Cyber-Vigilantism and its Impact on Combating Online Harms

This discussion board post delves into the complex issue of cyber-vigilantism, examining whether it is ultimately helpful or harmful in combating online ills. It explores scenarios where cyber-vigilante actions, such as uncovering hidden information related to crimes, can be beneficial, while also acknowledging the potential for harm when confidential information is exposed. The discussion addresses the ethics of online shaming, particularly in cases involving potential child predators, and considers the responsibilities of social media networks in monitoring and disseminating material from cyber-vigilante groups. The author emphasizes the importance of credible evidence in justifying online shaming and suggests that social media platforms should prioritize user privacy and collaborate with security authorities to address criminal activities.

Cyber-Vigilantism
“Are cyber-vigilantes helpful or harmful when it comes to combating online ills?”
The question of whether cyber vigilantism is helpful or harmful depends on which side you
are viewing it from. It also depends on the consequences of the cyber-attack to the parties
involved. The first perspective is that cyber vigilantism can be helpful. Cyber acts that can be
considered useful include activities such as those that would uncover hidden information that
would lead to positive results (Wehmhoener & Karl Allen, 2010). Say for instance a cyber-
vigilante launches an attack to find unknown information about a murder and the act of cyber
vigilantism leads to the arrest of the murderer, then, in that case, the act is helpful. On the
other hand, if cyber vigilante’s activities lead to uncovering confidential information of a
company and it ends up in the hands of the competitors, then cyber vigilantism turns out to be
harmful.
“Consider the case of this dad, but also this case here. If the online environment can be
leveraged to protect children from predators, does this justify the use of online shaming
and other tactics?”
The use of online shaming in the case of the dad was not justified at all. When you go
through the case of the mother, she thought she was shaming a pedophile while the case does
not indicate the presence of the mother having any credible evidence (Owen, Noble, &
Speed, 2017). The mother was all along relying on the story she was given by her daughter.
Online shaming can damage a person’s reputation badly with some damage being permanent.
However, in my opinion, if the shaming can be backed up by credible evidence from reliable
sources then online shaming as an act of cyber vigilantism is a justified act as it stands for the
victims who cannot fight for their rights in one way or another.

“Should social media networks be held responsible for monitoring and disseminating
material from cyber-vigilantes groups?”
Socio media sites, for example, Facebook should have privacy policies and security in place
to monitor criminal activities happening on their sites. Personal information should remain
private at all times and no vigilante should be given the information at any cost. If for
instance, Twitter detects some criminal activities happening in their site, then they should
take necessary actions which might involve working in collaborations to the security
authorities.
References
Owen, T., Noble, W., & Speed, F. C. (2017). New Perspectives on Cybercrime. Cham:
Springer International Publishing.
Wehmhoener, & Karl Allen. (2010). Social norm or social harm: An exploratory study of
Internet vigilantism. Iowa State University Digital Repository.