That's always the scary thing online, all it takes is one asshole with a lot of free time to ruin your life. Hell, that guy in Wichita got killed by swatting and he wasn't even involved in the...
That's always the scary thing online, all it takes is one asshole with a lot of free time to ruin your life. Hell, that guy in Wichita got killed by swatting and he wasn't even involved in the argument. He just happened to live at the address that someone used as a fake out.
The solution, I think, is that people need to verify what they read online. So many people just accept stories that have zero evidence and just treat them like fact. I know I've been fooled once or twice, but I've learned. People have to be smart about stories that are just hearsay.
And really, if you're the type of person reading "She's A Homewrecker" or "BadBizNews" your level of credulity is probably already quite low, because you're looking for things to be angry about....
And really, if you're the type of person reading "She's A Homewrecker" or "BadBizNews" your level of credulity is probably already quite low, because you're looking for things to be angry about. I've never really understood the need to publicly shame someone for events that happen in private life.
All it does, in my view, is compound the upset and make it more difficult to move on from a bad time.
The problem isn't that mentally ill or vindictive, malicious people exist and post crap, it's that "reputable" sites (Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) automatically allow posting of nearly everything....
The problem isn't that mentally ill or vindictive, malicious people exist and post crap, it's that "reputable" sites (Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) automatically allow posting of nearly everything. They admit no responsibility to remove genuinely defamatory material or block known bad actors.
There may be free speech concerns at stake for publicizing actual wrongdoing, but the usual standards for malicious libel/slander (e.g. reckless disregard of the truth, with intent to do harm) should apply.
While the wealthy, powerful, and persistent can get the reputational damage cleaned up, it's virtually impossible for Average Joe/Jane Victim to repair under the present services model.
Wow that really is terrifying. And honestly most people don't have that kind of money to clear their name. And even in this case, she only got a name and followed up. She could have easily spent...
Wow that really is terrifying. And honestly most people don't have that kind of money to clear their name. And even in this case, she only got a name and followed up. She could have easily spent that amount and still have no resolution.
Despite having relatively strong opinions, I never comment on political content for precisely this reason. You never know how crazy people are, and how far they will go. This^, in particular, is...
Despite having relatively strong opinions, I never comment on political content for precisely this reason. You never know how crazy people are, and how far they will go.
She spent a few hours researching Glennon online and soon knew enough to fake having met her in real life. It was the online version of road rage; instead of pulling a gun on another driver, Rosenblum decided to drop a bomb on Glennon’s reputation.
This^, in particular, is just straight up psychotic.
Was that necessary, or constructive? There is much to criticize in Rosenblum's behavior that is substantive, I think, without the need for empty insults.
Dumb b*tch
Was that necessary, or constructive? There is much to criticize in Rosenblum's behavior that is substantive, I think, without the need for empty insults.
That's always the scary thing online, all it takes is one asshole with a lot of free time to ruin your life. Hell, that guy in Wichita got killed by swatting and he wasn't even involved in the argument. He just happened to live at the address that someone used as a fake out.
The solution, I think, is that people need to verify what they read online. So many people just accept stories that have zero evidence and just treat them like fact. I know I've been fooled once or twice, but I've learned. People have to be smart about stories that are just hearsay.
And really, if you're the type of person reading "She's A Homewrecker" or "BadBizNews" your level of credulity is probably already quite low, because you're looking for things to be angry about. I've never really understood the need to publicly shame someone for events that happen in private life.
All it does, in my view, is compound the upset and make it more difficult to move on from a bad time.
The problem isn't that mentally ill or vindictive, malicious people exist and post crap, it's that "reputable" sites (Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) automatically allow posting of nearly everything. They admit no responsibility to remove genuinely defamatory material or block known bad actors.
There may be free speech concerns at stake for publicizing actual wrongdoing, but the usual standards for malicious libel/slander (e.g. reckless disregard of the truth, with intent to do harm) should apply.
While the wealthy, powerful, and persistent can get the reputational damage cleaned up, it's virtually impossible for Average Joe/Jane Victim to repair under the present services model.
Hopefully the news that a "downvote" button is being tested in Facebook may help with FB garbage being so easily spread.
Wow that really is terrifying. And honestly most people don't have that kind of money to clear their name. And even in this case, she only got a name and followed up. She could have easily spent that amount and still have no resolution.
And all because of one innocuous comment on a news article. It's crazy to think just how much damage was done to her, financially and emotionally.
It also surprises me that it's even worth it to someone to do that. The reaction is just so extreme.
Some people are very angry and have a lot of free time.
Despite having relatively strong opinions, I never comment on political content for precisely this reason. You never know how crazy people are, and how far they will go.
This^, in particular, is just straight up psychotic.
Was that necessary, or constructive? There is much to criticize in Rosenblum's behavior that is substantive, I think, without the need for empty insults.