Hacker News Reader

I've looked at the reddit threads a bit and it looked to me like a place where discussion was going on and people were trying to help.

There is a big difference between sharing a photo and asking if it might contain a suspect and posting a "wanted poster" or having national media announce that someone is a suspect. The former is what I saw on reddit, if the later happened it wasn't on that site.

There should be a way to have an online discussion without people jumping to conclusions.

> I've looked at the reddit threads a bit and it looked to me like a place where discussion was going on and people were trying to help.

You're factually incorrect, or maybe you were just looking in the wrong place: http://i.imgur.com/R0CZtwR.png and http://www.reddit.com/r/findbostonbombers/comments/1co0d5/he... and I guess there are countless others.

Not to mention that I learned the names of the wrongly accused "suspects" from Hacker News first, but I guess we'll just keep digging our heads in the sand and carry on like nothing has ever happened.

I'm not saying that all comments posted to the threads were appropriate, I'm talking about the general tone of the discussion.

Every (even arguably) inappropriate comment I saw was quickly responded to by others.

EDIT (Added) : Of course given human nature it's inevitable that some people will jump to conclusions, but should that invalidate the discussion itself ? I don't think so. It seems to me like banning criticism of the government because some people might start a revolution.

just pointing out that the thread image you submitted as evidence to the contrary had 4 karma points, which on reddit is akin to a whistle in the dark. If it had 1800 karma points I could see the sentiment having broader reddit apeal.

Exactly, everyone was actively telling each other not to be heroes and report what they know to the FBI instead of speculating on the board. It didn't keep everyone from being stupid, but that's not what the majority of the spirit of those threads were about.

I'll gladly acknowledge that there were plenty of people trying hard to keep things in check, but it can be observed that at some point things went off the rails, e.g. http://www.reddit.com/r/boston/comments/1cn9ga/is_missing_st...

Yes - it seems speculators here got it right this time.

Somebody get OP reddit gold for life.

Reddit was right!

gif of missing brown student & suspect in marathon bombing (subsequently tweeted by Salon, etc.)

Dude...this thread is going to go down in history!

Reddit 1.... news media 0

> This is exactly why the government feels like they should get involved in regulating the internet, because we aren't taking care of it ourselves. I can already see how a case will be put together next week using the reddit witch hunt threads as a reason why the internet needs censorship. Think about what our responses are going to be to that.

What we do online is a reflection of what we do offline. To think that there aren't offline hunts and people who go around shouting those things without the internet is absurd. To suggest this is why we need internet censorship easily lends its self to the argument that people's every day offline lives need to be monitored and controlled.

He's not suggesting that we need internet censorship because of this, he's suggesting this is why ignorant octogenarian legislators think we need internet censorship. Everything is scarier when it happens on a black box you don't understand.

> What we do online is a reflection of what we do offline. To think that there aren't offline hunts and people who go around shouting those things without the internet is absurd. To suggest this is why we need internet censorship easily lends its self to the argument that people's every day offline lives need to be monitored and controlled.

When you stand on a street corner shouting ‘This guy did it’ with a picture of said guy, how many people do you reach as compared to a similar post on Reddit?

Conversely, what is the status of other mass-media (newspapers, radio, TV etc.) regarding the information they publish? Will a radio ever broadcast ‘This guy did it’ without some fact-checking? At least here (Germany), that is not/should not be the case.

The very easy way to solve this problem would obviously be to improve defamation/libel laws to such an extend that wrongfully accusing someone of X gets you the maximum penalty for X as a minimum. At least people posting Wanted posters on Facebook should be easy to catch, then.

> When you stand on a street corner shouting ‘This guy did it’ with a picture of said guy, how many people do you reach as compared to a similar post on Reddit?

Without going too deep into the hole of metaphors, a guy standing on the street corner shouting about anything has the same credibility as the author of http://www.timecube.com/

I liked most of the FBI's press conference yesterday, but I also wish, in addition to "do not try to apprehend, leave that to the cops", they had also said "if you know their names, tell the FBI, and for God's sake don't post it on the Internet."

Maybe the FBI should give out karma to tipsters. (This last sentence is sarcasm.)

Maybe the FBI can buy them reddit gold. :-)

I think the Brown student's name was mentioned by police as one of the two suspects and it went from there. There's probably a lesson in public reaction to information from police scanners to be had.

Given that police mobilised near the suspects' apartment only around or after the time that their address was hitting social media, I suspect that at least in this case, many cops on the ground (and using their radios) were getting info at roughly the same pace as everyone else.

e.g., if there's an official statement, it will be a press briefing or designated as something official.

I haven't found the part of the police radio transcripts where he's mentioned ... was he specifically mentioned as a suspect or was his name simply mentioned on the radio (possibly because he's missing)?

While I suspect the Boston police department's number one priority is finding the marathon bombing suspects, wouldn't it be logical that their other cases would still be discussed?

EDIT: I agree with the premise of this thread ... it's interesting to watch the real-time parts of the case, but drawing conclusions should be:

a) Not be done in real-time

b) Based on known facts

c) Vetted by multiple sources

The brown student's name was mentioned by a woman on twitter in response to looking at the released photos. Apparently it looked like a friend of hers that had gone missing a month prior after dropping out of school and becoming depressed. There were already a few articles about the missing person case, predating the bombing, and those were being linked by reporters in twitter feeds. The name mentioned on the police scanner was yet another person, also not correct.

We already have the laws to handle that kind of witch hunt behavior (it's basically defamation), it's just that we need to have them enforced. Sadly, a lot of people seem to think that their responsibility for what they do stop once they're online.

Pretty sure those aren't criminal and it's up to the person being demafed to sue.

https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Asuspect

Why did you try to get reddit threads closed, and not get the Australian TV news station closed?

Wait a minute, mob justice behavior on reddit has absolutely zero to do with why the "government wants to take control of the internet". Whatever trends there are along those lines are entirely related to state interests in espionage and critical services, media control, ip protection and interests in mass surveillance.

Most of those people have probably never even heard of reddit yet along give two shits about some collateral damage in an investigation of terrorism.