It seems that the power to destroy people through false accusation may be amplified by the internet, and especially web sites and services that increase the social velocity of information (term invented here :-) ). When bad news travels fast, as it certainly does when reputations are being shredded, the social network increases both the speed of the damage and its magnitude. Although the example here is of a public figure, the same argument applies to non-public figures using social media.
One can easily imagine a future in which certain elements of society engage in vicious rumor attacks on people they don't like. Because of the social network, these attacks will be both easy and deadly to the reputations of the victims, who will receive no reparations. Since the attackers will be, for the most part, either genuinely anonymous or effectively so, and since their attack will be quite legal (it is not a crime to think ill of someone and suggest that they might have done something nefarious), the attacks will increase in frequency and severity.
You might suppose that the "power of the internet" to supply counterbalancing truths will oppose this? It doesn't work that way now. A single suggestion of impropriety damages a reputation, and further discussion doesn't restore it. In fact, extended discussion, even if the vast majority of the information tends to exonerate the falsely accused, tends to damage the reputation of the accused still further. People think, "Where there's smoke, there's fire." They prefer the safe route, to distance themselves from the situation if possible.
But let's set even that problem aside. Let's suppose that everyone pays attention to the web dialog so that victims of reputation attacks get a fair hearing, and everyone goes back afterwards to liking and associating with the victim pretty much to the degree that they genuinely deserve. Will this work? I think not. The problem is that this kind of dialog takes time. People have to read the accusation. They have to read the vitriol, understand the nature of the falseness of the accusation, find the countervailing evidence, write it up and post it, and convince everyone that the countervailing evidence is stronger and more believable than the accusation. I'm exhausted already. Then the friends and acquaintances need to read the material and come to new conclusions. It takes way too much time. The attackers (social terrorists?) still win because they've torn down parts of the lives of everyone. All of this communication and judging and weighing of evidence---all over a false accusation. What is efficient about that?
I don't know of any remedies for this soon-to-be problem. Do you? Please post a message or email me. I'm interested in knowing what you think.
