempt to refute the parent's claim that a digital lynch mob could not exist on the Internet. I don't claim to be sympathetic to the lawyer's cause, merely trying to hold a reasonable discussion on a web forum by debating new-tech terminology.

> A digital lynch mob killed HB Gary Federal. It's happened before.

It hasn't happened before because HB Gary Federal is not a person and thus cannot be killed.

No one can be "killed online." Killing is the ending of a human life. It is a word with a very specific meaning. Even if Internet action somehow led to someone's death, they still would not be "killed online" – they would be killed. In reality. By a person or group of persons. Not by "online."

Is this conversation really happening? This needs to be explained?

No one can be "killed online." Killing is the ending of a human life. It is a word with a very specific meaning.

Nonsense. All the time I go into Task Manager and kill processes. I was working on a project that went over budget and it got killed. When I get out of my car, I kill the engine.

Kill does not only mean the ending of human life. It's possible to kill ideas or even non-biological physical processes.

A very splendid example of deliberate obtuseness, sir/madam. I hereby grant you the degree of Doctor of Internet Trolling, with all the rights, privileges and honors thereto pertaining. A very nice parchment is coming in the mail – you can display it proudly beside your many collected downvotes.

Trolling? I put "kill" in scare quotes for a reason... the use of words expressing something other than their literal intention.

It's all good, homie. Don't gild the lily. You've already hit the home run by comparing the very real, very brutal killings of blacks, gays, and other minorities at the hands of actual, real lynch mobs to silly Internet jerkoffery. And car engines!

Let your masterpiece speak for itself.

Sorry to intrude, but http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kill makes the OP's a valid observation. Digital lynch mobs certainly can defeat or in extreme cases put an end to an organization.

Now, OP's edit comparing the digital killing to the actual, life ending, killing is indeed unfortunate.

Is it any worse than calling an argument a "flame war"? Or arguments saying that if corporations are people, there should be a corporate death penalty?

I wasn't comparing digital death to real life death. Those words we put into my mouth; I never made that argument. I even used scare quotes to hint that it's a word being used out of traditional context. It's possible to have real-life terms translate into digital concepts without necessarily implying the 1:1 correlation that some have assumed. When my mouse dies it doesn't mean I've committed animal abuse, it just means I need to recharge the batteries.

I just like to have interesting discussions. That's why we're all here.

> I was arguing that a "lynch mob" can and does exist on the Internet. Like the parent said, lynch mobs harass and sometimes kill people.

This is what I mean for a bit unfortunate, because it obviously refers to actual death.

The argument, of digital lynch mobs being able to heavily damage (which is one definition of kill) corporations or people, I agree with.

It's a metaphor*

While I've never been on the receiving end of an Internet community outrage like this, I can imagine that it can feel legitimately scary. You can't know how many threats over email are empty or how many come from genuinely disturbed individuals who may take real-world action.

* see also "witch hunt" and most contemporary usages of the word "terrorism"

I think you'd find it's much closer to the historic "Rough Music"[1] form of social justice, in which people disapproved publicly enough to make it known, but typically refrained from violence.

I don't know what the numbers would show, but I'm not sure there'd be any significantly greater actual risk from 'genuinely disturbed individuals who may take real-world action' over a particular cause like this vs doing something because the demon in the neighbour's dog told them to[2]. The mental impact of having to wade through the messages is a different matter, of course.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rough_music

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_Sam

The mental impact of having to wade through the messages is a different matter, of course

That mental impact is, I'm guessing, a big deal, and I'm having a hard time coming up with a good takeaway.

If you're a person who feels legally infringed by a beloved internet celebrity, should you be able to get legal representation? Sure, this particular case doesn't appear to have any merit, but if I were a lawyer, I sure wouldn't be very eager to take on any clients who would go up against the angry hordes. Would that have a chilling effect for legitimate cases?

"beloved internet celebrity"

We've also had non-internet celebrities for a long time, not to mention politicians, etc. Trying to go after one of them is going to be a bad time too.

The issue is when you try to use the law to go after someone with more _power_ than you.

The Oatmeal's power is their internet fans, but obviously FunnyJunk thought they had the same power and were on equal footing.

You probably have not been following this issue as long as others, but do you realize that in May 2011 that FunnyJunk's admin sent out a message to all of their users asking them to harass the Oatmeal?

"The FunnyJunk owner known as Admin responded with a message to all users “the Oatmeal wants to sue funnyjunk and shut it down! He thinks we're nothing more than dirty content thieves...Contact Oatmeal anyway you can!" and provided links to The Oatmeal's e-mail and Facebook page.[1] This triggered spamming by FunnyJunk users and a flame war with The Oatmeal readers."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oatmeal_and_FunnyJunk_legal...

I actually have been following this one for a while, in that I used to work in the user-generated-internet-humor space (Cheezburger Network) and had to deal with a lot of this from both sides.

My concern still stands, though. Even though FunnyJunk unleashed their own internet harassment posse, doesn't diminish the potential chilling effect of the Oatmeal's internet harassment posse.

I just find the whole affair distasteful. I've lost my ability to enjoy the Schadenfreude of internet shitstorms.

"Vigilantes"? People who express strong disapproval via email are vigilantes now? My goodness, back in my day that term meant something a bit stronger than vocal disagreement. So what do we now call people who engage in the sort of violent behavior that used to be called vigilantism?

We call them terrorists. And the rest of the world has picked up on this new vocabulary too. "Syria is at war against armed groups that choose terrorism." -Bashar al-Assad

That used to mean something more specific, though...

The people calling for his website to be hacked are the specific vigilantes I am speaking to.

> However the real life harassing of this individual is not something a civil society should condone.

The real life harassing of an individual making web comics by stealing and re-branding his content when all he asked was not to photoshop out his brandings at the bottom, trying to incite people to go after him(funnyjunk's mail to its userbase), then threatening him with lawsuit unless he pays up when he is done nothing wrong is also not something a civil society should condone.

> internet vigilantes

All people are doing is making some noise in their blogs and other social media outlets, and sending the lawyer mails.

> I know this lawyer has done something we think is both morally wrong, legally dubious,

I have a problem with both morally wrong and legally dubious. I am just a lawyer for my client shouldn't get you off the hook. I am just doing my job has got to be the most irritating and weakest excuse in the history of mankind. From where I see, the lawyer shouldn't have difficulty in comprehending funnyjunk, and not oatmeal is the one stealing ; and there is 0 sense in harassing the oatmeal over it, yet he is doing it. I don't see why the lawyer deserves my considerations.

I believe there are provisions to get a lawyer debarred for frivolous law-suits, but they are difficult in practice, and take a lot of time and money. Matthew Inman happens to have the money and the following to stand up to this bullying; there isn't much a smaller web comic creator would have done. The lawyer's situation is much, much more pleasant that what theoatmeal's would have been, had he lacked the money or the resources to fight back.

This lawyer, or funnyjunk, doesn't deserve my sympathy. If you think otherwise, we must agree to disagree.

> I would hope that at least the mob of individuals who frequent this web site would be a little classier then both Matthew Inman ,and the internet at larges response.

But while you are disagreeing, please get off your high horse.

I totally agree I am on a high horse. Thats my point instead of being the bigger man and handling this like an adult it appears we are content to fight about it like children "Well he started it ....".

Yes I know he is a bad person and did bad things, that doesn't mean we have the moral authority to phone bomb him, and hack his websites ( both of which have been called for in this thread )

> I totally agree I am on a high horse. Thats my point instead of being the bigger man and handling this like an adult it appears we are content to fight about it like children "Well he started it ....".

Delusions of being the bigger man aren't the same as being the bigger man. Bullies are the problem, but more than them, people who ask the bullied to let it be and not push the bully back because somehow that makes them a bigger man are more problematic than the bullies.

TheOatmeal didn't pick up a fight. What is he supposed to do when he has a fight shoved into his face? "Well, he started it..." matters, because when funnyjunk started it, it didn't give him choice to opt out of it.

> that doesn't mean we have the moral authority

Who the hell is we here? I didn't know I was joining a collective consciousness by making an account on HN.

The armory that this lawyer has is sending out these letters, going to court, suing people. The armory that the internet dweller has harassment.

Both are defending what they believe in, with the powers that they have.

There is a case to be made that this legal harassment is destroying our society, and the internet dwellers are fighting against this the only way they know how.

The people on the internet have more modes than that, but only the people who fall into one of those modes bother to write email.

>Why does it appear the internet only has two modes, Blind Adoration and Violent Lynch Mob ?

Because the majority set of modes which fall under the broad umbrella of "general apathy" isn't very noticeable.

The internet is a mass of people, in which case you will see mob psychology & mentalities arise very quickly.

Mobs aren't noted for their nuanced and leisurely views on the situation.

What's really worse? A bunch of emails or thousands of dollars of legal fees? Does anyone really care that this lawyer was on a receiving end of an attack that isn't part of his profession? Maybe he should keep a PR guy on retainer and pay per hour to help out his reputation.

Why does it appear the internet only has two modes, Blind Adoration and Violent Lynch Mob

It doesn't, really. It's just that those are the two vocal modes - moderates and people who don't care aren't going to raise their voices to be heard about the issue.

I find the phenomenon of internet lynch mobs both fascinating and deeply disturbing.

here's a question - why does what the funnyjunk lawyer did not count as real-life harassing of the oatmeal dude?

Maybe it should. Do two wrongs make a right?

It's possible for both sides in an argument to be assholes.

In many cases I'm willing to give a person defending themselves a little bit of a pass if they are being an asshole. Particularly if they are not more of an asshole than the asshole they are defending themselves from. And even more still if they do it in glorious fashion like he did. I mean, a picture of the dudes mom trying to get some bear love... gold! And the charity thing? Brilliant! We need more "assholes" like him, IMO.

I don't think that complaining publicly makes you responsible for how people who hear you react. Did the Oatmeal instigate the hate mail?

well, he has been attacked. the question is now how to defend himself - if he goes the legal route, he has let the attacker set the terms of the engagement. instead he chose to hold his harassment up to the light of publicity.

>>Why does it appear the internet only has two modes, Blind Adoration and Violent Lynch Mob ?

There's a lot going on in between, but it's not news-worthy.

Because the people who fit into both of those categories make themselves a lot louder and more visible than the moderates.

Anonymous can be: "none of us is as cruel as all of us" OR "aww, a box of kittens snuggling a fuzzy duckling"

I hope and doubt that Internet Vigilantes who are going to be sending threatening emails are not here.

Sending an email voicing your disapproval is not really 'lynching' now is it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com