Reddit reviews So You've Been Publicly Shamed

It's not exactly the same thing, but I feel like this phenomenon is related to the one discussed in Jon Ronson's book So You've Been Publicly Shamed. I think it's a real problem of our age, and it seems like the amount of damage it is causing -- not just on the personal level for those people who've had the internet hate machine pointed at them, but for its chilling effect on discourse in general -- is underappreciated, or at least under-discussed.

​

I don't think most people would have chosen to live in a world where a single mistaken comment online or the expression of a "bad" opinion can lead to loss of employment, social ostracism, and death threats. Yet here we are. It feels somewhat like a Malthusian trap of the comments section.

​

Edit: Disclaimer, that book is a pretty stressful read. At least, it was for me. Don't get me wrong, I think it's important and well executed, but the subject matter is stressful.

Matt doesn't need to read every single comment everywhere for this to be an issue. Say when there's a podcast, there's 100 comments. Matt could only read 20 and still see some about him not being there.
And those comments can range from soft and constructive to somewhat shitty and outright asshole.

And yeah he could have give normal responses. A lot of the time, he has given them. 'I'm at this con.' 'I'm dealing with a business emergency.' 'I'm on a family vaction.' But sometimes people don't see those normal responses or don't care and still throw things his way.

So again. We don't see what Matt's seeing. We may look in a Reddit thread and see A shitty comment and ignore it. But Matt, who has to pay attention to all forms of feedback as part of his job. He'll see that one shitty comment and it's proably the 12th he's seen and say 'there's not that much today.'

EDIT: If you are still not sure what my point is, read this. It's about when people are mad at you on social media. Not a perfect comparison as the examples are extreame, but gives some insight.

For coping

Yup. I have deleted posts made in public where I was 100% correct/truthful/moral because the pitchforks were coming out and the effects threatened to become overwhelming. Even if 80% of the people agree with you, once a social media mob starts to form if even 0.001% of the remaining 20% decide to try to ruin your life via bedbugging or harassment or whatever, that's enough to have a real potential impact. If you have a family, a career, a life to protect, you will often prioritize being spared the effects of the mob over proclaiming your veracity/correctness/innocence. In my case, I deleted some tweets, turtled my social and took a contentious political argument with @Popehat to a private channel, even though there was no doubt my position was both correct and well-defended. I just couldn't endure the onslaught of idiot strangers coming out of the woodwork.

Deleting and turtling and being more private is evidence of nothing more than good sense and yields no clue as to who might be correct, incorrect, guilty, or innocent. It's just evidence that we live in a troubling and sometimes terrifying era of a kind of mass social censorship where no matter what you say, if the wrong people find it and decide to attack you, virtually everyone is vulnerable to mass public shaming on a previously unimaginable scale.

Everyone in social conflicts that happen in full public view should probably keep this dynamic in mind.

There's a book on this subject that looks very good, So You've Been Publicly Shamed by Jon Ronson. I haven't read it yet but it looks very good and I thought it's existence could add to the discussion.

> Would you want your family’s income endangered because you made a very stupid, but legal mistake?

It's definitely an interesting discussion to have. You may be interested in a book related to this topic called "So You've Been Publicly Shamed". It talks a lot about incidents similar to this one.

This reminds me of a certain book I had to do a report on. Goes around on internet mob mentality.

If this is a topic that interests you, check out So You've Been Publicly Shamed by Jon Ronson

There's a book on how those 20 seconds on your social media platform of choice could ruin your life.

https://www.amazon.com/So-Youve-Been-Publicly-Shamed/dp/1594634017

> Some pretty nasty things have been said to fans who had honest critisims or gripes and some very crass generalisations have been made that are just completely unwarrented…

It would help to have concrete examples of the nasty talk you're talking about.

To be sure, there are some creators who have said some jaw-dropping things (I can think of one of my longtime favorite creators who said some ugly stuff that made my heart sink).

But sometimes, something else is happening…

Sometimes, complaints levied against creators being nasty happen in response to equally, if not nastier abuse (up to and including death threats) coming from "fans." And this is a double-standard that belies a lack of maturity and self-awareness on the fans' part. Look on any message board, comment thread, or right here on reddit and you will see merciless criticisms of comic creators.

Some of us have a bad habit of mistaking our own subjective preferences as the definitive arbitor of "good" vs "bad." Even worse is when our commentary goes beyond discussing the work and ventures into the realm of personal attacks. Creators are just people doing a job they are hired to do. Yet they are a magnet for high levels of venom. Jon Ronson's book, So You've Been Publicly Shamed is relevant here.

This is not to say we can't say anything negative. It's perfectly acceptable to voice one's personal art and storytelling preferences, be they positive or negative. It's even better when negative critiques can objectively and/or constructively call attention to craft [here is a great example of what that can look like].

TLDR: Sometimes certain creators can be nasty; but before we judge, we should first check our own level of nastiness.

Nesses casos, sempre recomendo um livro.

I'm in the middle of Homo Deus currently. Its great so far, Yuval is a great writer and his books are a lot more accessible than traditional history books. I'm sure there are a lot of liberties taken with some of the history but I think Sapiens is a must-read. Homo Deus is more assumption based on current reality but its very interesting so far.

Gulag Archipelago is one I read based on the recommendation of Jordan Peterson. Awesome book if you are into WW1-WW2 era eastern europe. being an eastern european myself, i devour everything related to it so this book tickled my fancy quite a bit. good look into the pitfalls of what peterson warns against.

Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning is another history book discussing that time period and how it all transpired and the lesser known reasons why WW2 went down the way it did. some surprising stuff in that book related to hitler modeling europe around how the united states was designed at the time.

apologies for inundating with the same topic for all my books so far but Ordinary Men is an amazing book chronicling the people that carried out most of the killings during WW2 in Poland, Germany and surrounding areas. The crux of the argument which I have read in many other books is that Auschwitz is a neat little box everyone can picture in their head and assign blame to when in reality most people killed during that time were taken to the outskirts of their town and shot in plain sight by fellow townspeople, mostly retired police officers and soldiers no longer able for active duty.

for some lighter reading i really enjoy jon ronson's books and i've read all of them. standouts are So You've Been Publicly Shamed and The Psychopath Test. Highly recommend Them as well which has an early Alex Jones cameo in it.

you don't need data, because any example of people losing their careers over feigned hysteria is far too much. don't know how it makes my view 'warped' if a person is fired over things posted to twitter or whatever, as if those very bare facts are somehow largely editorialized or something.

but hey, if you really care there's at least one book on the subject:
https://www.amazon.com/So-Youve-Been-Publicly-Shamed/dp/1594634017/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1491141481&sr=1-1&keywords=so+you%27ve+been+publicly+shamed

https://www.amazon.com/So-Youve-Been-Publicly-Shamed/dp/1594634017

Read this book it's a great read which talks about internet vigilantism.

The guy is a fucking muppet and should be dealt with by the police and not the internet vigilantes that are calling for blood.

Here are my own personal rankings, from what I liked the most to what I liked the least:

1. "San Junipero" - I've seen some criticism on this sub about this episode's tonal dissonance, but that's actually what I admire so much about this episode: the fact that it dares to be a bit lighter. I do think the ending is not uniformly positive though, there is still something unsettling to it, which I like. I'm quite taken with the episodes (as you can probably tell) that focus on more intimate personal relationships and technology's role in mediating/disrupting those relationships--"San Junipero" is an excellent example of that. Also yes, I'll admit it, being gay myself, it was nice to see a same-sex couple happen.
   
   
2. "White Bear" - Just as "San Junipero" goes toward the lighter end of the spectrum, I also love "White Bear" because of its push in the other direction toward the extraordinarily grim. I remember the first time I saw this episode, it really left me rattled for a couple of days after. Thematically, I really liked its take on the relentlessness of the public's need/desire to punish (it really reminded me of So You've Been Publicly Shamed, honestly).
   
   
3. "Be Right Back" - I actually didn't like this one the first time I saw it, but seeing it three or so more times since, I've fallen in love with it! Every time I go back, I notice something different, and as the relationship between Mar and the programmed-Ash unravels, I always feel my heart breaking a little bit. "You're not enough of him! You're nothing!"
   
   
4. "Nosedive" - I think that this will probably be the prototypical Black Mirror episode for me in my mind. It's funny and strange and tragic and bittersweet in its end all at once. The concept for this episode also hit quite close to home.
   
   
5. "Shut Up and Dance" - Like "White Bear," I really admire this episode's willingness to be relentlessly dark, and explore similar themes. But, in particular, I find the end to be particularly powerful in its rejection of any sort of control or easy answer--the characters can do everything "right" (relative to their instructions) and still effectively fail.
   
   
6. "Fifteen Million Merits" - This was the episode that made me really really get into the show. Although the satire and concept can feel a bit too on-the-nose, I loved the dynamic between Bing and Abi, and the end of the episode felt so sad to me and raised so many interesting questions! Also, it introduced us to "Anyone Who Knows What Love Is (Will Understand)," which is a gorgeous song!
   
   
7. "White Christmas" - This is middle-of-the-road for me because I'm absolutely in love with the second story in the episode, with Matt "programming" the cookie, but was a bit more lukewarm on the stories that bookended the episode. The ending was definitely haunting, though!
   
   
8. "The National Anthem" - I must admit this one also didn't speak to me, immediately. However, seeing it again, I really do appreciate its own grimness. I think, perhaps, it's a bit lower on the list for me because of how public a figure Callows was--although I suppose that is absolutely the point, it's just not my biggest interest with the show.
   
   
9. "The Entire History of You" - For the first time the grain/Z-eyes analogue appears, this is a great introduction. The obsessiveness Liam is consumed by is super palpable. However, the central conflict still felt a bit too common for this episode to be TOTALLY distinctive.
   
   
10. "Men Against Fire" - I really enjoyed this episode, however, I did feel that the ending was a bit sudden and almost a bit too...familiar? It felt like I knew exactly where it was going. That said, the concept was really quite powerful.
    
    
11. "Hated in the Nation" - I liked this one, but it just wasn't as resonant for me. I felt that the show tackled similar themes in much more effective, haunting ways with "White Bear" and "Shut Up and Dance."
    
    
12. "The Waldo Moment" - Although, as /u/Anniejo9 points out, this episode is insanely relevant now politically, it just really dragged for me. Still enjoyable though.
    
    
13. "Playtest" - This is probably the only episode of Black Mirror that I genuinely just did not like. I did find the very end resonant, but I really felt bored by the rest of the episode. I can't explain why. I know many others did get a lot out of it, though.

Or read this book which features her story

I'll just leave this here...
https://www.amazon.com/So-Youve-Been-Publicly-Shamed/dp/1594634017

Yep.

Also btw:
A full year after Nosedive, The Orville aired an episode that raised accusations of a "ripoff" — although the Orville showrunner has claimed that he wrote the Orville episode earlier in 2016 (i.e., before Nosedive aired), having been inspired by a book that he'd read.

I am not even about to condone these kids' actions but the Internet has a pretty long history now of burning these kinds of things to the ground. Alexandra Wallace, for example (and again, I am not condoning what she said) was roasted for several months and had to quit school as a result. Did the punishment fit the crime? Probably not, although you didn't see a great many white girls coming out with videos saying "ching chang chong" afterwards so in a sense I guess the backlash served some purpose, and it did blow over eventually (I mean, nobody know who she is anymore). At the very least, I think that could have been categorized as "ugly".

Jon Ronson, the guy who wrote The Men Who Stare At Goats, wrote a book on the subject.

For anyone who is interested in this sort of phenomena I would recommend reading:
Trust Me, I'm Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator
and So You've Been Publicly Shamed. They both give great insight into different ways modern media is broken.

I think you should read this book,https://www.amazon.com/So-Youve-Been-Publicly-Shamed/dp/1594634017 (same dude who wrote the men who stare a goats) ur completely overlooking the fact that majority of these people are normal people who become household names associated with racism, the idea that "its a myth cause u got a job" is probably the laziest defense of this abhorrent trend thats now way too common

Check out Jon Ronson’s book about this

https://www.amazon.com/So-Youve-Been-Publicly-Shamed/dp/1594634017/ref=nodl_

So you've been pubicly shamed is relevant here. Haven't been to other tennis forums, but judging from other comments in this thread, I ain't planning to in the near future.

You should read Jon Ronson - So You've Been Publicy Shamed. Fascinating read on the internet hive mind and how people who have made stupid or unpopular comments on the internet can quickly lose everything. I might actually re-read it after seeing this story.

All you empathy-less mofos should read Jon Ronson's book.

I don't care for Bryan at all as a GM, but it really must suck on a personal level.

So You've Been Publicly Shamed
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1594634017/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_BVUXzb49JDMGS

By all means, dig up their tweet history and post it here.

Then try reading So You've Been Publicly Shamed by Jon Ronson, and have a think about why that's something you'd want to do.

Transgressive humour is transgressive.

Some people here need to pick up a book.

>It’s bad to drop bombs on civilian residential houses, it’s fine to drop bombs on terrorist military facilities. It’s bad to lock up innocent people, it’s good to lock up people who have committed rape.

The problem is with your analogy you're saying, "it's bad to do X action against 100% known good people, it's good to do it against 100% known bad people," which is rather convenient because it puts you, again, on the moral high ground.

I'd propose a different analogy: Torture is BAD when our enemies do it to our troops. Torture is GOOD when we do it to our detainees to gain important intel. How do you feel about that? Can we waterboard someone to save American troops?

>It’s much more defensible when it’s done to remove the anonymity of bad acts done online and hold people responsible for what they have done and said.

The problem with this is that there are so many shades of grey in what is good and bad with stuff online and more often than not, the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

How many times have you heard of someone saying something, maybe it's just one single tweet, off-color or poorly timed, something that's taken as possibly sexist or racist, and because of that an internet lynch mob is formed? The person gets doxxed, their employer gets contacted, they get harassed, sent death threats, and they end up fired from their job. And the internet lynch mob moves on and forgets about them the next week, not realizing the trail of destruction they've left. Ever read this book?

The problem is that person gets put in the same group as an Alt-Right nazi guy at Charlottesville. To the internet lynch mob, there's no difference. Once you're "The Enemy," all bets are off, and there are no bad tactics.

What about that Evergreen College professor who questioned the proposed "Day of Absence," where all White people were supposed to not show up to school? He received nonstop death threats, was called a racist, a bigot, every name in the book, had to have armed security for his classes, and eventually was forced to resign. I know that isn't doxxing, but I'm stating that as an example of the same Social Justice overreaction where the punishment doesn't fit the crime. What was his crime? Questioning whether something was right or not? Did he deserve that reaction? The problem, again, was that once he was "The Enemy," and on the wrong side of the movement, he was considered just as bad as everyone else. To the Social Justice movement, he was no better than a David Duke or a Christopher Cantwell.