It would have been rather easy to refer to “a blogger” or “bloggers” or blogreaders or what have you, if you are not big on that sort of naming thing.

I personally would take to task the O’Fallon Journal for providing so much specific identifying information, when the story had not yet met their own threshold of public concern sufficient to name Drew. The substance of the story was so awful as to ensure the bad actors identity would be sought, and sought hard.

And yet, if Imight point out, you singled out me. By name, in reference to specific actions. Just saying.

Your role was indeed minimal, in that you only mentioned the name of Lori Drew, and it appears from your post that indeed it was a commenter who posted the address.

My comments about online shaming are not directed solely toward you, as the problems of online shaming are caused by the aggregation of often small acts by numerous individuals. Rarely is one individual to blame. One person puts up a name. Another adds an address. Yet another puts up other personal information. Many make nasty comments and threats, goading others into doing likewise. We witness the rise of crowd psychology, where people start acting in ways that they otherwise might not act. All of this isn’t the result of one person; it is a phenomenon that happens when many people can quickly gather and vent about a particular issue.

I don’t think it is fruitful to try to single out particular folks to blame for the eruption of this bout of online shaming. The primary point I’ve been trying to make in speaking about online shaming is that people should recognize that it is problematic. Many people exalt and celebrate online shaming, and I believe this attitude toward it encourages online shaming. Instead, I see it as very dangerous, something to be discouraged. It is our attitude toward online shaming that I am arguing should change.

I published only Lori Drew’s common name.

I did not myself reveal her address, or publish it on any post, or comment authored by me, on my blog, or ever in fact provide it to any other person.

I also published a screen capture from CNN which named Drew as well but did not contain her address.

Comments not authored by me did appear in my then unmoderated comments section, containing her publicly available contact information. These were widely distributed on other weblogs and sites, and on a few widely read blogs, before any appeared on my obscure fluff blog. FWIW, I was never asked to remove addresses it by Lori Drew or anyone connected with her, and I would have done so if asked.