a) I can't speak for 4chan, but the Reddit thread has been full of counterarguments, doubts, discussions of likely innocence as well as guilt. Some of the most upvoted threads are all about Devil's Advocacy and finding evidence of innocence:
http://www.reddit.com/r/findbostonbombers/comments/1cjc30/de...
With that, similar threads, the rules imposed, it's following exactly the textbook approach to avoid groupthink.
b) Meanwhile, we have the case studies of Richard Jewell, Steven Hatfill, the Central Park Five, among others. Those were not cases of "vigilante justice." Those happened because no one bothered to check the math of the authorities.
The internet can be an unruly mob, sure, but it's simply inaccurate to claim the internet can ONLY be an unruly mob. Or why are any of us even here?
If the cautious stay silent for fear of the careless, then they cede a monopoly on speech to the careless. Aka, the remedy for bad discussion is more discussion, not less.
Some may argue against this. Some may use the internet to claim that internet discussions are harmful, but not without a certain degree of inconsistency between their words and their actions.
A natural response might be, "Yes, but I'm RIGHT, of course I should speak..." but the trouble is, no one knows whether they're right or not without submitting their ideas to the crowd for a full and proper vetting.
No one knows whether they're right or not after submitting their ideas to the crowd for a full and proper vetting, either. 'The crowd' is not a substitute for experimentation and investigation.
Noticing that someone looks suspicious in a picture and reporting it to the proper authorities (preferably a division thereof known for evenhandedness) so that they can look at all sides of the issue is reasonable. Someone has to handle crimes, and whoever that someone is will always be human. Noticing that someone looks suspicious and posting their picture on Facebook with an accusatory tagline is entirely indefensible.
It's bad enough when their are no proper authorities.
Even with those counterarguments and discussion, there is something to be said for the unfairness of publicly discussing whether or not this kid has anything to do with the case. For a long time now this event will be associated with his name.
Even if 99 comments out of 100 on Reddit or whatever other forum are doubtful, there is still the fact that his name has been publicized incorrectly - which would not have happened in the absence of a public witch hunt.
Unruly mobs tend to be made up of perfectly normal people, who never intended to be an unruly mob in the first place. It is remarkable hoe a group of people can suddenly act as one coherent unit. Not just in thought, if you observe a mob form the air they make patterns like migrating birds to.
a) I can't speak for 4chan, but the Reddit thread has been full of counterarguments, doubts, discussions of likely innocence as well as guilt. Some of the most upvoted threads are all about Devil's Advocacy and finding evidence of innocence: http://www.reddit.com/r/findbostonbombers/comments/1cjc30/de... With that, similar threads, the rules imposed, it's following exactly the textbook approach to avoid groupthink.
b) Meanwhile, we have the case studies of Richard Jewell, Steven Hatfill, the Central Park Five, among others. Those were not cases of "vigilante justice." Those happened because no one bothered to check the math of the authorities.
The internet can be an unruly mob, sure, but it's simply inaccurate to claim the internet can ONLY be an unruly mob. Or why are any of us even here?