That online revenge may, of course, involve identity offences and breach Australian or other defamation law.
Amog Bernstein's examples is that of "Jacquelyn Eschbach, an editor at a university in Philadelphia" (presumably the person of the same name with a web presence prior to the WSJ's disclosure and a post at the University of Pennsylvania).
Bernstein quotes Eschbach as saying "It's perfect for public humiliation" and goes on to report -
She should know. When she found out her husband was cheating on her last March, she logged onto his Facebook account, deleted all his privacy settings — allowing anyone to see his page — and created a new status update for him: "Moving back to my mom's because my wife caught me cheating with a woman from work."I confess to finding the account deeply problematical.
Almost immediately, her husband's friends began sending questions, which Ms. Eschbach answered, acting as him. She named the other woman and explained that the affair had been going on for four years and had been carried on over lunch, sometimes at the woman's house, sometimes in a car. She asked if anyone had a room for rent. Finally, she disparaged his physical attributes, adding that "I am surprised Jackie stayed with me for so long."
"I wanted everyone to know what a jerk he was, and this was the easiest way to do it without saying it to each person's face," says Ms. Eschbach, 39 years old.
By the time she was done about an hour later, there were 55 comments from family and friends on her husband's Facebook page. Some asked if the status updates were true. Others, including his sisters, angrily criticized her husband and the other woman.
When her husband found out about it, he immediately changed his Facebook password. But he says he understood why she wanted revenge. (He also begged her forgiveness.) Now the couple is trying to work things out. Ms. Eschbach says she doesn't regret her online outburst, but sometimes feels embarrassed when she runs into people she knows and wonders if they are aware of her husband's affair.
"I'm fine with what she did now," says her husband, who asked that his name not be published. "It made her satisfied, and it was better than her slashing tires or doing something even worse that would get her in trouble with the law."
Irrespective of the errant husband's reported comfort regarding Ms Eschbach's response, embarrassment over whether people are aware of the affair seems at odds with global exposure in the WSJ (and consequent comment in blogs - such as this page - and other publications, some of which will remain accessible in the long term).
More broadly, appropriating a husband's persona as an act of 'webtribution' is, in my opinion, something that is both ethically and legally wrong. Don't put the family bunny or kitten in the blender. It's better to remodel the family car with a ball pein hammer.
The web might be "perfect for public humiliation" of the person who has wronged you but it is also perfect for self-immolation. Should people behave this way? One response is that people have a choice to do so. Should we engage in online critique of that behaviour? I am unsettled by conflicting answers to that question.
