[drm237]

When people call your place of business and complain to your boss about your methods and mental state, when they lobby the government to open investigations into your research under the accusation of child abuse, and when they use every available method to discredit your life's work, I don't think that simply opting-out of Twitter is likely to make a meaningful difference unfortunately.

[Zelphyr]

Seems like scientists at that point have little choice but to bring legal action against those activists for slander. Unfortunately, and apropos of your point, most scientists likely won't be that aggressive in their action and I think the activists know it.

[smudgymcscmudge]

I don’t think slander charges would work here unless the activists are lying about the scientists. Are there anti-harassment laws that could come into play? Much of the harassment probably crosses jurisdiction boarders, so it may be difficult to bring charges in many cases.

[robocat]

> little choice but to bring legal action

Huh? A legal campaign would severely escalate the problem, cost time and money, and prevent the scientists from doing their work.

Besides, the international aspect of the issue:

"TARGET: Oxford University professor Michael Sharpe"

"INVESTIGATOR: David Tuller at his home in San Francisco": he blogs, sends hundreds of letters and emails, and travels the world giving speeches and holding meetings as supporters send him donations and praise for his CFS/ME campaign.

[siruncledrew]

Imagine how f-ing annoying any city would be if everyone in the streets had a megaphone. Instead of a conspiracist standing on a box and shouting from a corner, now they can echo through the streets and draw other like-minded conspiracists together into a mob. That's what Twitter (and other social media) has allowed.

There's such little thought put into actions because action is immediate and satisfaction is self-served. A group dedicated to seeking action will always find something to nit-pick over to add fuel to the fire. If the desire is bad enough, emotion will surpass logic, which is like an addiction.

When people favor their actions over thinking, and neglect consequences, they will do things that make no sense or do more harm than good. But I suppose as long as someone gets their way, none of that matters to them.

[rmc]

Defamation law exists for a reason. Or harassment law.

[sosodev]

What are they going to call and complain about if you don't have a social media account for them to dig through?

[skywhopper]

If you didn’t read the article, these activists are digging through research papers, finding the researchers’ contact info, and harassing them directly. On Twitter when they are on Twitter, but also on the phone and through the mail, and via their employers. This has nothing to do with whether or not the researchers themselves are on Twitter. The mob that’s harassing them uses social media to organize and recruit.

[sosodev]

I did read the article. I guess I should have phrased it differently. The employers of these researchers already know what they're researching. They understood the risks involved so what would it matter if somebody calls in?

If the researcher removes themselves from social media they're insulated from the outrage in multiple layers. They don't see it, and they're not leaving any of their personal actions behind to be complained about.

[Zelphyr]

I think the idea is that these scientists are publishing their findings which are getting translated (poorly, more often than not) by the media outlets and thus its trivial for the activists to locate where the scientists live and work.