How One Stupid Tweet Blew Up Justine Sacco’s Life (article)
-
You shouldn't stuff yourself full of hamburgers every day, but it's not wrong per se. Just stupid.
You seem to have an unusually narrow definition of wrong.As "lolwut I totally didn't know someone might not get my clever subversion of the joke"? I rest my case.
Well, you were complaining about not being able to find any interpretation of her words that wasn't racist, and she gave one. What else could I do than to be pedantic?And you can do both in any situation.
You just said that you can't always defend yourself. Or was it just my shoulder aliens reading between blank lines?Wha... how? You have no right to make a racist joke in the US?
Iunno about US, but in Poland, racist jokes are technically against the art. 257 KK.Just like if you piss off an important client, you get fired. Did the client ruin your life then, or did you fucking bring it on yourself?
Except the Twitter people aren't your or your company's business partners. Also, people don't piss off bigwigs during business meetings on daily basis.my ass.
Sorry, forgot air quotes.But pray tell, what kind of "justice" did they actually enact other than screaming a lot? You're saying it as if the "mob" fired her from the job, or actually did anything at all, when all they did was give the stupid joke lots of attention, because well, that's how a gossip works, on the Internet or otherwise.
You underestimate the power of words.
-
Huh. I just see serious professional communication in it. You must be interested in following people mainly for their ability to make dick jokes…
This is an important point: twitter is a chaotic mess of different opinions and posting styles, that each person builds their own view into, and then assumes that everyone else's viewpoint is the same. So when political people see a tweet, they assume that the tweet is political. A common theme in the article is people failing to understand the mindset of the person they are judging.
Another common theme is that it's only people who have some perceived power that are attacked. There are literally thousands of people making the same jokes; if you tried to bully every person who didn't meet your moral standards, you'd run out of steam within minutes. So the only way to rouse a mob is to give them some reason to be jealous of the victim. Any system where powerful people are punished for things that normal people could get away with necessarily leads to hypocrisy.
-
when all they did was give the stupid joke lots of attention
That's not all they did. Justine also had to deal with people at the airport when she landed. She had to deal with people causing issues in the lives of her family members. She had to deal with reporters hounding her. It spilled over from the online world into the real world.
Did you even read the article?
-
Did you even read the article?
I am not the person you are talking to, but I feel confident that I can answer for him.
No, he did not...
-
I'm having trouble finding a positive contribution that Twitter has made to society. Among its glowing accomplishments:
- #CancelColbert
- Donglegate
- This
Is it too late to nuke it from orbit?
-
Don't post anything
questionableonline under real name.FTFY
The point is that it is literally impossible to act so politically correct that no faction would be willing to harass you into oblivion, just to make a point.
Yes. Internet lynch mobs do not care about intent or nuance though. They just want to go all SJW on any perceived slight.
These put together make for powerful chilling effects.
-
Except that anonymous cowardry is what makes the whole thing possible in the first place. My opinion is that as more people continue using their own names online, more people will realize that things they've said could be used against them too, and stop jumping on bandwagons as much. Particularly, the ringleaders of these things are generally the ones with the biggest targets on their backs.
-
How One Stupid Tweet Blew Up Justine Sacco’s Life
The mob mindset in action, with Twitter as the means of delivery. Terrifying is probably an understatement; to get attacked online like that is akin to being excommunicated from the world (or at least feel like you've been).
-
In reading the comments in the NYT article, I really like how one person responded about the guy who's private joke was recorded by the woman, then posted for the world to see:
L.B.A. New York, NY Yesterday
“I packed up all my stuff in a box,” he told me. (Like Stone and Sacco, he had never before talked on the record about what happened to him. He spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid further damaging his career.) “I went outside to call my wife. I’m not one to shed tears, but” — he paused — “when I got in the car with my wife I just. . . . I’ve got three kids. Getting fired was terrifying.”Wow. The woman who snapped that photo should have had to explain to the guy's wife and kids why this guy lost his job. Who needs the gov't when we are surrounded by PC fascists, everywhere, at all times. The guy wasn't even on line with the comment.
-
The woman who snapped that photo should have had to explain to the guy's wife and kids why this guy lost his job.
Or maybe the people who fired him could?
-
Or maybe the people who fired him could?
The people who fired him were subject to a PR nightmare. They were not the cause; they became associated with the target because they employed the target. Firing him was a survival move by the company. What else could they have done?
Really, why should they have to explain anything to them under such circumstances?
EDIT: Hanzo'd on the answer:
@Maciejasjmj said:your boss gets tired of angry mobs with pitchforks asking for you and threatens to fire you. That is a problem, not some random Twitter rage
-
Firing him was a stupid move by the company.
They overreacted. Firing the guy subjected them to a similar PR nightmare from the other side. They should have gone through due process, in which they would have come to realize that the guy did nothing wrong, rather than firing him straight up without even talking to him first.
You are arguing that somebody who did something that led to another person doing something else is more responsible for that second thing than the person who actually did it.
-
@Buddy said:
who edited redwizard's quote:
Firing him was a stupid move by the company.They overreacted. Firing the guy subjected them to a similar PR nightmare from the other side. They should have gone through due process, in which they would have come to realize that the guy did nothing wrong, rather than firing him straight up without even talking to him first.
Your are arguing that somebody who did something that led to another person doing something else is more responsible for that second thing than the person who actually did it.
-
If you're going to edit my post, please at least use the traditional FTFY or whatever. Don't imply that's what I wrote, even if it is better. I prefer to pay for my own WTFs, thank you. ;-)
-
I agree with you in principle: they should have gone through due process. BUT the mob is not sane when it acts like the mob. No amount of reason on this Earth would stave off that mob reaction, and unless you're a company like GM who can [ok used to be able to] afford burning through a $1 billion loss per day, the simple truth is most companies can't afford due process under such circumstances. The business was afraid of going bankrupt, in which case now not only is this guy out of a job, but so is every other employee that was working for the business. Given all that, they chose the lesser of two very evil choices. Choices foisted upon them through no wrongdoing of their own. Cut them some slack.
2A) As for "the PR nightmare from the other side", where TF were they before the guy lost his job? Did no one really see that coming?
-
-
where TF were they before the guy lost his job? Did no one really see that coming?
If the company would have waited for a millisecond before firing him, maybe there would be an acceptable answer to this.
-
If the company would have waited for a millisecond before firing him, maybe there would be an acceptable answer to this.
Straight from the article:
"Two days later, his boss called him into his office, and he was fired."
Two days is an eternity on Twitter.
-
Regardless, that company wasn't the one that got ddosed. Firing him bumped the seriousness of the whole thing up a huge notch. Either their firing him was an overreaction, that they should be held accountable for, or it was justified edit: by his behavior. Firing a person for something that they are not responsible for is not acceptable. Companies firing people as part of mob justice only encourages it.
-
Firing a person for something that they are not responsible for is not acceptable.
Agreed.
Life isn't fair. This is an example of that. :(
-
Except that anonymous cowardry is what makes the whole thing possible in the first place. My opinion is that as more people continue using their own names online, more people will realize that things they've said could be used against them too, and stop jumping on bandwagons as much. Particularly, the ringleaders of these things are generally the ones with the biggest targets on their backs.
Anonymity still has a fair amount of value, particularly when it comes to dissidents in authoritarian regimes.
I think the ideal situation was what we had about 10-15 years ago. You know, before Facebook et al. became SSO for the whole Internet and everyone was hiding behind a handle. Maybe people wouldn't take things so seriously, then.
@adriarichards Of course. Meanwhile the HN community were discussing even at the time how elated they were at the thought you were ruined.
Richards had an agenda and a history of stirring the pot. She overreacted, which led to other overreactions, and ultimately paid for it with her career. DDoS or not, that's behavior unbecoming of a "developer evangelist."
Life isn't fair. This is an example of that.
And when the rest of us look at the debacle to try to learn from the mistakes made, what wisdom can we even glean from it? That our careers/lives can be ruined by saying anything controversial? So much for free speech*.
*Yes, I'm well aware that the meaning of free speech is usually interpreted as speech pertaining to the government. I have a dream of a world where people can say whatever the hell they want without someone getting offended and starting a moral crusade to make sure the offender's life is ruined. That's "free" speech. However, I'm okay with the usual slander/libel/defamation/fire in theater/etc. exemptions to that rule.
-
I never liked pseudonymous posting much. I realize that I haven't been using my last name here, but there hasn't been much need for it. A dedicated stalker could find out my details without too much hassle, just from things I've posted. Though I disagree with @Maciejasjmj about whether shaming is ok, I agree about the value of being able to stand behind the things I say. I just don't see why the Social- and Antisocial Justice Warriors' right to be gigantic fuckwits online trumps my own right to just be myself, however imperfect or ideologically unacceptable I may be.
behavior unbecoming of a "developer evangelist."
How do you feel about her current campaign to get hired by twitter in a User Safety or Anti-Harassment role?
-
I just don't see why the Social- and Antisocial Justice Warriors' right to be gigantic fuckwits online trumps my own right to just be myself, however imperfect or ideologically unacceptable I may be.
QFT
-
You seem to have an unusually narrow definition of wrong.
Language barrier, or something? I've always seen "wrong" in this context as close to "morally wrong".
Well, you were complaining about not being able to find any interpretation of her words that wasn't racist, and she gave one. What else could I do than to be pedantic?
That's the stupidest interpretation ever, but okay, I'll give you that.
You just said that you can't always defend yourself.
Successfully. Jesus. Are you always that pedantic?
Except the Twitter people aren't your or your company's business partners.
So? You claim they can still ruin your shit, so you should be just as careful about what you say.
That's not all they did. Justine also had to deal with people at the airport when she landed.
From the article, there was one guy who snapped a photo. Is one guy an angry Twitter mob?
She had to deal with people causing issues in the lives of her family members.
You mean this?
Her extended family in South Africa were African National Congress supporters — the party of Nelson Mandela. They were longtime activists for racial equality. When Justine arrived at the family home from the airport, one of the first things her aunt said to her was: “This is not what our family stands for. And now, by association, you’ve almost tarnished the family.”
No, she had to deal with her family members being just as pissed at her. Are her family members an angry Twitter mob?
She had to deal with reporters hounding her.
That's what reporters do with a story. And is the reporter an angry Twitter mob?
Look, I get it. I won't disagree that stalking people on the airport is bad - maybe I could, maybe I couldn't, but that's beside the point. I won't even disagree that that reporter has a major stick up his ass. But these are just a few people. Two, in fact. And the article, between the whipping posts and lynch mobs, tries to guilt-trip you into thinking that criticizing in any way is wrong and evil, because that's what almost all of those people did - went on Twitter, made a criticizing tweet or a few, and that's it.
A few people had too much time on their hands and reacted much worse, bordering on illegal, both in this and other cases, but the article seems to treat the whole imaginary "lynch mob" as equal - no matter if you're sending death treats or just simply tweet "jeesh, that bitch", you're lumped together into the "lynch mob" and labeled as "evildoer".
-
I just don't see why the Social- and Antisocial Justice Warriors' right to be gigantic fuckwits online trumps my own right to just be myself, however imperfect or ideologically unacceptable I may be.
I don't see why your right to be yourself trumps their right to be themselves - if you can be ideologically unacceptable, then they can be ideologically outraged.
The difference is, you're one, they're many, so you'll have a lot of pissed off people against you, while they have one pissed off person against them. Duh.
-
I have a dream of a world where people can say whatever the hell they want without someone getting offended and starting a moral crusade to make sure the offender's life is ruined. That's "free" speech.
Language barrier, or something? I've always seen "wrong" in this context as close to "morally wrong".
I prefer a broader definition of "has bad impact on your or someone else's life and no real benefit for anyone". Which encompasses both "morally wrong" and "eating hamburger".That's the stupidest interpretation ever
What would be the right interpretation, then? That you don't buy her story that she meant no harm? Then we have whole different problem.Successfully. Jesus. Are you always that pedantic?
Successfully or not, on Twitter you can't even really try. That's the problem.So? You claim they can still ruin your shit, so you should be just as careful about what you say.
It's matter of proportion. If you say something stupid in front of a bigwig, then you've just made the dumbest thing in the world. If you post something stupid on Twitter, you just did the exact same thing as ten thousand other people in the world this second, and only by pure chance this was escalated into top hashtag of the day, and your employer fires you not because you just blown up million-dollar contract, but because some millions of Twitter accounts say unpleasant things.A few people had too much time on their hands and reacted much worse, bordering on illegal, both in this and other cases, but the article seems to treat the whole imaginary "lynch mob" as equal - no matter if you're sending death treats or just simply tweet "jeesh, that bitch", you're lumped together into the "lynch mob" and labeled as "evildoer".
Well, the death-threaters were the majority of the lynch mob, so...
-
Iunno about US, but in Poland, racist jokes are technically against the art. 257 KK.
No, in the US, we still take freedom of speech seriously.
-
Among its glowing accomplishments:
What about the dude who turned out to be live tweeting the SEALs killing bin Laden?
-
The difference is, they ruined somebody's life. The punishment was excessive for the crime. There wasn't even a crime in the first place. And all these excuses “I wasn't the only one”, “there were people worse than me”, “I was only joking”, “I didn't know it would go this far”: I don't give a shit. If you did something wrong, that's your fault. Context matters. Results matter. Don't hurt people.
-
So much for free speech*.
I'm not going to quote your footnote, but yeah. Part of the problem is that this stuff gets blown way out of proportion.
ZOMG, an off color joke!
He's a racist!
Burn him!WTF
-
What would be the right interpretation, then? That you don't buy her story that she meant no harm? Then we have whole different problem.
No, I don't buy the story that she couldn't even stop for a minute and consider that what she wrote is not only not obvious, but can and will be read as something completely different to what she intended. Because if I did buy it, that'd make it probably the biggest dumbass in the history of Twitter.
Successfully or not, on Twitter you can't even really try. That's the problem.
Huh? There's a box for your 140 characters, there's a couple millions of people watching your every move now, knock yourself out. If you can come up with something convincing enough...
some millions of Twitter accounts (as opposed to some millions of people)
Those millions of Twitter accounts do have millions of people behind them. Maybe not one-to-one, but still a substantial amount. And those millions of people are potential customers that you've just pissed off.
Call me crazy, but I think that's not in the interests of whoever you work for.
If you post something stupid on Twitter, you just did the exact same thing as ten thousand other people in the world this second
So? You still posted something stupid.
Well, the death-threaters were the majority of the lynch mob, so...
Which ass did you pull that off? Quoting the article:
In light of @Justine-Sacco disgusting racist tweet, I’m donating to @care today
How did @JustineSacco get a PR job?! Her level of racist ignorance belongs on Fox News. #AIDS can affect anyone!
I’m an IAC employee and I don’t want @JustineSacco doing any communications on our behalf ever again. Ever.
All I want for Christmas is to see @JustineSacco’s face when her plane lands and she checks her inbox/voicemail
Oh man, @JustineSacco is going to have the most painful phone-turning-on moment ever when her plane lands
We are about to watch this @JustineSacco bitch get fired. In REAL time. Before she even KNOWS she’s getting fired.
Not a single death threat, no mention of death threats anywhere in the article (for this case), and definitely nobody says that the majority of people sent death threats, because that's wrong by a few orders of magnitude.
Even if you count some "hope the bitch gets hit by a bus" tweets as death threats (which is probably just as stupid as the "lol jk" explanation of miss Sacco), you won't get anywhere near the "majority".
-
How do you feel about her current campaign to get hired by twitter in a User Safety or Anti-Harassment role?
I'd be concerned about her objectivity. I'm not sure she's shown the sort of aptitude I'd want to see in that sort of role.
-
if you can be ideologically unacceptable, then they can be ideologically outraged.
-
The difference is, they ruined somebody's life.
Again - you piss off a client, you get fired, possibly can't find a job, land on the street and turn to heroin. Did the client ruin your life? Should he lose sleep over that? Should he have just given fuck all about it because you might get fired?
-
Was that stupid? Sure it was. Did we ridicule the guy for what it's worth? Sure we did.
Your point, exactly?
-
Your point, exactly?
I find that tweet to be hilarious and I try to post it whenever the opportunity arises.
-
I find that tweet to be hilarious and I try to post it whenever the opportunity arises.
YOU EVIL LYNCHMOBBER YOU.
-
Idk if this is just my privilege talking, but in general I feel that if an employer is willing to fire me because of a client who has taken something I said out of context and refuses to listen to reason, I'm better off not working for them.
-
if an employer is willing to fire me because of a client who has taken something I said out of context and refuses to listen to reason, I'm better off not working for them.
Maybe. But if it wins them the client back, they're probably better off not having you work for them.
Filed under: capitalism is a harsh mistress
-
No, I don't buy the story
Listen, have you ever lived in a country where there is an aids epidemic? Where the president of the country claimed that hiv does not cause aids?
There is a huge difference between someone talking shit about their home country and an ignorant foreigner saying the same thing. The is no fucking way she would have ever believed people would think that she was that ignorant.
-
There is a huge difference between someone talking shit about their home country and an ignorant foreigner saying the same thing. The is no fucking way she would have ever believed people would think that she was that ignorant.
..wha? Huh? It's not like it's unprecedented, as you've nicely shown. If even the damn president of the country falling apart due to the epidemic can claim it with a straight face, is it really that much of a stretch that an ignorant foreigner could?
-
Here are two tweets from her timeline: one that seems to justify your concern, and one that shows how I would expect her to rebut.
-
No, I don't buy the story that she couldn't even stop for a minute and consider that what she wrote is not only not obvious, but can and will be read as something completely different to what she intended. Because if I did buy it, that'd make it probably the biggest dumbass in the history of Twitter.
OK, so your problem isn't that it was undoubtedly racist and there's no way it wasn't racist, but that she was dumb. Well, I must agree here.Huh? There's a box for your 140 characters, there's a couple millions of people watching your every move now, knock yourself out. If you can come up with something convincing enough...
She was fired before she could get online. But even if it wasn't the case, there would be her single tweet vs. thousands of other tweets - people aren't following her account as mush as the hashtag. Her post would most likely be missed. Though it's impossible to check what would happen in the alternate timeline where she has internet connection in the airplane.Those millions of Twitter accounts do have millions of people behind them. Maybe not one-to-one, but still a substantial amount. And those millions of people are potential customers that you've just pissed off.
Are you one of those who think that 1,000,000 downloads of pirated $10 music CD is $10,000,000 loss for the music company? Because this is exactly the same kind of "potential", except the amount of people who would legally buy the CD if they didn't pirate it is a couple orders of magnitude higher than amount of people who would become customers if they weren't outraged by this Twitter thing.Which ass did you pull that off? Quoting the article:
OK, I actually checked the history (gosh, Twitter has worst search utility ever). There weren't that much threats. 99% of all tweets were copy-pastes of the same news article.
-
OK, so your problem isn't that it was undoubtedly racist and there's no way it wasn't racist, but that she was dumb.
That's... kinda what I was arguing for since the beginning. She posted a dumb thing on Twitter. People got pissed. She got punished by losing her job (and lots of negative media coverage).
I don't really care whether she meant it or not, it's just that it takes a lot of twisting to turn that joke into a "anti-white-privilege" statement, as she claims. Maybe it's true, maybe not, personally I tend to never attribute to malice what is equally explained by stupidity, but lots of people don't follow that.
She was fired before she could get online.
This is an outrageous, offensive comment. Employee in question currently unreachable on an intl flight.
It kinda indicates they tried to reach her before they fired her.
Because this is exactly the same kind of "potential", except the amount of people who would legally buy the CD if they didn't pirate it is a couple orders of magnitude higher than amount of people who would become customers if they weren't outraged by this Twitter thing.
Of a social media website? I'd say there will be at least some people put off by seemingly racist staff.
-
She posted a dumb thing on Twitter. People got pissed. She got punished by losing her job (and lots of negative media coverage).
Do you think it's an adequate punishment?It kinda indicates they tried to reach her before they fired her.
Probably in order to tell her she's fired.Of a social media website?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAC_(company)
If you ask me, it doesn't look much like a social media website.
-
Do you think it's an adequate punishment?
With all the bad rep she gained for the company? I'm gonna say "yep". She wasn't fired for making a stupid joke, she was fired by making a stupid joke to millions of people (even if she was unaware of that - results matter), as a senior-level director of the company.
And if she wasn't fired, that would probably make the company get even more bad rep than her.
If you ask me, it doesn't look much like a social media website.
And then one from her employer, IAC, the corporate owner of The Daily Beast, OKCupid and Vimeo:
Okay, so a social media website among other things. Didn't know the company all that well.
-
-
I'm done.
"Okay, so she cost us a gajillion dollars, but awww, she sure didn't mean to, we'll let her stay!".
I had this worldview too. When I was seven.
http://i.imgur.com/yGzxHQP.png
FUCK OFF DISCOTOASTER I'M GONNA POST AS MUCH AS I WANT TO UNTIL I PROVE Y'ALL WRONG
-
"Okay, so she cost us a gajillion dollars, but awww, she sure didn't mean to, we'll let her stay!".
No, not that. No matter if it costed the company $10 or $1015, the deed is just as wrong. "Results matter" is the quintessence of hypocrisy.
-
The hell? If someone costs you more money than they're worth, you fire them and look for someone who won't. Apparently, they did value their lost reputation, plus the reputation they'd lose if they held on to her, more than miss Sacco.
I don't know in what twisted bizarro world everyone gets evaluated on what they tried to do, rather than what they did. But here, not everyone's a winner.
-
I wasn't criticizing her employer (though I seriously doubt the impact on business would be any significant) - I was criticizing the Twitter mob.
I don't know in what twisted bizarro world everyone gets evaluated on what they tried to do, rather than what they did.
I'm not like that. I'm like "everyone should be evaluated on what they did, rather than on what their actions resulted in".
-
I wasn't criticizing her employer (though I seriously doubt the impact on business would be any significant) - I was criticizing the Twitter mob.
For what exactly? Pointing out that what she said was idiotic? Being angry at someone who says idiotic things?
Are you proposing we should all just shut the fuck up when someone says something stupid?
I'm not like that. I'm like "everyone should be evaluated on what they did, rather than on what their actions resulted in".
And she did piss off a lot of people. Who cares if she did so as a result of her actions or directly, intentionally or not? In the end, you have a lot of pissed off people anyway.
You're trying to make it into a double standard - "she's OK to not think about the consequences of her actions, but the Twitter people are bad because they didn't think about the consequences of their actions".
-
Are you proposing we should all just shut the fuck up when someone says something stupid?
I wouldn't mind, honestly.Who cares if she did so as a result of her actions or directly, intentionally or not?
Philosophers. Lawyers. Everyone who cares about the distinction between the deed and the results.You're trying to make it into a double standard - "she's OK to not think about the consequences of her actions, but the Twitter people are bad because they didn't think about the consequences of their actions".
Except the Twitter people wanted this outcome, and cheered happily when it happened.
Thabo Mbeki - Wikipedia
