Initial Reactions to internet vigilantism
Seeking justice is a natural human social tendency, and swift justice even more satisfying. When one party has been wronged it is a natural reaction to want offenders to be punished, to right a wrong.
On an open forum like the internet, where anecdotal accounts and user-generated content are usually the centerpieces of discussion, the instinctual reaction is often to side with the little guy, to fight the Goliath. Especially in areas where suspicion of authority figures looms high, victims become symbolically their rallying cry to fight oppression or offenses. There is a cultural tendency to write-off the Generation Y as apathetic isolationists who're unmotivated to participate socially, and such a stereotype can heighten an individual's need to feel integrated in movements of social change. The internet thus becomes the obvious destination for quick access to information, organization, and participation.
Masked in implied anonymity, there is a tendency for hyperbole and radical statements. These comments in turn reinforce more extreme actions by vigilantes as they are now "supported" by hundreds, if not thousands of like-minded people all over the world. As supporters cheer on, the vigilantes begin to designate a heavier responsibility upon themselves to embody the idealism that rings behind the anonymous voices.
This is the beginning of a mob mentality.
On an open forum like the internet, where anecdotal accounts and user-generated content are usually the centerpieces of discussion, the instinctual reaction is often to side with the little guy, to fight the Goliath. Especially in areas where suspicion of authority figures looms high, victims become symbolically their rallying cry to fight oppression or offenses. There is a cultural tendency to write-off the Generation Y as apathetic isolationists who're unmotivated to participate socially, and such a stereotype can heighten an individual's need to feel integrated in movements of social change. The internet thus becomes the obvious destination for quick access to information, organization, and participation.
Masked in implied anonymity, there is a tendency for hyperbole and radical statements. These comments in turn reinforce more extreme actions by vigilantes as they are now "supported" by hundreds, if not thousands of like-minded people all over the world. As supporters cheer on, the vigilantes begin to designate a heavier responsibility upon themselves to embody the idealism that rings behind the anonymous voices.
This is the beginning of a mob mentality.
Behavioural analysis
A mob mentality refers to how people are influenced by their peers to certain behaviours which may not wholly align with their individual beliefs. Take certain aspects of ANONYMOUS behaviour for example, their principle mandate remains that the internet is to be an unregulated means of communication, exemplifying human freedom - and in order to protect such an establishment individuals ought to remain completely protected from government or corporate identification of individuals through ISP, even if it to locate an individual who has committed a crime. Yet as a group, they have no qualms in breaching that very shield of privacy in order to expose or punish individuals or groups which hold contrary views to them. (i.e. Patriot Hacking)
Vigilantism is also problematic in that the punishment and crime aren't always proportionate - the acts of an individual is put against the reprimand of the masses, and sometimes the consequences cannot be properly foreseen by individuals participating in such events, as the actions of individuals become collectively claimed by the group. (i.e. death threats over animal cruelty) Certainly not everyone who is against animal cruelty believes the offender is punishable by a gruesome death, but it nevertheless becomes much more real of a threat when it is prominently associated with a vigilante group of hundreds if not thousands.
The concern with vigilantism is not so much the justice that results, but the process involved. There is no due process in many cases, and innocent bystanders can become victims of harassment from people they do not know for offenses they did not commit. While this occurs in any justice system in part of human error, there is at least a systematized process involved in which proper reviews of conduct and corrections can occur. In internet vigilantism, there is not a trail to retrace and figure out what went wrong. The need for evidential corroboration is significantly lower for mob mentalities, and the potential for disaster is clear. Justice cannot rest on the whims of the individual behind a keyboard or the mob mentality of public outrage.
Take the heavily publicized Amanda Todd incident for example, public outrage was universal at the cruelty of her peers for "bullying her" and "expressing their wishes for her death", as well as the complete disregard for her humanity in publicizing intimate photos to embarrass and further harass her. But what did the internet mob do to the man "outed" by vigilantes, who later turned out to be innocent? Harassment, publication of his personal information, and death threats.
Argumentum ad populum is the "appeal to the people", a fallacious argument that bases the validity of a proposition on the number of people who suggest it. In a fast-paced environment such as the internet it becomes a de facto reason for subsequent actions - this is observable by baseless petitions, "thumbs up" votes, and "likes" garnered for the cause du jour.
There are certainly rational and well-reasoned cases made for social causes and petitions for change, but unfortunately these remain in the obscured minority as hot-topic controversies and loud rallying cries often overwhelm the voices of reason. This is especially true for those unfortunate individuals who resort to making death threats or find joy in harassing individuals.
Vigilantism is also problematic in that the punishment and crime aren't always proportionate - the acts of an individual is put against the reprimand of the masses, and sometimes the consequences cannot be properly foreseen by individuals participating in such events, as the actions of individuals become collectively claimed by the group. (i.e. death threats over animal cruelty) Certainly not everyone who is against animal cruelty believes the offender is punishable by a gruesome death, but it nevertheless becomes much more real of a threat when it is prominently associated with a vigilante group of hundreds if not thousands.
The concern with vigilantism is not so much the justice that results, but the process involved. There is no due process in many cases, and innocent bystanders can become victims of harassment from people they do not know for offenses they did not commit. While this occurs in any justice system in part of human error, there is at least a systematized process involved in which proper reviews of conduct and corrections can occur. In internet vigilantism, there is not a trail to retrace and figure out what went wrong. The need for evidential corroboration is significantly lower for mob mentalities, and the potential for disaster is clear. Justice cannot rest on the whims of the individual behind a keyboard or the mob mentality of public outrage.
Take the heavily publicized Amanda Todd incident for example, public outrage was universal at the cruelty of her peers for "bullying her" and "expressing their wishes for her death", as well as the complete disregard for her humanity in publicizing intimate photos to embarrass and further harass her. But what did the internet mob do to the man "outed" by vigilantes, who later turned out to be innocent? Harassment, publication of his personal information, and death threats.
Argumentum ad populum is the "appeal to the people", a fallacious argument that bases the validity of a proposition on the number of people who suggest it. In a fast-paced environment such as the internet it becomes a de facto reason for subsequent actions - this is observable by baseless petitions, "thumbs up" votes, and "likes" garnered for the cause du jour.
There are certainly rational and well-reasoned cases made for social causes and petitions for change, but unfortunately these remain in the obscured minority as hot-topic controversies and loud rallying cries often overwhelm the voices of reason. This is especially true for those unfortunate individuals who resort to making death threats or find joy in harassing individuals.