Every now and then, an internet drama will unleash an online mob so furious it feels uncontainable. For example, in April, when Jackie LaBonita uploaded a selfie to TikTok at a baseball stadium in Texas, and in doing so, sparked a firestorm. In the now-deleted TikTok, which was viewed 40 million times, two girls can be seen laughing and pointing at Jackie, with one of them giving her the finger and allegedly calling her “laaaame”.
“Watch my confidence disappear after these random girls make fun of me for taking pics,” Jackie captioned the clip, before adding, “please be nice #meangirls”.
Although she did not confront the girls herself, the internet swiftly kicked into action on Jackie’s behalf. The girls, along with their family members and even an ex-boyfriend, were doxxed, with people flooding the company where one of them allegedly worked with negative Google reviews. Presumably, the intention was to cause enough negative attention to the business that it would be inevitable the girl would be fired as part of their damage control. All in the name of so-called ‘justice’.
Doxxing – shorthand for ‘dropping documents’ – is the intentional uncovering of a person’s private information online without their consent, often with malicious intent. This could include the sharing of phone numbers, home addresses, or personal photos which make the victim (or increasingly, in the parlance of the internet, the perpetrator) identifiable, exposing them to harm or harassment online. Approximately 21 per cent of Americans are thought to have been victims of doxxing – a total of 43 million people – according to one report, and the consequences of this kind of public shaming can be deadly.
Although doxxing itself is not new, as was the case with the ‘mean girls’ incident, an increasingly common tactic is to contact people’s employers. Employers, over parents, friends, family members and the general public that make up the internet, have become the ideal target of humiliation and exposure. Clearly, the motivation is to ruin someone’s life as much as possible, but it also points to a tendency to see people as beholden to their employers at all times. People should, obviously, be allowed to establish boundaries between their professional and personal lives. “Our ‘value’ for employers should not dictate how we live our lives when we’re off the clock,” says Brady Robards, an Associate Professor in Sociology at Monash University whose research focuses on social media and employment.
In the case of Jackie LaBonita, the ‘mean girls’ in question didn’t post the video themselves, but if they had, would that make them more deserving of some kind of retribution? Oftentimes, internet vigilantes will search and find the behaviour and posts supposedly deserving of doxxing all by themselves. Music stans, for instance, will regularly pile on in defence of their idol, often finding the employer details of those who they’ve perceived to have wronged their fave in some way.
Brady disagrees with the idea that when you put something on the internet, the risk around how that is interpreted or used is all on you. There are multiple reasons for this, he argues. Firstly, there’s the question of age, or the fact that what we posted when we were younger does not necessarily represent who we are, or what we believe, now. Then, there’s the fact that privacy settings can change, which might lead you to think you’re posting to a private channel which is actually more public. And, even if the space is fully ‘private’, screenshots can be taken and placed out of context, beyond our control.
These pressures are contributing to what Brady describes as a “hidden curriculum of surveillance”. “Our research has shown that young people […] can be quite anxious about posting […] because they feel like they need to hold themselves to a very high standard around being professional even when they are not working.” This matters because, the internet – and more specifically internet anonymity – can provide a vital space for self-expression and discovery, particularly for LGBTQ+ people and other marginalised communities.
But perhaps most significant of all, doxxing people by going to their employers only feeds into workplace surveillance, which is already rampant, with many bosses keeping tabs on their employers through computer monitoring or vetting the social media profiles of prospective employees.
Tiffany Ferguson, a YouTuber who runs the channel Internet Analysis, agrees with Brady that, on the whole, it’s wrong to try to get someone on the internet fired for perceived wrongdoings. “Most of us are already in such precarious positions as it is,” she says. “I think it’s very dangerous to normalise going after people’s livelihoods when we, as strangers online, think they ‘deserve’ it.”
In the case of the ‘mean girls’, most people, including Jackie LaBonita, agreed that the punishment did not fit the crime. But in what circumstances, if any, should bosses be alerted to their employee’s online behaviour? Brady gives the example of the numerous instances of police officers who are exposed online for “engaging in intimidation, racial profiling, brutality, or otherwise using their power for harmful outcomes”, and the importance of holding these kinds of “powerful actors” to account.
However, as Tiffany notes, it’s rarely people in positions of power who are vulnerable to losing their jobs after being doxxed. As she puts it, “If the target is white, rich, and powerful, they will probably be fine, even if their employer is swamped with complaints. But if the target is Black, Indigenous, or a POC? And/or LGBTQ+? They may already face discrimination in the workplace and other hardships, so these sorts of doxxings could cause serious, lasting harm.”
“If the scenario involves hate speech, violence, threats… Those are serious concerns and absolutely should be dealt with,” Tiffany continues. “Employers should definitely be involved if the incident occurred at their workplace, with coworkers or clients, or involved their position in some way.”
Even so, should a group of strangers really be the ones to determine how to handle such a situation? The internet demands accountability, but “holding someone to account” is a nebulous concept. “Many people are not satisfied with an apology; they seek punishments. This can become very tricky. How do we as a crowd decide what consequence is fair?” asks Tiffany. “Spoiler, it’s pretty impossible!”
When it comes to dealing with this kind of online conflict, Tiffany says we need to move away from a punitive framework towards ‘transformative justice’. This means holding people accountable for wrongdoings without causing more harm, giving them the space to apologise, reflect and learn from their actions. “It might not seem like a satisfying solution for the online audience who crave swift punishments,” Tiffany says. “But I think it’s more beneficial to thoroughly and directly address the issue and minimise future harm.”