The right Victoria Liss...I hope!
Victoria Liss was tending bar at Bimbo’s Cantina in Seattle last week, when a customer named Andrew Meyer not only refused to tip her on his $28 bill, he added insult to injury by scrawling on his credit card receipt that she “could stand to lose a few pounds.” Liss, outraged, decided to employ the full power of the internet against the unmannerly cad. She posted a picture of the receipt and the customer’s name, Andrew Meyer, on her Facebook page.
Soon angry web-Furies were gathering to exact their revenge on Meyer, whom Liss called “yuppie scum.” Andrew Meyer’s photo and Facebook page were located and posted around the web like it was a Post Office wall. News sites, including the Seattle Weekly, the Stranger, Gawker and Jezabel, used the photograph. Soon Andrew Meyer was being flamed by thousands, and receiving vicious e-mails from strangers intent on carrying on Victoria Liss’s vendetta.
One problem: Liss had the wrong Andrew Meyer! The photo she posted was of a different Andrew Meyer who lived in Texas, not Washington, and it is his face and reputation she sent to web perdition.
Now Liss is apologizing repeatedly, saying that she was blinded by anger, that she needs glasses, that she is “a douche.” I’ll second the last one. Her ethical error wasn’t merely her extraordinarily reckless, negligent and stupid mistake, the web equivalent of firing a gun at your cheating husband but picking the wrong car and shooting an innocent stranger. Web shaming should be reserved for the dangerous, corrupt, dishonest and criminal, and not leveled at the rude, thoughtless, or socially inept. The internet is powerful, and siccing thousands of bored web surfers on some jerk because of a moment’s bad judgement is irresponsible and an abuse of that power.
OK, the written insult about Liss’s weight was gratuitously mean. The tip she was stiffed was four or five bucks, six at the most….and we have no idea why he gave her no tip. Based on subsequent events, I’d say there is a rebuttable presumption that she got the order wrong, forgot to serve him, gave him an empty glass, and was snotty about it, since, as we now know, she is a primo nit-wit. So forget the tip…does the Seattle Andrew Meyer deserve to have his name published and circulated around the web as a villain because he wrote an obnoxious message? Of course not. And obviously the wrong Andrew Meyer doesn’t deserve any of this.
Seattle Weekly, the Stranger, Gawker, Jezabel and any other news source that accepted an angry bartender’s account without checking the photo also disgraced themselves, but we have learned to expect this kind of journalistic sloppiness, and it isn’t going away. Liss’s brand of web-shaming, however, needs to be condemned and stopped, and not only the moronic “Oops! Wrong guy! My bad!” part.
As I previously wrote about the national embarrassment of fool who sent an outrageously pompous e-mail to a woman who turned him down for date, who then copied it to the world:
“…He had a right to be exposed as a jerk only to the person he sent the smoking-jerk e-mail to, not to the entire civilized world. This isn’t a difficult principle; indeed, it is the Golden Rule, which applies to the jerks in your life as well as everyone else. You wouldn’t want an ill-considered message or your most embarrassing moment revealed to strangers, and it is wrong and mean-spirited to inflict that indignity on others.”
And especially wrong, mean-spirited, and unforgivably reckless to inflict that indignity on the wrong guy.
So here’s to you, Victoria. You set out to expose a cheapskate tipper to the bullies of cyberspace in a fit of excessive indignation, and instead victimized an innocent bystander, with the delicious result that the one humiliated was…you.
Ethics Alarms 
We’re all so glued to the internet 24/7 that we’ve forgotten how to step back and evaluate if what we’re posting is accurate, responsible, or hell, even intelligent! Every time I see “douche” thrown around as if it’s the new “like,” my heart breaks a little.
Anyway, it’s sad to see how the internet is used for public shaming for every minor infraction (though I take offense to the quip about her weight, she should have just been the bigger person…pun intended), and it’s all done without anyone stepping back to consider the ramifications of those actions. I’m sure the wrong Andrew Meyer is just thrilled about all of this…
Personally, I’d say that the responsibility here lies with the major online news sources who posted this. A lot of people, including myself, see Face Book as an extremely casual environment. I’d say that it’s fairly normal and totally ethical for a waitress to go on a rant about a bad customer. She shouldn’t have posted a link to his Face Book page. That was in extremely poor taste. But, I seriously doubt that she had any clue that this would go viral! I don’t see a clear intent to harm and humiliate someone here but a clear intent to vent and perhaps aggravate someone. The latter is petty but not unethical.
But, those major online sources absolutely should have done fact checking and at a minimum gotten both sides of the story. Really, they shouldn’t have included a name or link to a Face Book page. As you said, public humiliation is only ethical in the most extreme scenarios. I see the heavily trafficked sites and their writers as the accountable parties here.
Except that it is unethical to use a powerful tool without understanding it. There has been enough time and experience with the internet that no one has the excuse of “not knowing” that posted material can get out of control. Weiner?
Oh dear, are we going to go on a Weiner tear again? 😀
If you don’t mind, I’d like to eschew the term “Weiner tear”….
Perhaps I should have said Weiner rant or Weiner tangent. Don’t send my previous comment into a major news source, please! 🙂
Okay, let me present you with a hypothetical scenario. You have some lively discussion here. You and I don’t always agree on everything. Let’s say that you and I vehemently disagree on something and one or the other of us is in an extremely bad mood. Let’s say that it’s me. In this hypothetical scenario I decide to tell all of my Face Book friends what a complete jerk I think that you are. A few might comment on the thread backing me up. You might even get a few mean private messages. But, I wouldn’t have ruined your reputation or done something terribly unethical. It would be an over reaction on my part. I don’t plan on doing that. But, I don’t think that it would be unethical.
If however a journalist and or writer for a heavily trafficked site publishes my derogatory opinion about you as if it’s fact and without getting your side of the story then you could be seriously damaged by that. In this hypothetical scenario would I be at fault or the journalist?
The journalist, of course. But what’s the key difference in the Liss scenario and yours? Hint: it’s right in the commentary.
I completely agree that it was unethical for this mans reputation to be damaged. Even if they had gotten the right man it would have been unethical. The man who stiffed the waitress and left the note is guilty of being an ass hole, both by Sutton’s definition and the more common one. But it isn’t ethical to ruin someones reputation because they are a complete jerk on one occasion. We agree on that.
If this had even been posted on Twitter I would agree with your judgment. But, search engines don’t find Face Book posts in private accounts with the normal settings. A Face Book user has the expectation that only friends and friends of friends will see the posts.
Going on a rant about someone who was a complete jerk among friends is firmly within the confines of ethics. Now, if someone is par-taking in or encouraging mobbing or bullying then it becomes unethical. But, a rant about a stranger who was a jerk doesn’t meet that criterion.
The journalists and bloggers however did act with intent to ruin someones reputation without cause.
Usually I agree with you on this type of thing. I am sincerely curious as to why we disagree on this one.
Simple—Facebook is not private. In such cases, it is just like e-mail: read about the Harvard law student whose e-mail musings about race were maliciously circulated to others and went viral. Anything posted on Facebook can go viral too…and is likely to, if it’s provocative. I have 400+ friends on Facebook…a provocative post can be picked up by a couple of them, circulated to their “friends,” and it will be out to thousands. One of them has a blog, and it’s all over. This is how the internet works…you don’t use a photo and a nasty message unless you are trying to hurt the guy, or completely clueless about how the web works.
Got it! Face Book’s business model relies on providing some amount of privacy despite the fact that it’s the net. In all fairness it’s extremely uncommon for things to actually go viral. I have read and forgotten thousands of Face Book posts and I know that I’m normal in that regard. Thousands of strangers reading a post about someone who they don’t know won’t ruin someones reputation. One popular blogger can ruin someones reputation. And, journalists have to at least study ethics but bloggers don’t. That leads into another ethical conundrum that I trust you are aware of.
I’ll stand by my judgment based on Face Book’s user agreement and the fact that someone chooses Face Book rather than Twitter or their own blog because they don’t intend to make the information fully public and available to search engines. Is that a redundant statement? 🙂
But, I can completely see and respect your point of view on this.
Too late!
Too late for what? 🙂
I sure hope you tip more than 2 or 3 (or 4 dollars) on a $28 check.
And obviously the wrong Andrew Miller doesn’t deserve any of this.
I believe the wrong Andrew Miller is culpable for his nonexistent nonactions.
Pingback: Waitress Reacts to Insult With Online Lynch Mob - The Spearhead
yeah, i’d say 5-6 would be a more reasonable tip on 28 (assuming good service). i think i’d better warn the internet about you. what’s your name again, john smith?
Hmmmm. My math was a bit off. I’m really a good tipper, I swear. That should have read 4 or 5, 6 at the most. And now it does.
You fix that, but you keep Andrew Miller in the post? I must have upset you today.
Yes, it’s all your fault. And now I’m being flamed by all the unjustly fingered Andrew MILLERS of the world. This is a nightmare!!!
Andrew Miller was one of the Red Sox’s failed starters this season. I’m pretty sure that’s how he crept into the post…part of my mind appears to always be thinking about baseball.
Is this a Kevin Costner movie?
A Tip For Victoria Liss – grow a brain.
Is it any wonder that white dudes are leaving white chicks alone….
Is it any wonder that white dudes are leaving white chicks alone….
The above statement needs a source.
Yes, I would agree with that.
Saw a TV interview with Victoria Liss talking about the incident.
Her body language/eye movement made me believe she was not telling the whole truth.
Pingback: October 2011 Entitlement Princess Of The Month » Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology