[fairity]

I think the crux of the issue is how powerful and unrelenting the internet mob has become.

If there was a way to neuter this power, or better ensure the punishment enacted by the mob fits the crime, less people would advocate for denial.

As it stands, public shaming often goes way overboard.

For those interested in hearing more stories of this: https://www.ted.com/talks/jon_ronson_when_online_shaming_goe...

[shirakawasuna]

What is wrong with the public raising its expectations on public figures, companies, politicians, etc? This is what I read every time someone refers to the "internet mob". It's a bunch of normal people being loud on the internet over a perceived injustice with nothing particularly toxic compared to the injustices themselves or the way speech is curtailed in other contexts (you can't be frank with your boss most of the time, e.g.).

[fairity]

There's nothing wrong with using the internet mob to keep powerful people in check. This is because, prior to the internet, powerful people were able to get away with too much evil with too little punishment. ("Nothing wrong" here, to me, means "for the greater good of society").

The problem is when this same internet mob protocol gets applied to average citizens. The internet mob deals massive amounts of damage to a person's reputation and psyche. And, there's no way to temper the punishment to meet the crime. For your average wrong-doer, it's extreme overkill.

Take, for example, the woman who recently got called out for making racist comments to a black man in the park. She was clearly in the wrong, but her entire life is ruined now due to the internet mob. The punishment did not fit the crime.