News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Very random social media etiquette question

Started by empirestate, March 10, 2018, 08:17:28 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

empirestate

So, this is nothing to do with roads or this forum. But it's a question generally about posting in a public setting, and since this forum is dispassionate to the incident that sparked the question, I thought I'd ask here!

During the recent winter storm in the Northeast, my town suffered a substantial amount of damage. As events unfolded all over town, many residents followed the flood of information in a Facebook group. An accident at one particular home, unfortunately, turned out to be fatal for one of the family members there. Local law enforcement issued a press release, which was reported in one or two of the local media outlets. The press release included the address of the home (number and street) to which emergency crews had responded, but not the name of the family or the victim.

As rumor began to spread that there had been a fatality, people in the Facebook group began to ask if it was true. Some people simply said yes, it was; others (including myself) posted a link to one of the articles or to the press release on the sheriff's Facebook page; and one poster simply responded, "Unfortunately, yes. 26 Main St." (I've fictionalized the address, obviously.) This last poster was immediately berated by other members of the group for including the address, even though it had already been reported by the county sheriff and by news media; and as such, it had already been reported even within that comment thread. (And of course, anyone who happened by the scene in person would have identified the house and known that something unusually serious had occurred there.) When he pointed this out, their anger only increased; they said it didn't matter that police or media had reported this information, because he was neither police nor media. I, and other posters who linked to the information indirectly, were never given the slightest criticism for doing so.

The question is, simply, did that one poster do something wrong, and if so, what? And why was it wrong for him to give this piece of information, but not for me (and others) to do so?


jeffandnicole

Simple internet rage - probably a few people, maybe even friends or relatives of the victim, just needed someone to lash out at and that person was the unfortunate victim. 

Nothing wrong with providing info that has already been publicly released.

I find the same thing true about people upset with a certain visual site.  There's supposedly a group of people (sometimes small) upset at seeing something, and they want the person responsible fired, jailed, castrated, whatever.  But then the news media, both TV and print, show the very same image that stirred up trouble, and not a single person is outraged at the media for showing it.  It only serves to point more anger at the person originally responsible.  Nevermind the fact that now millions of people are now viewing the problem image, whereas before just a few people saw it.  These millions would have never seen it, or even know about it, in the first place if it wasn't for the media.

jwolfer

If you read old news articles they put the actually address of people interviewed.. most people.now would be horrified.  But you can find out so much on line about people.

People in Florida get all upset about counties on their tag. (When someone could google and find out so much more than county based on limited data) so lots of people opt for "Sunshine State" tags

Z981

tchafe1978

I call it Social Media Outrage Syndrome. Information gets spread so fast these days that people get knee jerk reactions to every little event that happens and before you know it, a handful of commenters on a Facebook or Twitter post can blow the whole thing up to make it seem like the whole world but you thinks like them. It's best to just ignore those people and move on.

vdeane

This does bring to mind whether the media should publish the address too.  I can see the line of thought of "if you don't spread it, the information may go away if they retract it".  Although these days it's unlikely any major piece on the internet will go away even if the original source removes it because of copying and sharing.  It is, after all, not as if the info wasn't already public, and in numerous places on the internet already.

Quote from: jwolfer on March 10, 2018, 02:26:28 PM
People in Florida get all upset about counties on their tag. (When someone could google and find out so much more than county based on limited data) so lots of people opt for "Sunshine State" tags
Speed trap police aren't going to be able to do that in the time it takes to decide whether to pull you over.  It's well known that people who are visibly not from the area are targeted for police enforcement because it would be more of a hassle to fight the ticket (and because they don't vote in the local elections).  I think thieves have been known to target out of towners as well.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

empirestate

Quote from: tchafe1978 on March 10, 2018, 03:28:13 PM
I call it Social Media Outrage Syndrome. Information gets spread so fast these days that people get knee jerk reactions to every little event that happens and before you know it, a handful of commenters on a Facebook or Twitter post can blow the whole thing up to make it seem like the whole world but you thinks like them. It's best to just ignore those people and move on.

True, it was only two or three people who really strenuously objected. But enough others seemed to at least see their side of it, even if they weren't visibly outraged, that I wondered if there is indeed some unwritten rule that had been broken.

Quote from: vdeane on March 10, 2018, 04:14:28 PM
This does bring to mind whether the media should publish the address too.  I can see the line of thought of "if you don't spread it, the information may go away if they retract it".  Although these days it's unlikely any major piece on the internet will go away even if the original source removes it because of copying and sharing.  It is, after all, not as if the info wasn't already public, and in numerous places on the internet already.

That never seemed to come up in this case. There was agreement that the media had the right to publish the info, just not the individual citizen. But as you mention it, what might be the damage in publishing the address (by any party, media or otherwise)?

J N Winkler

What strikes me as odd about this situation is that the local media published the address in full.  Here in Wichita, the Eagle typically gives addresses associated with serious incidents just as a block number and street (e.g., "200 block of North Main Street" rather than "226 N. Main St.") unless the site at the full address is open to the public in some way.  This is true even if the full address is otherwise discoverable without resort to subscription services.

For example, one of the biggest stories locally this February concerned a child rapist who worked in a day care at the downtown YMCA, was arrested after an initial complaint, was released on bail, and was re-arrested at his home after examination of videotape evidence turned up other offenses.  Eagle coverage gave the address of the YMCA in full (402 N. Market) since it is open to the public, but titivated the alleged offender's home as "1400 block of East Cresthill in Derby," even though the White Pages still lists the full address as 1412 E. Cresthill.

As to the fatality mentioned in the OP, I would expect commenters to have some awareness that local media reports addresses in full if that is indeed the standard practice, but there is a distinction between information being given directly and having it accessible a link away, where it is often not viewable without a paid subscription or the ingenuity to get around a paywall.  A person's address, phone number, email address, and details of occupation and salary (if in the public sector) is also sensitive information even if it is public record, so direct mention of it in a publicly viewable comment thread on social media (i.e., one not accessible just to a fairly intimate group of friends) is all too easy to see as an attempt at doxing.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

slorydn1

Often times the media doesn't report the actual address because they don't get the actual address from the authorities that are working the incident. Our practice for my agency when the media asks about a fire, for example, we will tell them yes, we are working a house fire in the 200 block of Mumbletypeg Rd. We don't tell them the actual address of 212 Mumbletypeg Rd. So the only choice they have is to say the fire is in the 200 block of Mumbletypeg Rd when they report it. I am not entirely sure why we do that, but it's been like that since long before I worked here and probably will always be that way.

As for your concerns, empirestate, I don't believe you have done anything wrong. I don't really believe that the poster that got jumped by everyone did anything wrong either, unless the next of kin were not yet notified of the passing of their loved one by authorities. I would think it would be a crappy way to find out someone I cared about had been tragically killed-but then again, is there really a good way to find something like that out?

Please Note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of any governmental agency, non-governmental agency, quasi-governmental agency or wanna be governmental agency

Counties: Counties Visited

TheHighwayMan3561

Quote from: slorydn1 on March 13, 2018, 04:16:02 AMI would think it would be a crappy way to find out someone I cared about had been tragically killed-but then again, is there really a good way to find something like that out?

In late 2016 I found out my cousin had committed suicide via a general Facebook post. No one had yet called me or otherwise tried to get a hold of me to tell me directly even though most of the family knew by that point what had happened. I honestly hope that I never find out the passing of a loved one in that manner again. It does make you go "why did no one try to tell me?"
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

abefroman329

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 13, 2018, 05:28:12 AM
Quote from: slorydn1 on March 13, 2018, 04:16:02 AMI would think it would be a crappy way to find out someone I cared about had been tragically killed-but then again, is there really a good way to find something like that out?

In late 2016 I found out my cousin had committed suicide via a general Facebook post. No one had yet called me or otherwise tried to get a hold of me to tell me directly even though most of the family knew by that point what had happened. I honestly hope that I never find out the passing of a loved one in that manner again. It does make you go "why did no one try to tell me?"

Some people, I dunno, just don't get enough attention and have to be the one to tell the world that someone died so they can get all the attention.  It's shitty and annoying, and rarely if ever is it their place to do so.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.