Comments on: Burning down the house http://blog.getsatisfaction.com/2007/06/04/burning-down-the-house/ The Get Satisfaction blog Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:48:49 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Thor Muller http://blog.getsatisfaction.com/2007/06/04/burning-down-the-house/comment-page-1/#comment-552 Thor Muller Fri, 08 Jun 2007 19:23:32 +0000 http://blog.getsatisfaction.com/2007/06/04/burning-down-the-house/#comment-552 @Shawn: There's no doubt that there are real dangers with the tyranny of the majority. This post was an exploration of why people do things that don't directly benefit them, and how it relates to these kind of revolts. The Twelfth Street riots that I mentioned were overwhelmingly bad for all concerned, and indeed killed many innocent people. While there was a silver lining to the uprising--the festering anger of millions was heard loud and clear--I would never suggest that it justified the pain and suffering it caused. In historic terms it doesn't matter if the crowd screaming for revenge is "right" or not. Its existence calls for a different response, a different behavior, by those in power than if they were dealing with "the pacified masses." Like those rebellious colonies in 1776, we aren't looking to replace a despot with anarchy. We're looking for a new balanced approach that involves everyone in the process, gives everyone a voice. These are *good* things for companies and organizations. And they help avoid the kinds violent uprisings that we agree are ultimately so destructive. @Shawn: There’s no doubt that there are real dangers with the tyranny of the majority. This post was an exploration of why people do things that don’t directly benefit them, and how it relates to these kind of revolts. The Twelfth Street riots that I mentioned were overwhelmingly bad for all concerned, and indeed killed many innocent people. While there was a silver lining to the uprising–the festering anger of millions was heard loud and clear–I would never suggest that it justified the pain and suffering it caused.

In historic terms it doesn’t matter if the crowd screaming for revenge is “right” or not. Its existence calls for a different response, a different behavior, by those in power than if they were dealing with “the pacified masses.” Like those rebellious colonies in 1776, we aren’t looking to replace a despot with anarchy. We’re looking for a new balanced approach that involves everyone in the process, gives everyone a voice. These are *good* things for companies and organizations. And they help avoid the kinds violent uprisings that we agree are ultimately so destructive.

]]> By: Shawn Smith http://blog.getsatisfaction.com/2007/06/04/burning-down-the-house/comment-page-1/#comment-551 Shawn Smith Fri, 08 Jun 2007 18:57:42 +0000 http://blog.getsatisfaction.com/2007/06/04/burning-down-the-house/#comment-551 The web has gives the crowd a lot of leverage to exert pressure on powerful institutions, which undoubtedly nets out to a good thing. Still, it's a bit of a slippery slope. Sometimes civil disobedience becomes mob rule, the tyranny of the majority. Sometimes the web empowers a tyranny of a very vocal minority (special interest groups exploit this like crazy). The collateral damage can end up hurting everyone. Often the first spark can be traced back to a single person, a single story. What if that first spark comes from a misinformed or malicious person with strong ulterior motives? If the story is told effectively enough, then it takes an incredible amount of effort and intervention to undo the damage - if it can be undone at all (swift boats, intelligent design). What if the proprietors of Mikey Tom Market bent the truth - even if it was just out of convenience or a wish for privacy - with no intent for the story to spread? It's nice to imagine that we're fighting the man, but sometimes we end up shooting ourselves in the feet and innocent people in the face. The web has gives the crowd a lot of leverage to exert pressure on powerful institutions, which undoubtedly nets out to a good thing.

Still, it’s a bit of a slippery slope. Sometimes civil disobedience becomes mob rule, the tyranny of the majority. Sometimes the web empowers a tyranny of a very vocal minority (special interest groups exploit this like crazy). The collateral damage can end up hurting everyone.

Often the first spark can be traced back to a single person, a single story. What if that first spark comes from a misinformed or malicious person with strong ulterior motives? If the story is told effectively enough, then it takes an incredible amount of effort and intervention to undo the damage – if it can be undone at all (swift boats, intelligent design).

What if the proprietors of Mikey Tom Market bent the truth – even if it was just out of convenience or a wish for privacy – with no intent for the story to spread?

It’s nice to imagine that we’re fighting the man, but sometimes we end up shooting ourselves in the feet and innocent people in the face.

]]> By: links for 2007-06-07 http://blog.getsatisfaction.com/2007/06/04/burning-down-the-house/comment-page-1/#comment-536 links for 2007-06-07 Thu, 07 Jun 2007 00:38:29 +0000 http://blog.getsatisfaction.com/2007/06/04/burning-down-the-house/#comment-536 [...] Burning down the house at Demand Satisfaction! (tags: social networks) [...] [...] Burning down the house at Demand Satisfaction! (tags: social networks) [...]

]]> By: john http://blog.getsatisfaction.com/2007/06/04/burning-down-the-house/comment-page-1/#comment-531 john Tue, 05 Jun 2007 03:03:38 +0000 http://blog.getsatisfaction.com/2007/06/04/burning-down-the-house/#comment-531 hey guys don't forget the recent revolt over at livejournal: http://news.livejournal.com/99159.html hey guys don’t forget the recent revolt over at livejournal:

http://news.livejournal.com/99159.html

]]>