I’m sure everyone is aware of the very public fall from grace of Brian Williams, the news anchor on NBC. By now his story has followed an all too familiar pattern: a past transgression, a public apology, the hue and cry on the internet, the attempts to hold on, abandonment by colleagues, dismissal by an employer who finds further support untenable, ignominious disgrace. We’ve seen it all before.
The integrity of people in the public eye, and the trust they
deserve, is something that could be debated, but that is not the subject of
this post. I am more concerned with the way in which the collective voices of
the web seem poised and ready to tear down anyone wounded by indiscretion or
past mistake.
I recently read an article in the NY Times Sunday Magazine that told a story that is even more harrowing than Mr. Williams’. It’s the story of Justine Sacco,
whose single offensive tweet – it was racial in nature, and an attempt to be
funny about something that wasn’t funny – led to consequences that I believe are
far out of proportion to the stupid mistake that began it all. I will not recap
the story here – and I urge you strongly to read the Times article now and then
come back here to continue – but it is one of many cases in recent years in which
the collective internet hive mind (to use Jaron Lanier’s phrase) exhibits a ganging
up, bullying behavior on a massive scale. It’s Lord of the Flies magnified
worldwide.
The Times calls this pattern an ‘online shaming’ and most disturbing
to me is the gleeful nature with which the crowd piles on and brings down an
individual. In my opinion, anyone who delights in inflicting this kind of
suffering, no matter how much of it may be warranted, is at best a bully and at
worst a sadist. Justine deserved to be reprimanded for her insensitive tweet,
but she did not deserve to have her life ruined. I do not exaggerate. The chain
of events included public humiliation, abandonment by friends, a massive amount
of venomous public criticism by thousands of people who didn’t know her, dismissal
from her job, loss of her career, and numerous death threats. There is such a
thing as the punishment fitting the crime, and the punishment that she (and many
others in similar cases) experienced, is far beyond what was warranted by the
cause. Who deserves death threats because
of a tweet?
A few years back I wrote a piece about a controversy surrounding Cooks Source magazine, and the editor there who was so ignorant of
copyright law that she thought all material on the internet was automatically
in the public domain and free for the taking. Her error should have earned her
reprimand, criticism and perhaps a civil penalty – but not the horrific response
by self-appointed, mostly anonymous web vigilantes who hounded her, her
publication and its advertisers, in a campaign to put Cooks Source out of business,
which they did. The very obvious visceral pleasure the mob took in this
bullying was disturbing and repulsive, as I wrote then, and again I am not
exaggerating. Since that time, however, as the Times piece this week shows, this
behavior has only become more common. Today, an insensitive post, tweet or email,
done in a thoughtless moment – admit it, we all do this – can bring massive
consequences, which the originator becomes unable to control or counteract. Lives
and careers can be ruined by a careless thought; I think this is out of all proportion
of what is right or fair.
If you think that the lesson of all these stories is to be
careful what you say on line, I’d probably understand. But I’d also tell you
you are completely wrong. The lesson is to guard against the digital lynch mob,
and to resist the urge to join in when all around you are kicking someone who’s
down. You weren’t a bully in school, were you? So why be one on line. We all
like to be with the majority, but on the web the crowd isn’t always right, or
nice, or respectable. Sometimes it’s repulsive.
Public shaming – think of putting transgressors in the
stocks in the town square – is a punishment fit for a different century and we
should not bring it into this one with web tools and online anonymity that make
it even more vicious, damaging and long-lasting than it ever was then.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you haven't read the Times article about Justine Sacco, read it now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you haven't read the Times article about Justine Sacco, read it now.
3 comments:
The ease with which we can repost and share information on the web makes it a powerful tool that can be used for good (think Doggies for Anthony) or evil. With all the information we take in each day, "liking" and "sharing" can become a mindless activity based on an impulse or a split second decision. Most people don't take time to think about the possible consequences of their actions. I'd like to believe that if people could have foreseen how damaging their actions would have been to individuals like Justine Sacco, they wouldn't have participated. I hope that the NY Times article and blogs like this one help to change the online behavior of people who would not normally act in this manner.
I too have read the article about Ms. Sacco and was horrified at the vitriolic overreaction to the unfortunate tweet - and I am hopeful that we can find a way to tamp down the online lynching of our fellow humans that make mistakes - but do not deserve the complete destruction of their character and ability to make a living forevermore afterward. I do not know what the answer is - but I am hopeful that we can find a way to stop the inappropriate ruination of a person's future over a mistake. Who among us has never made a mistake - and to be destroyed by it is just not right. The line is thin between making that mistake and having it go viral and destroy our life and that of our families.
The story that comes to mind more than Lord of the Flies is The Lottery by Shirley Jackson. The primal tribal need for scapegoats is persistent. No need to wait for something bad to happen; a ritual sacrifice is needed on a regular basis. Is this so baked into our human condition that we only evolve in terms of the venue: social media devices instead of the town square. The very idea of following anyone's Twitter feed simply leaves me feeling I'm at the other side of a canyon-wide generation gap. Still, I'm writing this comment for no one in particular, other than the eye of the blogger. Social media creates a world where everyone of us is singing in the shower and either fearing or hoping to be heard by an audience ranging somewhere between one and 7 billion.
Post a Comment