Ask the average free speech advocate for the solution to offensive speech, and they’ll likely tell you: more speech. And they’re right. (Though, I think ignoring speech can sometimes be the right call but I don’t expect others to feel the same.) However, the suggestion for “more speech” doesn’t always seem to apply on social media, where “more speech” and “mobs” seem to overlap quite frequently. Our tendency to lump together all responses to speech into one bucket often has the result of conflating the people trying to earnestly criticize with those trying to threaten or harass.
That's an interesting way to define it; I'll have to think more on how useful it is. But you're right that the intention is largely going to be meaningless to the person experiencing the impact. I'm still working it out, but I remain skeptical about the "mob" description being used in situations that don't involve demands for punishment. I think there needs to be some middle ground between people being more conscientious about how they treat others on Twitter and people accepting that the platform works this way and that you really can't expect other people to avoid responding to you so you don't feel overwhelmed. It's messy.
That's an interesting way to define it; I'll have to think more on how useful it is. But you're right that the intention is largely going to be meaningless to the person experiencing the impact. I'm still working it out, but I remain skeptical about the "mob" description being used in situations that don't involve demands for punishment. I think there needs to be some middle ground between people being more conscientious about how they treat others on Twitter and people accepting that the platform works this way and that you really can't expect other people to avoid responding to you so you don't feel overwhelmed. It's messy.