> I've honestly seen this scare before. This is the same talking point I saw when women started speaking up against those in power. No one ever cared when they were being harassed, but suddenly when people with power are held accountable for their actions then you have people saying:
Before anyone could be held accountable their guilt should be estabilished via legal process. Mob is incapable of doing that, it will jump on any plausible accusation the way it did back when an actual witch hunt was a thing. Participating is thrilling and may reward you some social points, going against it may be fatal.
> If we took the internet away from this, we see the same thing happen with the previous popular form of communication, and the one before. People would do and say things that cause public outcry, then someone looks them up, sends them threatening mail and phone calls.
I wouldn't make such comparison since an Internet is magnitudes more effective at gathering people together, especially bored and violent ones. People will dig up someone's past wrongdoings that may have zero connection to "criticism" in question, doxx them, pressure their empoyer to fire them and etc. - anything to cause real damage.
> Finally, I remember the recent free speech arguments online. It sounds alot like the ones I hear in this thread. They talk about ruined mental health, how being called names online and people gathering to insult and berate them would force them to kill themselves.
There's a difference between some neckbeard making a dumb joke and an activist summoning a mob in hopes of ruining someone's life. That said, 4chan raids were no less shitty than current cancel campaings.
>And now finally, when rich people and regular people who do horrible things are caught and called out, we bring up cyber bullying? This isn't Nancy Grace. It's the next outrage used by the right wing for something that has happened and the government will not (and should not) step in.
Again, mobs are often summoned long before guilt is estabilished. The most egregious example would be Alex Holowka who was accused of rape and was immediately attacked by a horde of people who didn't care to question Zoe Quinn's claims. His "friends" from the company he worked for turned their backs on him in fear of having their reputations ruined by association, even though there was no evidence of his crime. He was psychically unstable, and shortly after that killed himself, way before any kind of legal process could even start.
I mean, if being outraged by such things would make one a right-winger, leftists would likely not be human at all. Thanksfully, I know that's not the case.
>The only thing we can do is make sure people know to learn their limits. Remember when trolling was huge and people though it was going to be a problem? Then suddenly we see a huge influx of people from regular walks of life and that all changes.
What do you propose to make it happen? How many more people will have their lives ruined before anything changes?
> No one came out decades ago and said that the guy who came out gay shouldn't lose their job. Now suddenly the conservatives are saying it's a big deal? I think it's just politics that this became an argument at all. Like political correctness or SJW's.
Terrorism may not be political, but it should be condemned nevertheless. Using Internet to silence and punish people, bypassing any kind of legal justice, is nothing short of terrorism.
> The problem isn't "cancel culture" or "freedom of speech", it's misinformation and gullible people who lack critical thinking. > We're much better off today than decades ago, and hopefully after all this Trump nonesense is over we'll learn to be wary of misinformation.
Why would that happen though? People were willing to participate in lynchings long before Trump. Why would that change now, especially now that activists learned to weaponize crowds to destroy anyone they don't like?