Online shaming: The return of mob morality [video]
cbc.ca
cbc.ca
The parent link however gives many more examples of her manufacturing and building outrage to try and self-promote, and attempting to whip up the mob to get her way.
My point is simply that, much like the game developer interviewed towards the end of the video who had participated in online shaming until she experienced it herself, Adria Richards' questionable actions do not make her any less a victim.
Yes they do. People are responsible for their actions. You're discussiong this as if it's some abstract ethical hypothetical. In the real world if you try to get ahead at other peoples expense then you should expect retaliation.
As far as I'm concerned, Adria Richards did pretty much zero wrong. Such a backwards world with its daily bullshit will get on your nerves and make you snap one day.
No way in hell would I ever comment on whether Adria Richards was ever a less-than-pleasant snowflake, because that'd make me part of the problem.
You can make that argument about literally anyone who is oppressed. A black man in a ghetto might get tired of being in a shitty situation all his life and "snap" to shoot up a police station. That does not mean he "did pretty much zero wrong".
In general, your trials and tribulations should not become somebody else's trials and tribulations. Adria Richards did a lot of wrong when she tried to ruin someone else's life because she didn't find a joke funny. And no, saying that does not make me "part of the problem".
- Richards "stated that she had no intention or wish that he lose his job." [2]
- She stated surprise at the powder keg: "I don’t think anyone who was part of what happened at PyCon that day could possibly have imagined how this issue would have exploded into the public consciousness the way it has. I certainly did not, and now that the severest of consequences have manifested, all I wish to do is find the good in what has been one of the most challenging weeks of my life." [3]
She didn't shoot up a police station. (Just because she's an African-American, doesn't mean she did. If she resorted to killing, that... would indeed be a questionable decision.) It was a tweet with a pic.
This poster is an excellent illustration that many of us dudebros are far more concerned that we'll be caught on Twitter over dick jokes at a "professional" conference, than death/rape threats to women. It's like Game of Thrones.
I personally have worked with such bozo programmers who literally said "Penis? Penis." or "Is that homo?" all fucking day. Such manchild individuals, coddled in the software industry, are the problem. Make them angry, the manchild mob will threaten your life.
[1] http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/05/no-charges-for-cop-sto...
[2] http://venturebeat.com/2013/03/27/adria-richards-speaks-on-w...
[3] http://allthingsd.com/20130327/fired-sendgrid-developer-evan...
Since ludicrous lies like yours are so common, I feel compelled to reiterate that the sum total of what Ms. Richards did was say something was "not cool" and ask the convention organizers "Can someone talk to these guys about their conduct?"
Those two direct quotes are the complete entirety of her actions against them.
But instead she had to go the extra mile and tweet it in a state of fury and indignant rage. Sharing/shaming people on social media in order to get revenge; always an advisable move. Like being drunk and deciding that you should give that guy who you've always had a problem with "a piece of your mind". But surely, she couldn't have foreseen that sharing something like that might cost one of the guys his job? Except her job had to do with PR and social media. Come on; she knew what she was doing. She knows what kind of power having many followers on Twitter grants you. She knows how touchy this whole gender/women/tech topic is. And she wasn't sorry about it later.
Well, that was a nice trip down memory lane...
I do. They weren't going to assault her in public or anything. I'll bet a donut against a Kobe steak that if she (or a friend of hers) politely told those guys that she could hear them and that they were being disrespectful, they would blush and stop with the puerile jokes.
Neither were given any opportunity to apologize, or to explain the perceived offense. In that moment, she acted foolishly and irresponsibly and most importantly publicly, without any regard for the lives of the people she was acting against.
[1] https://twitter.com/adriarichards/status/313417655879102464
Well, no. Because some manager somewhere decided to do something, something happened. Ms. Richards had nothing to do with it. It is really fascinating how you've avoided putting the slightest blame on the employer here. What ability does Ms. Richards have to control the employer's employment actions?
Your statement is also utterly false. PyCon met with the individuals at the time, who apologized for their vulgar remarks. Of course, the one then later posted to HN, apologizing again but blaming his woes on Richards instead of his dumb employer, which started the whole witch-hunt, so perhaps his apology was not entirely sincere.
In case you aren't used to thinking in these terms, the legal profession provides some guides. One of them is proximate cause. Was the action of calling an action "not cool" sufficiently close to the action of a person Ms. Richards never met or spoke to in firing the developer as to be the cause of that firing? And further, was the result reasonably foreseeable by an average person at the time? Does it often happen that calling something "not cool" results in the object of the remark being fired?
That certainly seems to be drawing a causal link between the picture being taken / Tweeted, and the firing. Is that not accurate or are there details that I haven't understood?
I would agree with you if it wasn't clear that the entire purpose of the Tweet (with picture) was public shaming. She knew the audience (her thousands of followers) and she knew their possible (even likely) reaction. That was the whole point. She took a semi-public, fundamentally local act and made it completely public and potentially global. That does not seem to be a proportionate reaction to the offense.
She should have known about the public fallout this could have on the employees and their employer. As a PR professional Adria Richards is / ought to be fully aware of what she puts out into the world and the potential consequences of putting it out there.
"PyCon met with the individuals at the time, who apologized for their vulgar remarks." But not before Adria Richards had already tweeted a picture of the offenders. Neither were given a chance to apologize before Adria Richards made the split-second decision to go completely public.
Isn't it really "As a result of my manager firing me, I was let go from my job today"?
Or even "As a result of my shameful actions at PyCon, I was let go from my job today"?
Do you blame the reporter in all circumstances? If you hear about Texas executing a murderer, do you think to yourself "it's the fault of the person who reported that crime that that man was executed"? Or do you think the state of Texas and possibly the person's own actions may have had something to do with it?
What witch hunt? The fired developer has literally never even been identified publicly. To this day.
She has gone on to say that she's not sorry for what happened to the two guys and that they deserved it, and that she is unrepentant about the whole thing.
Reasonable people feel a bit shocked by that.
The guy should not have made that comment; she should not have made a public comment about them; a pitch-forked mob should not have caused him and then her to lose their jobs; but after all that it is kind of odd to hear her say that the disruption and chaos is an acceptable result of him making a stupid joke at an inappropriate time.
That's silly. The article posted by Amanda Blum above lists at least a couple different ways that Adria Richards could have handled the situation more constructively. It seems pretty obvious to most of us that nearly everyone involved acted wrong to some degree. The men shouldn't have been making the joke, Adria Richards shouldn't have posted the photo on Twitter, Play Haven and Sendgrid should've had more fortitude, etc.
> No way in hell would I ever comment on whether Adria Richards was ever a less-than-pleasant snowflake, because that'd make me part of the problem.
That's also silly. You're not allowed to have an opinion on someone because of their gender/ethnicity? Seems like a pretty sexist thing to say that a woman needs to be treated with kid gloves because of her gender.
I reread this account: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5398681 and I disagree. It doesn't deserve a death threat, no one does, but it is a sort of reckless, misguided behavior (at least, I think the guy would appreciate an upfront honesty).
It reminds me of another lady, Anita Sarkeesian, who also received death threats. I sympathize with her, but I also watched her videos about Tropes vs. Women in Video Games and I can't escape the conclusion that she is little crazy. I really wonder how she managed to get such a collection of brutality, I have seen lot of things in porn myself, but this was just sickening. I really have to ask, why does she play these games?
It seems to me that behavior these ladies engage in is just an equivalent of climbing a mountain, or similar adrenaline-filled activity. Apparently, there are people out there who misread this as some sort of sexual signal or they are mentally ill or whatever, so whether these women realize it or not, it is very risky.
Just like if you fear heights, don't climb the mountains! It doesn't alleviate the risk of falling entirely, but significantly. Maybe a better comparison would be Charlie Hebdo attack. Sure, no one deserves to get killed over a joke, but still, poking fun at something that millions of people take extremely seriously is a risky proposition.
I think free speech is important. There shouldn't be a social norm that bans (or causes shaming of) feminism, nor there should there be a social norm that bans anti-feminism. Both views can be extreme, but they are still legitimate.
http://www.gayle.com/blog/2013/03/24/digging-beneath-the-sur...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_8y0WLm78U
Arguably, Lewinsky has the dubious distinction of being Patient Zero for this modern trend.
That is, the most frequent online recrimination I encounter is shame-shaming.
Which I think can be generalized to it being socially incorrect these days to express a negative opinion. It seems to be an overreaction to trolls and brigades that anyone who says something that isn't supportive of the main topic is considered to be disruptive. Except among communities that are small enough so the frequent contributors are well known and trusted to be able to express their possibly controversial opinions.
Essentially, if you consider reputation the currency of social trade, then there is a tragedy of the commons in large forums.
Do you have data for this, or are you judging this based on the reactions from your own social circle? If the latter, then it sounds like you hang out with cool people. Kudos. Unfortunately, I don't think that's the common reaction to shame postings. GamerGate is a great counter-example where shaming those who support GamerGate is positively received by a great number of people.
> Except among communities that are small enough so the frequent contributors are well known and trusted to be able to express their possibly controversial opinions.
And even then, if those communities are able to be viewed by the public (ie: on a public forum, like a subreddit), they will eventually have negative media campaigns run against them. Public shaming on the scale of an entire subreddit.
That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. The controversy of GamerGate was not that there was sexism among gamers. It was that there was conflict regarding when someone complains about sexism. The debate turned away from the salient issue and to arguing for and against whether there should even be a debate. People were complaining about other people complaining, which leads to complaints about those people complaining and so on.
Of the public shaming instances I've been aware of, the discussion on the internet has been about whether or not the incident should have been made public, and less about justifying or recriminating what originally happened.
It's an odd and frustrating social feedback loop. I wonder if it's related to bureaucratic inertia. Where problems fail to reach a solution because the bureaucracy gets stuck in a cycle of studying the problem, then studying the study of the problem, etc.