[devindotcom]

I don't understand why the "angry internet mob" is any different from thousands of people boycotting a company for unfair labor practices, or doing a sit-in somewhere, or picketing? How is the internet mob different from these other forms of nonviolent political activism?

[stcredzero]

It's worthy activism to repeal unjust laws, or help to pass other laws to protect people's rights. It's something else to merely attack the people you don't like, no matter how noble your justification is.

A more accurate description of this action would be as a boycott of a company with fair labor practices, for an exercise of free speech the CEO made 6 years ago. Does that even make sense? It sounds like a gratuitous witch-hunt to me.

If one's activism is going to further the notion of tolerance and social justice, then it had better hew to the principles of tolerance and social justice. Merely resembling other civil rights actions on the surface is just "Cargo Cult Activism."

[noddingham]

Based upon the thoughtless drivel that I see spewed across Twitter, I don't see how it could be considered political activism of any sort. It takes no effort and no risk to shout something on Twitter.

[devindotcom]

It takes little effort or risk to walk down the street and shout, either. What matters is that the people in both situations are expressing their support for one side of an issue. That it doesn't meet your standards for intelligibility isn't really material. A vote is not eloquent, but it is a powerful statement when millions do it at once and with one object. It is the same for public demonstration.

[stcredzero]

A vote is not eloquent, but it is a powerful statement when millions do it at once and with one object. It is the same for public demonstration.

Just because something is a vote or a demonstration doesn't make it good or just. Just because millions say or do something doesn't make it good or just either. It's justice when what the millions say or do is just because they are applying first principles of justice. If you look at history, when millions have enacted injustice, every single time they also had flowery-sounding justifications for it. Also, if you dig deep enough, along with any injustice, you will find some kind of double standard accompanied by a notion that amounts to "but we're right and they're wrong."

[koenigdavidmj]

My point was that conservatives can do witch hunts too. Mozilla gave every indication that it just gave up when the pressure overcame them, rather than actually deciding this on its merits, bad publicity be damned.