Public shaming is a tool in the kit, but in this case it was the first one that she reached for. From her blog post, it sounded like it was out of frustration over other incidences (maybe even worse cases of offence / harassment) that she had also ignored. It was the 'straw that broke the camel's back' so to speak, and unleashed her pent up anger/frustration.
Personally, I think that there were other avenues to pursue this, without resorting to public shaming. It adds nothing to the generic goal of 'improving the community for women (present and future)' which seemed to have been on her mind (at least from her blog post). Talking about it in public promotes that goal, but naming names does not.
I very reluctantly have to agree that it is a tool in the kit, however as far as tools go I would have to liken it to resorting to a government coup because that pothole you reported last week still hasn't been filled. Sure it might be necessary in extreme situations, but equally extreme discretion and forethought is absolutely necessary.
As to it being a culmination of other offenses, that's a bit too speculatory for my taste. Who's to say the other alleged offenses weren't just as minor, to such a degree that, as in this case, I might not consider them an offense at all?
I do agree that it did not add anything to the goal of improving the community for women. If anything, it should be seen as a setback. As it is, this only serves to instill fear in men such that any slight misstep could result in extreme disciplinary action, ranging from public humiliation to loss of income.
Public shaming is essentially an appeal to the mob. And mobs are very dangerous.
The API for class InternetMob has exactly one function call: start(). You can't tell if it succeeded or failed, or if it will succeed later. You cannot stop it after it has started. Even if it succeeds in going after your initial target, it may then turn on someone else you do like, or even yourself.
Public shaming is a tri-edged blade with no handle, made of fire. Yes you can wield it, but you are going to get hurt, possibly badly, likely you are going to take somebody who just stood next to you down with you too. If you hurt your intended target, you can't control the degree and it is going to have unintended consequences that you can't stop, let alone control.
As a weapon of last resort. Even then, only when retreat / choosing your battles doesn't make sense.
For example, if something progressed to getting the police or lawyers involved, at least some amount of it is going to be public record. Even though it might not (initially) be broadcast widely, it would eventually hit the tech press if it stemmed from events at a tech conference.
> Do you really think it should be in the toolkit?
As a last resort, it can be necessary. Let's imagine a different situation where, at a public con, an individual A suggests sexual congress to an individual B just met (already inappropriate), B simply declines but A doggedly keeps trying (veering into straight sexual harassment), B reports to Con staff who blow B off.
At this point, B's options are basically calling the police of yo's own accord or going public. Both are probably going to blow up, and considering B has just had a run-in with despondent authority (con's staff) making B less likely to trust the next level of authority with correctly handling the case (or even handling it at all).
Public shaming is the nuclear bomb in the toolbox, but even a nuclear bomb can have a use.
It's a complex and multi-faceted ethical question. Involving issues of empathy, unintended consequences, power asymmetry, confirmation bias, and lynch-mob justice.
No. I don't think we're ready to have a discussion about that yet.
