[franga2000]

> Have you seen an article that, say, criticizes prison system and needs to start with a reminder than killing people is wrong?

I'm pretty sure I have, actually. In the age of Twitter mobs that can have you fired over a misplaced comma, nothing should be left to chance. And protecting yourself from a misunderstanding or ambiguity isn't enough anymore, as a lot of the time these people are malicious. They will not only twist your words, but make things up entirely in order to make you look bad. And when (if) you get your 30 seconds to defend yourself, you'll want to have something short and unambiguous right at the top of the page to point at.

[raxxorrax]

A problem is everyone giving in to outrage. There are some negative side effects for everyone, but just ignoring it is the most viable PR reaction. The people don't want to forgive anyway, they want emotional acknowledgement that nobody can supply on the net.

We have books being scanned that were written 15 years ago that now have to be rewritten. Publishers should never acknowledge these criticisms, this is a form of the worst censorship literature has to content with.

Of course ignoring everything isn't a solution as well, outrage can indeed be justified. But I think outrage has to surpass a level that summons more actions than a twitter post or change.org petition. If outrage still persists, maybe there is a problem you need to address.

Companies that comply too willingly would also do it for any regime. It is nothing that should be praised at all, especially not seen as "progressive" or "tolerant". It should be an example about how the free enterprise indeed fails to act responsible and champion any values. That would be a healthy perspective.

[franga2000]

I agree, but allow me to make a somewhat controversial analogy: this is the same as vaccination and herd immunity and seems to be something that people are instinctively opposed to.

Just like vaccination in a pandemic, ignoring the Twitter outrage is the safest thing when everybody does it (herd immunity). But currently, very few are doing it and since it is dangerous to the individual (re. vaccine analogy: while they ARE safe, many people BELIEVE them to be dangerous, so the result is the same), nobody wants the be the first. And since you can't know if others will follow your example, it's easy to feel like a guinea pig, so you give in and do the long-term worse thing instead.

But unlike with vaccination, the individual risk is very real and more importantly, you can't use moral arguments to convince the individual to take on personal risk to benefit the group like you can with vaccination (and even that rarely works). Companies, unlike people, are not expected to be moral actors (and I'd argue most have to be by definition immoral). So why would a company, journalist or anyone else that finds themselves the target of an outraged mob (or sees a real risk of that happening) not take all the necessary precautions to protect themselves?

[ogurechny]

Let me join you in your sorrow over thousands of years of easy living humans enjoyed before Twitter.