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!
'human flesh search engine'
RedTube?
.
Trolling is a art,
"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.
At least have the decenecy to tag the above link NSFW.
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 offer this:
Look at history, and political science and take a hard look at why republics functioned beter then pure democracy. The Internet runs the same risk.
Take heed and good luck, crowd sourcing has a hidden downside people are forgetting.
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
Just in case someone here...by some freak chance...doesn't know that RedTube is basically YouTube for Porn, don't clicky the linky if you're at work...y.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
So the Internet is like ...the Terminator of electronic communication tools?
"It cannot be reasoned with" - yeah, sounds about right.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
I'd rather not live in a society in which 51% can arbitrarily sentence the other 49% to death.
Many people will SAY anything. I've seen people on /. advocate the murder of people who hold views of copyright different from their own. Extreme positions get amplified on the internet because extreme people can easily interact with other like-minded extreme people. That's all fine and dandy, so long as it's just idiots saying stupid stuff. Freedom of speech, whatever.
The problem for me is that there is a very small minority of people who can be triggered to act by the incitement of others. These people will reach out and HURT people with little or no factual support. Unless stopped, people like this exert an evil influence all out of proportion to their otherwise insignificant place in society. Nazis did that kind of stuff in the 1930s and it really chilled the behavior of other law-abiding Germans. A real turd-Kultur was created there. That kind of history ought best not be repeated.
If people alter their behavior because they are afraid of being tormented by Internet-spawned wrongful "meat world" attacks, then they are not free. Balancing protection from such acts with the right to freely interact on the internet is a serious legal and moral challenge.
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.
The outcome ultimately is justice through online voting and consensus systems, like the moderation system here, or the various systems of community sanctions over at Wikipedia. The problem is not that these systems are unfair, since they are arguably no worse than traditional legal systems (whose track record is far from perfect). The problem is that they are open to manipulation by people who have the willingness and the knowhow to game the system.
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Cheyenne_Cherry
Anonymous hates people, but loves cats (as evidenced by Caturday and the entire "lolcats" phenomena). Their most recent target is the evil Cheyenne Cherry, who put a kitten in an oven and roasted it alive. Anonymous went through a lot of effort to get as much info as possible, but jumped the gun at first. The NY Daily News reported a 75-yo retiree with a similar name had her phone number posted, and the result? "They're all saying, 'You'll burn in hell,' 'Who the hell do you think you are?'" Bernadette Cherry, 72, said of the 75 calls from cat lovers."
My fucking god! Every time I turn around, there comes to my attention yet another sick thing I couldn't possibly have imagined on my own. "Kitten Killing Videos"?? Holy crap!! And no, nobody needs to list "things sicker than kitten killing videos" and definitely do not post links. To this day, I have not watched two girls and a cup. It was the Daniel Pearlman video that convinced me that if I am warned that I shouldn't see a video, I should probably heed the warning. It cured my "morbid sense of curiosity" forever. (Movie violence be damned, but for all my "kill the spammers" rants, I doubt I could actually stomach actually being the executioner... handing down the sentence is one thing, but actually killing another person? Probably more than I can handle.)
I'm sure Grace Wang would agree with you.
In brief, Grace Wang was an international student at Duke and dared to try an initiate a discussion between the pro-Tibet and pro-Chinese sides of a protest. After being attacked on forums such as mitbbs.com "Online Vigilantes" decided to bring these attacks to the real world by posting her personal information (her student visa application) and providing maps to her parents' house (which was defaced, causing her parents to go into hiding).
Defending kittens are one thing, but as with "think of the children", it rarely stops there.
Wasn't this predicted years ago by Bruce Sterling in Makeki Neko? Use of the 'net to commit "death by a thousand paper cuts", or harassment by many, many small acts, each of which individually wouldn't be considered unlawful, but in aggregate become overwhelming? I'm not sure whether it is a good thing or a bad thing, but it almost certainly is going to happen.
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.
The difference between this and a convict is that the convict was found guilty in a court of law. Say what you will about the fairness of the system, but at least the convicts got a chance to tell their side of the story and have the evidence judged. You don't know the facts about any of these cases and while some may be pretty clear cut (torturing animals on video) others aren't nearly so much simple.
Take the woman who committed suicide 'because' her husband was cheating on her. How many men cheat on their wives every year? Do they all deserve to be harassed daily, fired from their jobs, and scorned by their friends? Even if their wife is chronically depressed and has been distant and unloving for years? For all you know, the guy's wife regularly beat him with a stick.
Take the girl who very, very selfishly whined about the earthquake in China. Does she really deserve the same punishment as a convicted criminal?
Finally, just because no one has fabricated evidence yet doesn't mean that it won't be done in the future. That's like saying "Well, the government didn't abuse its warrantless wiretaps this time, so we'll let them keep doing it". It's short sighted and negligent. Just because this threat to privacy comes from the mob instead of the government doesn't mean it should be any less concerning.
It's not like they are hunting the person down in order to physically assault them...
...yet.
And how long until they go after an innocent person?
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
No, they just make it impossible to ever live a normal life ever again.
How is that any different than going to jail and having a criminal record follow you around?
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.
Welcome to the life of any ex-convict. While the mob way was definitely the incorrect way to do this, all the people mentioned in the story got exactly what they deserved. Killing kittens, cheating on your spouse, etc should be cause for you to have to get humiliation and shame from others.
Leaving aside whether that is appropriate punishment or not...
I hope most people see the difference between a conviction in a court of law and Internet mob justice. While *these* people may be unequivocally guilty, there are no rules, no checks and balances in place to ensure that the next person is. There's no innocent until proven guilty, burden of proof, right to representation, or rules of evidence. There is what people believe to be true, and the actions they take based on it. If their belief is misguided, or doesn't happen to be in line with law (for example, if an Internet group decided to ruin a woman's life because she had a perfectly legal abortion), then you've got a big problem on your hands.
The rules are there to protect everyone... especially the innocent who are accused anyway. It happens every day. Circumventing the rules may provide a certain visceral satisfaction, but it doesn't serve the greater good at all.
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
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?
PC LOAD LETTER'? The f--- does that mean?