You are conflating two independent ideas: was it wise to behave as she did, and was 4chan's response OK. The answer to both is "no". It was unwise for her to do what she did, but that does not justify the response. Don't accuse people of blaming the victim for pointing out her unwise behavior.
If I go for a walk in a minefield, it sucks that my leg got blown off...but I could have perhaps exercised better judgment regarding the location of my evening constitutional. That doesn't make it OK to deploy land mines, that just makes me an idiot for walking into the minefield.
Spoken like someone who has never been slut-shamed. Or had his/her leg blown off by a landmine. People don't actually get maimed because they stupidly walked into a minefield. They get maimed because someone put a minefield where they live and grew up, and they can't live life at all without being in constant danger. Women don't get slut-shamed because they did something to deserve it, they get slut-shamed because they live in a culture where our first reaction to anything having to do with women and harassment is to look for a reason why she had it coming.
Someone doesn't have to say "I blame the victim" to blame the victim. Usually what they say is something along the lines of "I'm not blaming her, but..."
Spoken like someone who has never been slut-shamed.
Classic ad hominem.
People don't actually get maimed because they stupidly walked into a minefield.
The operative term here is 'hypothetical analogy'. By insisting on the accuracy of the morbidity statistics of real-world minefields you're intentionally confusing the point and trying to derail the discussion.
I don't know. The only rail I see in this discussion is "wow, she should have known better." Nothing about how pathological the response was, nothing about the culture that encourages that community to retaliate with such vengeance and mirth. All of that is in the story, and in the background, but we're not talking about that... we're talking about whether or not she should have known better. That's the rail.
Discussing the response is useless, because there's nothing much to discuss, we'd just be agreeing with each other and patting ourselves on the back.
I know that some communities enjoys such circlejerks, but I expect HN to be above that.
In this case, I think it's kind of a stretch to suggest the victim doesn't hold some level of culpability.
She wasn't randomly targeted just for going about her business; she was targeted because she repeatedly posted calling /b/ "fags," "jits," "[/b] ain't shit," etc.
Suggesting that she doesn't have any responsibility for what happened doesn't make any more sense to me than condoning how /b/ responded.
I don't buy the landmine analogy because she didn't "walk into" this situation by happenstance.
Imagine a woman (or a man) who is sexually assaulted after deliberately entering a prison reserved for violent sex offenders and intentionally provoking the inmates. The offenders have committed a reprehensible crime. Still, the victim is responsible for taking on an obvious risk.
But wouldn't it be awesome if one showed up and made an insightful contribution to the conversation?
If I were a woman who had lost a limb in combat and had had a higher than average number of boyfriends, I think I would probably feel quite insulted that people were assuming I was unable to reason logically about the OP's premise.
In this case, wasn't the poster assuming that you (the slut-shamed landmine victim) were unable to avoid reasoning correctly? Without taking sides here, it seems as if the poster was saying "you're wrong about X, therefore you couldn't be part of group Y that would know about X".
Perhaps, but it seems to me that the "X" was a premise about how 4chan relates to people who taunt it openly. Then an analogy was made to sexual assault and landmine victims and then it was "you couldn't be part of group Y" that would have first-hand knowledge of sexual assault and landmine morbidity factors.
I'll say this: anyone who goes around using sexual assault victims and landmine amputees for their analogies is just asking for it.
> Spoken like someone who has never been slut-shamed. Or had his/her leg blown off by a landmine. People don't actually get maimed because they stupidly walked into a minefield. They get maimed because someone put a minefield where they live and grew up, and they can't live life at all without being in constant danger.
If we don't expect people to exercise "common sense" in trying to avoid becoming the victims of circumstance, then why do we install locks on cars and homes? Missing locks on a house doesn't make it acceptable to steal things from inside of it, yet we don't in general rely on that social and legal rule alone.
Lacey doesn't deserve the treatment she's been getting but it's entirely appropriate to point out that the response could have been foreseen by anyone with experience with 4chan's /b/ (which includes Lacey, if she's to be believed). Any other argument is of the same intellectual logic as trying to prevent teen pregnancy by not teaching teens about sex (which is even worse as a method than abstinence education!)
This should be a "teachable moment" for other teenage or young entrepreneurs trying to drum up public interest in their enterprise by poking 4chan. It certainly shouldn't be hidden from public view just to make it look like it was a completely random attack on /b/'s part. People need to be educated about what can happen.
I don't think this accurately characterizes the article and the discussion. Saying that this is a "teachable moment" is sugar-coating the character of the responses here. I'm not arguing that the agency of the harassment victim, and what should be "common sense" precautions, can't be discussed at all. But it's a distraction and a cop-out, and it fits a destructive pattern. When our first response, collectively, is to dismiss the person whose life is still being actively dismantled with "well that's what happens," then all we're doing is blaming the victim. We talk about what the victim of this harassment campaign should have done differently, but not about what the perpetrators should have done differently. "Common sense" should dictate that you don't try to get someone fired and harass them relentlessly in this way because they took a jab at you on the internet.
I don't think that the basic facts of what she did to "provoke this" are in dispute, at least if we take the article's account at face value. What I'm saying is that it's stupid that we don't talk about the nature of the harassment. That's what's really hidden from the discussion.
The peanut-gallery reaction to things like this ALWAYS centers on what the victim did, and there's an extra edge to it when the victim is a woman. (see the later "clarification" by the original commenter in this thread -- why use that language instead of "she definitely deserved it"?) And when somebody points out that we're blaming the victim, everyone's ready to jump in and make sure it's clear that that's appropriate this time. Well, there's almost always someone arguing that it's appropriate "this time."
I'd like this to be a teachable moment about how we excuse and perpetuate this behavior by focusing solely on what the victim could have done differently. That starts with somebody saying "hey, you're blaming the victim" and it'd be nice to get to "why focusing on the victim is a distraction from the actual problem" and then "how and why is this kind of thing happening and what do we do about it?" but we don't get to go there in this forum. It's trivialized to the point where even suggesting that it could be an alternative course of discussion is snarked at (see other responses). Yes, I'd argue that talking about the intersection of anonymity and technology that enables and encourages wanton and massively effective harassment campaigns is what I'd like to see from a hacker news discussion. (I'll put my thoughts on that in another comment, if anyone's still paying attention a day later.)
I got dinged for talking about the real nature of how a woman's sexuality is used both as a weapon of harassment and an excuse for that harassment, and for pointing out that hypothetical landmine analogies have no bearing on reality. Well, that seems a lot more relevant to me than trying to construct a thought experiment proving that the victim of this harassment had agency in order to defend a useless thats-what-happens comment. And while comparing it to how we lock up and take precautions in general is entirely reasonable in isolation, the comments here aren't isolated and they mostly add up to "she provoked it, end of discussion." The pattern of people responding that way reinforces the culture that accepts this as normal. I'm not ignorant of the argument that risks can't be entirely mitigated, or that anonymous groups also do good things. But the perpetrators of this harassment are liability-distributed and unaccountable in ways that individuals and even organized groups aren't. That's interesting, and scary, and we're not talking about it.
You're absolutely right that the anonymous and distributed nature of 4chan means that the "/b/" entity can react to perceived slights (trolling, mockery) in a radically disproportionate way.
If the individual provoker annoys /b/ with "strength" 1, and (e.g.) 10 000 /b/ denizens are each sufficiently annoyed to push back at the provoker with equal "strength" 1, that means that the reaction to the individual is profoundly out of proportion to the original attack. By a factor of thousands.
It's like burning someone's house down with their family inside because they dented your bumper without leaving a note. But as you point out, few individuals were all that nasty - the culpability is distributed across a large, anonymous mob, with a few critical nodes, such as those persons who leaked the individual's contact information, or made prank phone calls to her work place.
The crowd / mob dynamics gives massive strength to the anonymous group that is absolutely unmatched by the individual. Mob dynamics in physical space are understood well enough, and police have had various means of dealing with large groups of disorganized people in town squares and so forth. This is not the case for internet-distributed mobs, which are still relatively new.
The process is like leaderless, decentralized, crowdsourcing of cruelty (cf. "Anonymous: because none of us is as cruel as all of us"). And of course, the greater the crowd, the greater the possibility of someone recognizing the individual victim - which is exactly what happened in this case. Once this happens, with a name and identifying characteristics, the positive feedback loop and mob excitement can escalate and boil over.
You may already have seen this video about a thought experiment about the potential power of distributed, internet-powered mobs and the way things could go wrong https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyMdOT8YJgY
I hadn't seen that video, thank you! That's an excellent analysis.
On the subject of policing strategies, my feeling is that the relative newness of internet-distributed mobs (and less mobbish but still easily-formed groups) could be a significant factor in the rise in warrantless wiretapping that we're seeing in the U.S. The police recognize that this is a new problem, but they don't have precise strategies to deal with it, so they're left with an imprecise one, which is ubiquitous surveillance. If it's very hard to target individual contributors, you want to cast as wide a net as possible and then sort them out later. My hope would be that strategies for dealing with this will be refined with time and we'll be able to reign in the surveillance too, which has already done a lot of damage.
That's just a hypothesis and it might be refuted by actual cases where members of anonymous groups have been arrested. But the most recent overreaching in U.S. government surveillance does seem to roughly correlate with the increased ease of anonymous group formation.
Well, that or fear of terrorism. It strikes me that destructive 4chan campaigns are an inversion of "terrorism" as it's usually defined. With a terrorist cell you have a small group of people trying to intimidate a much larger group through extreme but limited acts. In an internet campaign like this one, you have a large group of people trying to intimidate one person through a collection of acts which might be fairly innocuous if it were only a single person doing one of them once. The large power imbalance is still there, but turned on its head.
In any case, better strategies to catch up with technology aren't going to solve the basic moral problem, which is how to assign appropriate culpability to individuals who each barely participate in a leaderless action that is massively destructive in aggregate.
The angry mob analogy seems most appropriate to me:
- you have people who feel invincible because they are part of a crowd, so they strike out harder than they might if they were personally 100% accountable for what they did
- you have positive feedback loops where the crowd builds its momentum up in a way that would not happen with a small group
A similar trend is definitely taking place in file sharing. Mob action gives people permission (or at least a feeling of power), surveillance is deemed necessary by the aggrieved parties (and their government allies), and then eventually there's a "shock and awe" action to make an example of a big target, such as the takedown of Megaupload. (The distinction here is that unauthorized copying of movies or music is arguably less destructive than 4chan's focused viciousness.)
Hadn't thought about the similarity to file sharing, but it makes sense. Sort of a chaotic neutral in contrast to mass retaliations. Early on with file sharing, I thought that a system might arise where people would voluntarily pay into legal defense or settlement funds for the people randomly targeted by enforcement agencies. A kind of insurance system against the possibility that you might be next. It didn't turn out that way, and in retrospect I think it would mostly have encouraged the RIAA etc to keep pursuing random sharers instead of trying to go after the center of bigger hubs such as megaupload.
Back to the point at hand, once again we have a division of culpability, but a little more deliberate in the case of modern filesharing services like megaupload. The systems are legally and technically engineered so that the responsibility for "unauthorized" actions rests as much as possible with the distributed mass of uploaders and downloaders, per the provisions of the DMCA (in jurisdictions where it applies). And within that mob the accountability for the sum total of infringement is spread thin. It's an unpalatable choice for the enforcers, I think, with the current tools available to them. Or maybe not, and they just go where the money is.
I'm one of those who thinks a good portion of the spectrum of copyright infringement is overblown and outdated. I'm much more concerned about the feedback loop of bad behavior on /b/. But I wouldn't at all want to see Christopher Poole pursued like Kim Dotcom, either.
That's the conundrum for me. I'd rather come up with ways to combat the feedback loop during destructive mob events. I think the level of feedback is a function of both moral-alignment and attention-alignment in the mob. I put forward another wordy hypothesis about it elsewhere in the comments here. Attention alignment is somewhat novel because in a physical mob people can't jump out of the situation as easily switching to a different browser tab.
I'm sure there are more dimensions to it, but these two seem like possible attack vectors if you want to dissolve an angry distributed mob. But you have to do it in an appropriate and ethical way. The shock-and-awe of the megaupload case is, I think, clearly based on fear, but also an attack against the moral cohesion of the file-sharing mob. They're sort of pushing the guy into the role of criminal, extremist, profiteer.. any of which might resonate with any of us and knock people out of moral alignment with each other. If you make enough peers associate file-sharing with criminality or profiteering, you can shrink the mob.
...how again is someone who (according to the article) has been part of 4chan for some time fundamentally incapable of poking that particular bear?
I understand and agree with your logic (at least so far as "judging people for their participation in unavoidable situations is wrong" summarizes it), but I don't think it applies here.
Sometimes, a victim deserves blame. If you run through the bad part of town shouting racial slurs at the inhabitants and calling them cowards, you can certainly be blamed for provoking what likely happens afterwards.
Note that blame is not a zero-sum game. Blaming the victim does not diminish the blame assigned to the attackers, nor does it in any way justify what they do.
Please, take that feminist rapeculture nonsense out of here. Nobody is holding her responsible for all she's going through and nobody is the blame but the anonymous people on /b/. But she really should have known better.
It's interesting how quick people jump on shaming the victim blamers when it's a women being harassed but nobody is there to reassure me it is not my fault when I stick my hand in boiling water.
You people seem to not be able to make the distinction between deserving something unpleasant and getting what's coming to them. She absolutely didn't deserve what happened to her but she did provoke it.
Boiling water holds no culpability. Soldiers shouldn't get blamed for being shot, drag queen's aren't asking for harassment, police officers shouldn't be blamed for getting killed in the line of duty. Victim blaming puts the onus on someone who didn't make the decision to act in the entirely inappropriate manner.
We can even condemn behavior without justifying or excusing extra-judicial violence. We just have to do it not in the context of discussing the violence they later suffered. We can discuss the injustice of an invasion, but the funeral of a fallen soldier isn't the place for it.
This is different from drag queens. Drag queens can reasonably expect to be able to prance around (I'm sorry, I can't find a more respectful term) in women's clothes. Women can reasonably expect and have to full freedom to dress however they want. I have a lot less sympathy for the action of harassing /b/ for the intent purpose of driving more visitors to your site. That's not to say the punishment is a billion times harsher than the "crime" warrants, I just believe there's a difference between walking around in certain clothes and lying to a group of people, no matter how depraved these people are. In the same way, although I believe I should be able to shouts slurs at people without being beaten up, I think I'd earn less sympathy than if I were beaten up because of my sexual orientation.
Also, no one is really blaming, I'm actually just curious. Anyone who knows /b/, knows what they're capable of, especially if you give them your name and what you look like. In 99% of the cases, it just fizzles out, but was she really betting on not being the 1%?
At what point is it OK to blame the victim? Blame on the victim doesn't have to mean the attacker(s) are blameless, or that they aren't complete assholes. She attempted to provoke a reaction out of a group of strangers some of whom are known for reacting this way, surely there's no way of looking at this without thinking her somewhat naive/idiotic?
But what are we supposed to do when the victim bears some responsibility (obviously not all) for the process of their victimization?
Most people have some concept of a moral ladder ranging from "totally innocent bystander" to "criminal who deserved what they got". For example: a person who dies while standing on a NYC sidewalk and gets hit by a falling air conditioner is essentially blameless; a person who dies by being shot by a police officer while robbing a store at gunpoint earned their just reward.
Most situations, including this one, are less clear cut. She's not 0% responsible. She's not 100% responsible. But the correct number is somewhere in between. 5%? 10%? 20%? I don't know, and since I'm not presiding over a courtroom where she's suing 4chan, it's not my business to decide either.
In any case, to suggest that a person who freely chooses to venture into one of the seediest holes on the Internet, and then actively taunts and trolls the inhabitants (who are known to be vengeful, technically capable, and gifted with a lot of free time and tenacity) is absolutely and completely free from responsibility? ... Well, I'm not sure how to answer that.
Did /b/ overreact like a bunch of immature, possibly criminal, jerks? Of course they did. They played their part perfectly, living up to their terrible reputation. And if any of them have broken the law, then it's right that law enforcement get involved and the responsible parties be punished.
Does this young woman deserve this? Of course not.
But to ask the question, "what the hell was she thinking?", and to judge her partly responsible for the situation, is perfectly legitimate. She didn't deserve what happened, but she's not completely from responsibility for the outcome either.
In this instance, I do blame the victim for creating this situation (assuming she wasn't set up). She taunted /b/. (If you read her sign, it says "you will never reveal my true identity.") This is not a case of a person going about their own business and being arbitrarily targeted. Of course, I don't condone what 4channers did, but she asked for it by taunting a well-known group of trolls.
So if I were to walk up to the huge guy with tree trunks for arms who is notoriously ill-tempered and violent, and then proceed to call him names, would I be a blameless victim who had his teeth knocked out for no good reason?
I dunno, it seems like the most changeable cause of her distress is her choice to taunt a bunch of known . . . bad elements of internet society. That doesn't make it good that this happened to her, but it's also a true observation.
Well, it's not a direct causal connection -- that's how we use "and" in English -- but basically, moral responsibility is commutative.
Bears don't have a responsibility towards us: they're bears, they don't realize it's wrong to eat hikers. And accordingly, we don't have a responsibility towards bears: If there's a bear that's eating hikers, we don't try to have a conversation with it, we shoot it and move on.
That's nonsense. A baby doesn't know right from wrong, but parents are obliged to care for it. Just because a bear doesn't have responsibility doesn't mean we can shoot it wily-nily, there has to be some justification such as in the example you mention. And commutativity is a property of operations, you probably meant that moral responsibility is a symmetric relation.
Infants have no ability to care for their parents. Do you truly argue that a child, when they become able, has no responsibility to take care of their parents, when they become infirm?
And metaphor need not hew closely to semantics, but having is, linguistically, a ditransitive operation-- technically stative, but the difference isn't important here. I may have responsibility, and I may have responsibility toward you. Responsibility may commutatively have me toward you, if that made sense, or you might commutatively have responsibility toward me, which is the more sensical. In any event, the metaphor is clear.
That infants have no such ability was the whole point of the example. Children do have such responsibilities when they have the ability.
have is actually a transitive word, not ditransitive. An example of the latter is give: A gives B to C. I disagree that there's metaphor here, commutativity is a very technical term and it relates to operations such as addition. So in fact I do think it's relevant that have is stative, because this implies it's not an operation. When speaking of ethical matters it is simply more common to use words like symmetry and reciprocity.
I'm sure I can make the case that bears are the indirect object of my having responsibility -- or rather are not -- but if you prefer, I withdraw the metaphor. The point is that it goes both ways :)
Ah I see now why you would call it ditransitivite. I believe that you would call it an argument/complement to 'responsibility', as 'have' is not an inherently ditransitive verb.
The point about whether it goes both ways is a matter of opinion I think. I feel that humans have an obligation to treat animals well, not necessarily because of how they would feel or their obligations to us, but because it makes humans look bad not to. Kind of like how a gentleman is supposed to be polite regardless of the situation.
That's a ridiculous example, and in fact it proves the opposite.
Notice that we only shoot bears that are actually eating hikers, even though no bear actually have moral responsibility toward us; that's because we as a society do feel moral responsibility towards bears (and animals in general), and therefore avoid shooting them except when required.
We certainly don't feel anywhere near the same moral responsibility towards animals as we do towards people, but we feel some. And as society becomes less religious, that'll tend to increase.
I think you're actually mistaking religious for urban. In the Bible we talk about dominion over all animals, that is certainly a part of western culture, but few people actually believes that one should walk around randomly kicking puppies and shooting kittens in the head because they can.
Instead, I would argue that this is a function of urbanization and removal of a connection between humans and animals. Animals, which provide meat, eggs, and milk are removed as the providers as such and instead these things come from the grocery store. Because of this disconnect, animals undergo a process of anthropomorphism, which can clearly be seen in the form of lolcatz.
I'm not mistaking anything, I'm drawing from an actual study[1]. Feel free to provide evidence discrediting it.
And you point out as evidence of the disconnect between the urban people and farm animals, by giving the example of the anthropomorphism of cats, which happen to be one of the few animals that actually live with people in urban environments?
I can't even comprehend such logic.
I've read over the study, and they've identified a trend, which you and I both accept as accurate. They don't, however, rule out the connection between urban environments and animal rights. As you are well aware, correlation does not equal causation.
As a member of a rural community your very livelihood is dependent on the relationship of people with animals. The doctor, the car dealer, etc all are connected to this. Doesn't it make more sense that this would have a bigger impact on how you view animal rights than what religion you are? It just so happens that rural people are overwhelmingly more religious, all I'm saying is they failed to account for a very important variable.
Rural people tend to view all animals as a resource, this includes cats as they are a very effective "mouser" or animal that kills mice. The same with dogs, as protectors of self and property. I'm willing to bet that Lolcats are overwhelmingly produced by urban folk, because they have lost this relationship with animals. My anecdotal evidence is that rural folks, and men in particular, don't find anything about lolcats funny at all. This is explained by their connection to cats as tools for removing rodents, not their religious views.
That may be so, but it doesn't change what I originally said; even if it's true, then as society becomes more urban, it'll both become less religious and more supportive of animal rights.
I don't know if religion is such an important impediment to moral responsibility to animals. I think capitalism is more important namely because of factory farming. Most people don't want to know about it and wouldn't stop eating meat or pay twice as much to avoid it. Factory farming is completely hidden from people in cities, so people don't empathize with it as much.
Yes I saw that and I'm saying that correlation might not be so important in practice, because however they might profess to feel about animal rights, most people will still insist on eating meat without wanting to know where it comes from.
I remember when this started happening, something trickled over to Reddit and so I investigated to get the full story.
Needless to say, it was rather quite horrible and I really did feel for the girl. At the same time, I was utterly confused as to why on earth she tried to poke a hornets nest...
It's a shame that people are still trying to ruin her life more. It's almost like some people think if something is done over a computer, it's not "real".
I hope the people who harass her are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
The fact is, sometimes hornets' nests need poking, not because of the hornets that will fly out and sting you, but so an exterminator will notice the nest and remove it shortly.
While I question her motives (linking to a porn site of herself didn't exactly help) this really shows the dark side of the internet yet again.
I didn't feel bad for Timothy Treadwell when he got eaten by a grizzly bear as covered in the film, Grizzly Man. It was almost expected given his actions.
Just as I give both Timothy (who had spent 13 summer living among bears) and this girl (who as the article says was an old time /b/ user) the benefit of the doubt, that they rationally knew the extreme dangers that existed.
There's already enough tragedy that happens in this world - due to pure circumstance and things out of our control.
I only have a limited amount of energy and time on this planet. My empathy is better spent on the latter individuals than on those who knowingly put themselves in direct danger of being harmed.
Ethical and emotional matters are typically seen as separate from rational concerns. Empathy is not something that healthy people have a short supply of. Time and energy is another thing, but a person being eaten generally makes people feel bad.
I think empathy is more of an experience you feel when confronted with a situation or story, rather than something you grant to people after a process of logical judgement.
Although tempting, debating the meaning of empathy is probably not a beneficial contribution to this HN thread.
But I will say, the initial emotional response (for ex. feeling sad someone was harmed) is largely out of our control. But spending time feeling bad after the fact is a controllable state, and is the basis of a large amount of psychological and behavioral therapy.
But it's beside the point dmix is making and distraction from the central point of this thread. This sort of distraction, subtle changes of topic, is a common way discussions fail. If done deliberately it's also a way to appear to have won an argument.
My current view on it is that empathy isn't specifically an emotional or a rational response, but is more a sensory mirroring of the state of another entity real or imagined, and I am not sure that you can pick apart the strands into one realm or the other.
It can be influenced by conscious thought and logic, sure, but as it is primarily experiential in nature, I usually have an experience that I then rationalise about, rather than rationalising what my experience will be beforehand.
I felt bad for him, but not surprised at the outcome. But when grizzly bears ate Timothy Treadwell, they were not deliberately trying to be malicious, at least as far as we know.
No, because it's bloody obvious that they're doing things specifically to hurt people. Humans don't desecrate graves by instinct, that requires malice, I'd say.
Bullshit, we're social animals. That's what makes primates so distinct. Obviously there are exceptions, which these 4chan numbnuts have exemplified, but generally we're good at socialising and being friendly with another.
That's a reflex, which is different from an instinct. In any case, I think the rather creative behaviors of hurting people in this case are obviously learned.
Humans are just another species of animals, why wouldn't they have an instinct? The only difference is the cultural conditioning, which suppresses instinct behavior.
Because humans have such a capacity for learning, instincts would serve no purpose. Instincts are rigid and humans on the contrary are very adaptable. It appears to me that the scientific consensus is that there are no human instincts, but if you believe otherwise why don't you cite an example?
Well again I'd say that's not an instinct, just like hunger it's a desire. An instinct is a very specific pre-programmed behavior that can't be overridden, a desire or reflex doesn't fit that description.
The good news is Anonymous, representing the hive mind of the most primitive human desires before they've been filtered out by one's conscience, has a set attention span. They will eventually stop in about a week or two. It will get old to them and they'll move on.
I would bet their attention span is more like a power law distribution. While the vast majority will taper off over a couple of weeks, the long tail will be there to make sure the victim gets whats coming for an "appropriate" amount of time.
My assumption is that it is just like "real life" where something might be big drama in the family for a week or two. After that, only one or two people will still talk about it, but they will continue to talk about it years later.
That's an interesting hypothesis, and worth looking into. If the group is a graph connected by people becoming aware of the campaign, participating in it, and forgetting about it, then there's a feedback loop that should taper off in a predictable way. This would gel with what seems to happen.
And as you point out, there's also a moment where the event becomes calcified, earning an entry into some wiki that records the biggest campaigns against individuals. This also seems to have the effect of permanently branding the individual so that if they do anything else perceived as a violation by a member of the group, a significant chunk of the network can reactivate quickly for a second round.
There's also a thin line between observation and participation. Someone might be passively aware of what's going on from reading 4chan or seeing it here, and they might comment, and the comment (maybe a suggestion) could galvanize the network to act in some way (call her employer). Each individual who does this may feel moral responsibility only for a trivial fraction of the damage. "All I did was make one phone call. I'm not responsible for what other people do."
Add that to a good technological mechanism for acting anonymously, and we get what we're seeing: a huge campaign of harassment unencumbered by moral and social concerns. Somewhat different from a family drama but not totally so. I'm sure there are sociological studies on how "shunning" works, but if you could get a hook into the numbers here, maybe there's a pattern that has general properties that subsume cases where people are more accountable and less anonymous.
The other question that interests me is whether there's a point in the "ramping up" side of the distribution where an active intervention of some kind can mute it.
The only criteria for participation in Anonymous, for example, is a commitment to the "lulz" at hand. If you're not in the current campaign, you're not provably in Anonymous. For example, just after the name began to be appropriated by people at the edges who were mostly interested in targeting scientology, and described in the news as a good campaign against a cult, we saw an attack on an epileptic support forum. This had the effect of purging people who claimed to be Anonymous but morally disavowed it. That's synonymous (hmm) with splintering the group, but the criterion of doing it solely for laughs was retained by one group and lost by the other. It'd be reasonable to call the former the "core." So there IS a form of accountability in Anonymous, and it operates strictly in the moral dimension of the action.
That would imply that both the ramping up and ramping down of a campaign is exactly the same as the size of the group (as defined by devotion to "lulz") at any given moment. Perhaps tautological, but different from a family. Apply this generally to all anonymous distributed groups. It also implies that an action that subverts the moral identity of the group can subvert a campaign. If you do something so reprehensible that a large contingent of the individuals in the campaign are compelled to disavow it, then you could effectively kill the distributed campaign. Is that a net win? Probably only if you convince enough people that you did it without actually doing it. Another possibility is to engineer a compelling distraction that draws in members of the campaign. But it seems to me that with enough knowledge, an individual or a smaller group can actively and deliberately affect the tapering off, either through manipulation of attention span or manipulation of moral alignment.
I wonder how much of this issue is aggravated by the fact that we are unable to identify children on the internet. In regular society, we would not dream of putting up with anti-social behaviour of this type but online we seem only too fight for their right to do this, with what seem to be rather drastic consequences.
I think these behaviors are extremely innocent compared to some anti-social people we put up with in regular society. Any important soccer match around here involves way more destructive behavior than this.
That was clearly her initial intention - "If you want to see more, come see me at *.com." But it would appear she "misunderestimated" how far /b/ would take this.
I think you are missing a massive detail here, quite a few.
What concerns me a little more than how the poorly developed people on /b seem to be deciding that targeting people just by association is acceptable for retaliation, is whats going to happen when they annoy someone that's living in a less digital world.. Ergo, someone that actually isn't afraid of using the virtual ante and responding physically
She might be hoping to make money by exchanging messages with people (MyGirlFund charges for that), or by doing live webcam sessions. The free videos might help as marketing for that
Yes, /b/ seems to be the only reason people hear or know about 4chan. But /b/ has done this sort of stuff in the past for massive 'lulz', and they have also stopped stuff like animal cruelty, or even that one kid who decided to post a pic of his feet in people's salad (which got him fired).
Why would I want to explore a place that hosts a filthy cesspool crawling with loathsome sloths and immature rejects from all walks of life?
Thanks for your great advice, but I think I'll just stay as far away from that place as possible. I'm sure I'll be able to read about it somewhere else, the next time these mindless children decide to go too far.
Sure, there are other boards, but /b/ is bigger than all of them combined, and is the primary reason for 4chan's fame. It's not entirely accurate to assume that they are one and the same, but it's mostly accurate.
I feel that somewhere in the progress of western civilization, our culture lost track of some of the important but nasty sides of human nature. We censure them, and to an extent refuse to believe they exist.
I hope that the 'wild internet' reintroduces society to the fact that people have a tendency to lash out and hurt others, and that reintroduction serves to help us put value back on thoughtful and caring behavior.
This is a perverted view of history. In fact, in small hunter-gatherer tribes it was easier to keep track of each other and hold each other accountable, so crossing someone would be risky. Today, with large societies that are increasingly anonymous, one can more easily get away with screwing people over--you can always move someplace else. So I don't think being nasty is particularly natural for humans, it just comes out in the right conditions where people are likely to get away with it.
Outcasts are vulnerable, yes, but that's why you try to prevent becoming one. I have seen Dogville, but I don't see why this fictional anecdote would refute my thesis which is based on what I believe is the consensus in modern anthropology. I didn't imply that 'nothing nasty would happen to anyone', that's a straw man. I merely pointed out a contrast between small close-knit groups vs. large anonymous crowds.
I think it does take more. It takes provocation or discontent. The point about being able to get away with it was that it can make a lynch mob more vicious than they would have been individually without the cover of anonymity. Whether it really is natural or not is not a well defined question, but I believe that people left to their own devices, when they're not hungry or otherwise deprived, wouldn't display nasty behavior.
4chan has different boards which pertain to different subject matter. For example, /mu/ for music, /sp/ for sports and /v/ for video games. /b/ is the "random" board where essentially anything goes. It is also the most popular board on the 4chan. /b/ is sometimes referred to as "the asshole of the internet" proceed there at your own risk.
Hey guys, I'm a journalist for a smaller news organization. If anyone has info or wants to comment, I'm trying to do a story on this. My e-mail is rulesofwriting@yahoo.com. I've seen 4chan in the news before, and I actually go on there for images since I do photography and film for fun.
In any case, hit me up.
No idea what she was thinking. She must have known about "Jessie Slaughter" and that they would see through a pathetic attempt to promote her porn site.
There is a thingy on the bottom that opens a tray on the left. That contains a link to the desktop site. You can then read the article without their fucked up interface.
Not defending 4Chan here but, wow, this is "walking alone in the bad part of town at midnight" type of stupid.