[q1w2]

This feels like a limitation of our ability to have constructive conversations online.

Someone can be less than perfect and that can cause them to be victimized.

We should be able to talk about both aspects of this story, perhaps independently.

Some people want to discuss how the offender should be punished, and other people want to discuss how we can behave to prevent being victimized ourselves.

I don't think it's valid to argue that people discussing how to prevent victimization, are somehow "victim blaming".

[dahfizz]

Absolutely.

"They deserved it for sending in an unwiped phone" is victim blaming.

"If you need to send in your phone, you can do X and Y to protect yourself" is absolutely NOT victim blaming.

I cannot wrap my mind around why people would have a problem with the second statement.

[klyrs]

> I cannot wrap my mind around why people would have a problem with the second statement.

When the problem is that the phone was borked to the point that X and Y were not possible, it's tonedeaf at the very least.

[lliamander]

There's nothing tonedeaf about exploring how the situation can be avoided in the future.

Obviously, the phone being borked is relevant, but in that case we need to ask what preemptive measures can be taken on a phone that isn't yet borked. It may be that the only answer right now is "don't keep nudes on your phone" then that's unfortunate and should be addressed.

[throwaway0a5e]

There's a subset of people who get angry at any implication that people have agency they can use to make decisions to make their life less risky in these sorts of contexts. Fine, whatever, they're entitled to their world view.

What boggles the mind is the overlap this group appears to more or less be a subset of people who are up in arms anytime someone doesn't take steps to de-risk their life in any other context (like using an older car seat for your kid or not putting GFCI breakers into everything under the sun).

[lliamander]

Moral Dyad theory I think helps give insight to this behavior:

https://arnoldkling.substack.com/p/the-moral-dyad-and-health...

[catlikesshrimp]

You are blaming the victim because you think you are beyond failure.

Someday you might be hacked. Is it your fault for using technology at all knowing you can be hacked?

[dahfizz]

> You are blaming the victim

I am not. For you to interpret helpful advice as blame is some serious mental gymnastics. "If you need to send in your phone, you can do X and Y to protect yourself" does not assign blame to anyone.

> Someday you might be hacked. Is it your fault for using technology at all knowing you can be hacked?

Why are you so obsessed about assigning blame? Do you think everyone should ignore security best practices, since its not their fault if they get hacked?

Go ahead and set your HN password to "password", please. It wouldn't be your fault if you got hacked, so why would you care if I knew your password?

To actually answer your question, no. It would not be my fault if I got hacked. But I don't want to get hacked, so I take reasonable steps to avoid being hacked anyway. I am an adult with the responsibility and agency to take care of myself.

[ryandrake]

> I don't think it's valid to argue that people discussing how to prevent victimization, are somehow "victim blaming".

Weird also, that talking about preventative measures is only considered "victim blaming" when it comes to certain specific topics. If you say it's a good idea to wear a seat belt or helmet in your car or motorcycle, it's not victim blaming. If you say people ought to lock their doors at night, it's not victim blaming. We tell our kids not to get into strangers' cars--not victim blaming. What is it about this topic that always seems to set off the alarms?

I used to really over-share online, and reading stories like these over the years has helped a great deal to educate me about good online OpSec and privacy best practices. I have data sharing/storage habits to this very day that stem from good advice received from others.

[mcphage]

> If you say it's a good idea to wear a seat belt or helmet in your car or motorcycle, it's not victim blaming.

(1) the purpose helmet is to protect you from accidents, not malicious actors. When you get hurt in a car accident, it is rarely because a criminal set out to deliberately hurt you.

(2) if you responded to an article about someone specific getting hurt in a car accident with "well they should have been wearing their seat belt", you probably wouldn’t be called out for victim blaming, but you probably would be called an asshole.

[ksec]

>This feels like a limitation of our ability to have constructive conversations online.

Or more precisely, in written words. And we dont seems to have a decent solution.

[buu700]

Thank you. There's a big difference between "it's your fault you were murdered because you were unarmed" and "carrying a gun would be one potential mitigation for the future", which I think is too often lost in discussions on social media.