Slashdot Mirror
Online Vigilantes, Or "Crowdsourced Justice"
destinyland writes "The Chinese credit the 'human flesh search engine' for successfully locating 'the kitten killer of Hangzhou' from clues in her online video. But in February, the same force identified a teenage cat-abuser in Oklahoma — within 24 hours of his video's appearance on YouTube. 'Netizens are the new Jack Bauer,' argues one science writer, and with three billion potential detectives, 'attempts to hide will only add thrill to the chase.' But China's vigilantes ultimately turned their attention to China's Internet Propaganda Office, bypassing censorship of a director's personal information using
social networks, including Twitter. The author suggests there's a new principle emerging in the online world: 'The Internet does not forget, does not forgive and cannot be stopped. Ever.'"
This is less about the vigilantism of the Crowd, and more about the utter stupidity of [some] criminal/deviants.
Stupid criminals shoot video of their crimes. Incredibly fucking stupid criminals put the video on youtube.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
"The author suggests there's a new principle emerging in the online world: 'The Internet does not forget, does not forgive and cannot be stopped. Ever.'""
So the author came up with that? Seriously? Pretty sure that's been a main line (well, at least a version of it) for the groups for a long while.
The crowd makes a mistake and some random dude gets beaten down for something his lookalike neighbour did.
Do a news.google.com search for: vilgilante mistake
read
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1357909/Man-beaten-to-death-by-mistake.html
I also have a very bad feeling about this. If it is ok for kitten killers then it will be ok for whatever topic X society doesn't like as long as there is enough of society to make an impact in their personal lives.
I'd rather not live in a society in which 51% can arbitrarily sentence the other 49% to death.
More like the new mob. It's fine if you fit in, if you agree with whatever "the internet" agrees on. It's utter hell if you don't.
"The internet" is not much better than the average religious nutjobs picketing abortion clinics. They just picket different targets. Sure, today it's kitten killers and the Co$. But how long 'til the next groupthink target is a group you belong to? Will it take a lot to jump from hunting down criminals to hunting down people that dare to be different, that refuse to fit in, that did nothing really wrong but made someone feel "uneasy" thinking of what he does?
And I'm not even talking about sexual fetishes that make me (and probably a few other people) cringe.
It's a small step from vigilantism to harassment. From fighting a crime that the justice system ignores to beating people you just don't simply like.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The author of the article doesn't get it
Fortunately, human flesh search engines don't end the lives of their victims, like the witch-hunts or lynching of the past.
No, they just make it impossible to ever live a normal life ever again. They ruin your career and alienate your friends and family. They force you to live through humiliation and shaming every day, often for weeks or months at a time.
All based on a single, often easily fabricated, piece of evidence. That isn't justice, it's just a mob being a mob and harrassing other people for the fun of it.
Ooops. Sorry we killed an innocent man. We'll get it right next time. The reason we have (admittedly a very broken) justice system is the crowd is not at all capable of making reasonable and consistent judgments on the guilt and severity of a crime. The crowd doesn't demand punishment for the guilty; the crowd demands a scapegoat in retribution for a wrong whether the guilty party can be reached or not(Sorry Iraq).
The examples in the article didn't even need that much. It could have been as few as a few hundred who tracked these people down and the results were the targets losing their reputations, jobs, etc. It is a scary scary thought indeed. Every reasonable human should always keep in their mind that if they wish to be treated above average as a majority, they must accept being treated equally below average when they are the minority. If you wouldn't want to lose the amount of life/liberty/pursuit of happiness you want to push on someone else, then you shouldn't try.
Someone clever could turn this into a Two Minute Hate, craft videos of crimes not really committed, wars not really fought, and enemies who don't exist. Congratulations, you can now harness the raw power of a hateful, vindictive crowd.
"The old civilizations claimed that they were founded on love or justice. Ours is founded upon hatred. In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement. Everything else we shall destroyâ" everything. "
These groups only really pursue people who do one of two things - 1) try to make information that is free unfree (the antithesis of the internet), and 2) do things so abhorrant that they rouse the majority to action against them.
Unfortunately, it only takes one nutjob to turn a peaceful demonstration into a 'dangerous mob'.
Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
I'd rather not live in a society that thinks impaling a kitten through the eye socket with high heels until the kitten dies is considered a good thing. Fortunately, I don't and neither do most people.
There is a reason why people still want vigilante justice today, because when someone who is obvious guilt of something like child rape, gets one year in jail, it pisses even the most level headed of us off.
No, it doesn't make it right, I'm just saying.
Suffice it to say, justice in this world is not perfect. And it will always be imperfect.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Whatever. Take that feel-good stuff somewhere else. Two wrongs often do make a write, and eye for an eye does make me feel better. I don't care what Gandhi says.
Ah, it makes you feel better. Hm... Basing morality on urges is kind of a bad sign, isn't it?
I might suggest we all try to find ethical wisdom from different sources, rather than some anon online forum commenters. I know, kooky.
Right, rules of evidence, jury trials, right to appeal, right to have legal representation, none of these make any difference.
The question isn't "which system never screws up". There's no such system. The question is which system screws up the least. I think that a system that relies on some random idiot saying, "Hey, that must be the guy!" isn't even close to the top of that list.
And our goals are not mutually exclusive. It's possible to recognize that killing kittens is wrong, but that that widespread vigilantism greater wrong.
Neither do I. That's why I carefully studied all of the evidence available and have identified "the humeister" as the culprit. No, don't ask to see the evidence I used, it's all secret. But you can trust me, as I am held to the highest standards of professional conduct required for "some anonymous person on the Internet". Look, I have a video camera so you know I'm telling the truth. Be sure to round up all of your friends and storm "the humeister"s home tonight at sunset. Remember to bring plenty of torches and pitchforks.
Would you really rather live in a world where everybody listens to people like me?