As popular as those techniques remain, however, online harassers have learned that they can cause far more damage with a slightly less flashy and more methodical approach — you might even say the “hottest new trend” in harassment is opposition research….
In both cases, it represents a ton of very meticulous, calculated work — of the sort we’re used to seeing from professional opposition researchers.
The anti-Rapp campaign also shares its ethical logic with professional oppo: Namely, that people in public positions (of any sort) should be held publicly accountable.
I haven’t followed the Alison Rapp case, but considering that Dewey’s previous anti-Gamergate piece is an uncritical regurgitation of talking points about the “victimhood” of Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian, with no mention of the censorship debate at the center of it, skepticism is the wiser approach. Dewey of course fails to note that Gamergate supporters have been targeted by these types of tactics.
Furthermore opposition research is much more effective on the left because it has the political connections to use it effectively and move into media outlets. Gamergate supporters have no shot at seeing their talking points appear in media outlets. Gamergate opponents however have their talking points appear uncritically in, among other places, Dewey’s WaPo blog posts.
The higher profile victims of this trend, people like Justine Sacco, were targeted by the left. Dewey complains about opposition research against ordinary people, yet has no problem adopting and incorporation opposition research from the anti-Gamergate side.
But back to the topic, opposition research and mobs are normative in a Salem culture where there is no such thing as a private life because every thought and action of an individual is subject to communal review at any time. This can happen in small communities. It also happens in theocracies and under political extremists. We’re the latter now.
