Comment by JadeNB | Hacker News Reader

Comment by JadeNB | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The point of the article—that it's important to remember that mob justice is no more appropriate when directed against a deserving than an undeserving target, precisely because the mob can't be trusted to decide who's 'deserving'—I think is well taken, but this seems a bit much:

> His dental practice is closed at the moment, and his harassers are gleeful that they are denying him an income. But this also inflicts harm on people who did not kill Cecil the lion. Palmer's family presumably relies on his income. So do his employees, whose livelihoods are now threatened as well. When a Reddit user pointed this out, over 1,500 users voted in support of the response that "His employees are better off working elsewhere." The mob, naturally, has shown no intention of helping to find new jobs for the innocent dental employees it is seeking to put out of work.

Presumably, the same, or almost the same, outcome (of his dental practice being closed, not the other harrassment) would occur if he were, say, imprisoned for his actions after a lawful trial, but no-one would claim that it was the court's responsibility to "find new jobs for the innocent dental employees it is [putting] out of work."

EDIT: I know downvote-complaining is out of place, but silent downvotes in response to serious argument is a pain. I certainly could be wrong, but I intended my contribution to be a constructive part of the discussion; please explain to me what's wrong or why you disagree!

> Presumably, the same, or almost the same, outcome (of his dental practice being closed, not the other harrassment) would occur if he were, say, imprisoned for his actions after a lawful trial, but no-one would claim that it was the court's responsibility to "find new jobs for the innocent dental employees it is [putting] out of work."

This goes back to the difference between an internet mob and a court. The internet mob acts on moral outrage. It is inconsistent for them to be outraged about the death of a lion and not outraged about innocents losing income.

The court acts on legal principles. Legally, if the dentist is to be punished, that's where it ends.

maybe the rise of internet "mob justice" is in part due to the masses losing faith in traditional forms of justice. Doesn't make it right or wrong, just a reflection.

Seem to me to be more a rise of "for the lulz" thinking.

I wonder how large a part of the mob could not care less about the cause as long as they get some (flimsy) justification for harassing.

I don't think it's about losing faith, so much as formalized careful justice being contrary to human nature.

I remember learning that ancient Athens had the same problem, with demagogues stirring up emotions to talk the assembly into doing all sort of stupid shit.

The more available group over-emotionality is, the more effort is required to suppress it in favor of reasoned responses.

This. 100% this. The left over ape in U.S. Yells "get um!" When it's angry. Formalized justice exists to mitigate this. The internet has just made it so much easier for mobs to organize.

One of the primary reasons we have a criminal justice system is to curtail vigilantism.

Yes. It has been said that without the Rule of Law there is only the Law of the Jungle.

Yeah. Mob justice is not some tool of the oppressed.

The US had something like 5400 lynching between 1880 and 1980. It seems that a culture steeped in that behavior would help the internet like the winds help a roof fire.

This isn't really the same thing; lynching was primarily an expression of racial hatred. And the angry internet mob is definitely a worldwide phenomenon.

Mob justice is very definitely a response to feelings that the conventional justice system is either too slow, too narrowly drawn, or too favouritist to address actual problems. And it sort of works; I wonder how many hunting trips have been cancelled after this event? (Hard to know since they were secret and illegal in the first place.)

> And it sort of works; I wonder how many hunting trips have been cancelled after this event?

I think that the 'sort of' here is important. Mob justice is, presumably, very good at curtailing activities of which the mob disapproves; but, not only is there no guarantee that the mob disapproves only of 'bad' activities—as the Gamergate situation mentioned by the article proves—but, perhaps even worse, there is no guarantee that what the mob approves today it will also approve tomorrow, nor that what one mob approves another will not attack.

No, they are the same thing.

From what I understand of the climate at the time, the justice system was seen as wrong in turning against recognizing different classes of people.

> maybe the rise of internet "mob justice" is in part due to the masses losing faith in traditional forms of justice. Doesn't make it right or wrong, just a reflection.

I meant neither to defend nor to condemn mob justice (except perhaps implicitly, by approving of the general thrust of the article), only to object to the specific grounds on which the paragraph I quoted criticised mob justice as opposed to traditional forms of justice.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com