In response to the criticism that this tool could be used to bully others, Owens says, "We don't allow any commenting on our database because we don't want to foster any of the bullying we're trying to rid the Internet of."

Wait -- how does disallowing comments on the Social Autopsy site prevent bullying? Users will still be free to follow targets to their social media accounts as well as confront them in real life. That's what the tool is for. In fact, disabling comments would prevent targets from defending themselves in the place where these attacks against them are aggregated. Disallowing comments also relieves Social Autopsy of some technical responsibility for the bullying they would be fostering, as targets would be attacked outside of Social Autopsy's jurisdiction.

Owens denies that her tool threatens people's freedom of expression: "You can still say whatever you want to say on social media," she says in her Kickstarter video, "but you have to be willing to stand by your words."

We must be willing to stand by our words in the face of what sort of retaliation? Punishing people for their speech, and thereby threatening punishment by example, is how censorship is enforced. Censors often say, 'Freedom of Speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences,' but it does mean freedom from authoritarian punishment. Freedom of expression may not mean freedom from criticism, but it does mean freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, like physical attack, invasion of privacy and loss of livelihood.



Speaking of livelihood, Owens has a few things to say about that, though it doesn't seem she knows what the word 'livelihood' means. For the record: livelihood doesn't mean "social life" or "day to day life" or "self image." Your livelihood is your job, your career, your source of material worth. But instead of acknowledging this, Owens lectures,

"People think that the Internet is like a video game, that they can go home and say whatever they want over social media and then get back to real life, which is why you're using this word, 'livelihood.' That is not the case. You are affecting somebody's livelihood with your words. When you log on the Internet and tell someone that they are disgusting, that they are ugly, that they don't deserve to live, that they are fat, you are affecting that person's livelihood: you are making that person sad, you are making that person depressed. The Internet is a real thing. Just because you are typing that does not make your words any less real. What you type on the Internet is a part of your livelihood, and we stand by that and we stand firm on that."

To defend her project's use as a career-destroying tool, Owens has equated people's careers with their personal experience in general. Is this a genuine misunderstanding or a deliberate evasive manoeuvre? Because the funny thing is, she used the word properly when she defended including minors in her project: "You have this profile for 365 days, you're not applying to college, you're not going out for a job. It doesn't do anything to affect your livelihood in any way."

In what universe does systematically threatening people's jobs because you don't like them not constitue bullying?



Under a system of anonymous reporting, submitters would decide whether a person is targeted, and would face no repercussions for false or misleading accusations. This grants submitters all the power with none of the risk, while it grants targets no power, but with all of the risk that comes with being identified and targeted. In the real world most interpersonal disputes are mutual. Unbalanced anonymity would deeply skew that truth.



How would Social Autopsy prevent themselves from inadvertantly helping the darkly manipulative Nurse Racheds and Dolores Umbridges of the world -- the bullies who, instead of exploding with anger, psychologically abuse their targets until those targets explode? Sure, these two examples are fictional characters, but they are memorable because they are archetypes, largely described by the modern and very real Cluster B personality disorder diagnoses. Social Autopsy does not seem at all prepared to defend itself or its targets from these abuser types.



While Owens says that Social Autopsy will investigate alleged fakes and create permanent profiles for the people who submit false information, no indication has been given that Social Autopsy has any way of obtaining the identities of these fakers and false accusers. How can they, if they accept anonymous reports? How can they manage and respond to false and misleading accusations without requiring and publishing the identities of submitters alongside the identities of their targets?