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 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 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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.