Internet Shaming - A thought on the Coldplay Kiss Cam Thing (9 Viewers)

[jvdesigns2002]

This is going to sound odd—but while I agree with the last sentence in the article, I don’t think that it accurately describes what is going on here. I do think that some people do “take joy in the distress and ruination of others”—-but I also think that pretty much all of moral humanity takes joy in poetic justice. If a bully picks on the wrong person and pays the consequences, or if a criminal gets caught in the act—is celebrating that “taking joy in the distress and ruination of others” or is it the masses celebrating some sort of poetic justice or karmic lightning bolt? We have a CEO that makes the rules for a company—and the head of HR—a person that is fully aware of those rules and enforces them for other employees of the company—-acting like victims when they get caught breaking the rules that they have almost certainly punished others for breaking. We are talking about two people that were actively engaging in adultery (as the CEO is married, and I don’t believe for a second that the mistress was not aware of this—completely spazzing out on a cam—when in reality—had they just stood there, smiled, and waived—this almost certainly would have remained a private “non-story” for the masses. The CEO is now doubling down on one of the very reasons why the public is so interested in this story (the notion of hypocrisy and the attitude of some people being above the rules) by suing Coldplay. This is a person that bullied his wife and kids by committing adultery, a man that creates rules for his workplace that he and his HR manager are breaking—who now thinks that he is a victim because his “private affair” being exposed was a fault of a kiss cam—and not because of the fact that he and his mistress thought it was a good idea to keep their relationship a “secret” by going to a Coldplay concert that was attended by 50k people (most of which were taking photos and videos throughout the show). This is a man (a bully) who thinks that he is a victim because he got caught committing adultery and breaking the very rules that he created in a public place.

I have a hard time categorizing the reaction of the public as “taking joy in the distress and ruination of others” in this case. I think there might be a small element of that here—but I also do think that a lot of the public interest here is in the poetic justice of it. I think we’ve all felt some sort of bullying, hypocrisy in the workplace, and have had experiences where we’ve dealt with people that acted in a manner where they felt like a different rule set applied to them. This is a case where the bullies got exposed and poetic justice occurred in a manner that was available for the world to see.

 

[AAABatteries]

This is going to sound odd—but while I agree with the last sentence in the article, I don’t think that it accurately describes what is going on here. I do think that some people do “take joy in the distress and ruination of others”—-but I also think that pretty much all of moral humanity takes joy in poetic justice. If a bully picks on the wrong person and pays the consequences, or if a criminal gets caught in the act—is celebrating that “taking joy in the distress and ruination of others” or is it the masses celebrating some sort of poetic justice or karmic lightning bolt? We have a CEO that makes the rules for a company—and the head of HR—a person that is fully aware of those rules and enforces them for other employees of the company—-acting like victims when they get caught breaking the rules that they have almost certainly punished others for breaking. We are talking about two people that were actively engaging in adultery (as the CEO is married, and I don’t believe for a second that the mistress was not aware of this—completely spazzing out on a cam—when in reality—had they just stood there, smiled, and waived—this almost certainly would have remained a private “non-story” for the masses. The CEO is now doubling down on one of the very reasons why the public is so interested in this story (the notion of hypocrisy and the attitude of some people being above the rules) by suing Coldplay. This is a person that bullied his wife and kids by committing adultery, a man that creates rules for his workplace that he and his HR manager are breaking—who now thinks that he is a victim because his “private affair” being exposed was a fault of a kiss cam—and not because of the fact that he and his mistress thought it was a good idea to keep their relationship a “secret” by going to a Coldplay concert that was attended by 50k people (most of which were taking photos and videos throughout the show). This is a man (a bully) who thinks that he is a victim because he got caught committing adultery and breaking the very rules that he created in a public place.

I have a hard time categorizing the reaction of the public as “taking joy in the distress and ruination of others” in this case. I think there might be a small element of that here—but I also do think that a lot of the public interest here is in the poetic justice of it. I think we’ve all felt some sort of bullying, hypocrisy in the workplace, and have had experiences where we’ve dealt with people that acted in a manner where they felt like a different rule set applied to them. This is a case where the bullies got exposed and poetic justice occurred in a manner that was available for the world to see.

Do you think the hypocrisy is the worst thing? I don’t, it’s the cheating.

 

[Juxtatarot]

The worst pain of shaming wasn’t in being called names, or put naked in the stocks and pelted with dung; it was having to look into the faces of the people you’d hurt, people who sat beside you in church, who ate meals at your table, whose children played together with yours.

I really don’t agree with her historical comparison here. In many cultures there were even more serious repercussions for adultery. Even being put to death.

Yes. I think her point was in the old days, the person was shamed but it was personal. You knew who was doing the shaming. "it was having to look into the faces of the people you’d hurt,",

In today's world, there isn't that personal connection. It's more as she said a spectator sport.

And this is nonsensical. Much like John Snow, she knows nothing. Much of that sort of accusation in period is just made-up nonsense of the kind that led to accusations of witchcraft. You have a mother-in-law or daughter-in-law you don't like, accuse her of something. So I guess it was personal, but there wasn't necessarily a fault on the person being "shamed". And a lot of the onlookers weren't "hurt" at all. They were just lookyloos.

These twerps decides to shame themselves in a public place. And the CEO has no chance of winning a lawsuit. Both the ticket agreement and the venue mention the possibility of being filmed/photographed. You don't want that, maybe rent a room.

I’m not familiar with the website that published this article, but it does annoy me. We see this stuff all too often. A writer tries to harken back to mythical good ol’ days when the good ol’ days were certainly worse. Yes, we didn’t have the tools to make insults “viral” back then but, as a society, we have, overall, moved towards more compassion and understanding.

 

[InDitkaWeTrust]

Faux outrage. People have been making fun (and money off of) the misfortune of others since the written word. At one point before the internet, gossip mags People, Teen People, and US Weekly had a combined weekly sales of over 5 million copies. That doesn't even include the rags that our grandma's bought weekly that included alien abductions, bigfoot, and royalty conspiracies. The internet just makes it more accessible and image manipulation makes more comedians out of the crowd.

 

[rockaction]

The worst pain of shaming wasn’t in being called names, or put naked in the stocks and pelted with dung; it was having to look into the faces of the people you’d hurt, people who sat beside you in church, who ate meals at your table, whose children played together with yours.

I really don’t agree with her historical comparison here. In many cultures there were even more serious repercussions for adultery. Even being put to death.

Yes. I think her point was in the old days, the person was shamed but it was personal. You knew who was doing the shaming. "it was having to look into the faces of the people you’d hurt,",

In today's world, there isn't that personal connection. It's more as she said a spectator sport.

And this is nonsensical. Much like John Snow, she knows nothing. Much of that sort of accusation in period is just made-up nonsense of the kind that led to accusations of witchcraft. You have a mother-in-law or daughter-in-law you don't like, accuse her of something. So I guess it was personal, but there wasn't necessarily a fault on the person being "shamed". And a lot of the onlookers weren't "hurt" at all. They were just lookyloos.

These twerps decides to shame themselves in a public place. And the CEO has no chance of winning a lawsuit. Both the ticket agreement and the venue mention the possibility of being filmed/photographed. You don't want that, maybe rent a room.

I’m not familiar with the website that published this article, but it does annoy me. We see this stuff all too often. A writer tries to harken back to mythical good ol’ days when the good ol’ days were certainly worse. Yes, we didn’t have the tools to make insults “viral” back then but, as a society, we have, overall, moved towards more compassion and understanding.

I disagree. This happened to be a public-facing citizen but non-public citizens are getting their lives destroyed at times because of this. Here’s what I will agree with: the impulse to do this to non-public citizens is dying down a bit but is still extant. See mass’s young woman.

See the Christian pizza place that people wanted to nuke from orbit. I mean, what the heck? We argued about this stuff here a decade ago right up until 2020 when everybody lost their minds. We are nowhere near as tolerant as we were in, say, 1969. Better than Arthur Dimmesdale certainly, but jeepers how do you forget **** like this?

https://www.cnn.com/2015/04/02/living/indiana-religious-freedom-pizza-feat

Don’t give me the it’s not happening it’s good it’s happening two-step all over again. Jiminy, I thought that garbage had ended.

 

[Juxtatarot]

The worst pain of shaming wasn’t in being called names, or put naked in the stocks and pelted with dung; it was having to look into the faces of the people you’d hurt, people who sat beside you in church, who ate meals at your table, whose children played together with yours.

I really don’t agree with her historical comparison here. In many cultures there were even more serious repercussions for adultery. Even being put to death.

Yes. I think her point was in the old days, the person was shamed but it was personal. You knew who was doing the shaming. "it was having to look into the faces of the people you’d hurt,",

In today's world, there isn't that personal connection. It's more as she said a spectator sport.

And this is nonsensical. Much like John Snow, she knows nothing. Much of that sort of accusation in period is just made-up nonsense of the kind that led to accusations of witchcraft. You have a mother-in-law or daughter-in-law you don't like, accuse her of something. So I guess it was personal, but there wasn't necessarily a fault on the person being "shamed". And a lot of the onlookers weren't "hurt" at all. They were just lookyloos.

These twerps decides to shame themselves in a public place. And the CEO has no chance of winning a lawsuit. Both the ticket agreement and the venue mention the possibility of being filmed/photographed. You don't want that, maybe rent a room.

I’m not familiar with the website that published this article, but it does annoy me. We see this stuff all too often. A writer tries to harken back to mythical good ol’ days when the good ol’ days were certainly worse. Yes, we didn’t have the tools to make insults “viral” back then but, as a society, we have, overall, moved towards more compassion and understanding.

I disagree. This happened to be a public-facing citizen but non-public citizens are getting their lives destroyed at times because of this. Here’s what I will agree with: the impulse to do this to non-public citizens is dying down a bit but is still extant. See mass’s young woman.

See the Christian pizza place that people wanted to nuke from orbit. I mean, what the heck? We argued about this stuff here a decade ago right up until 2020 when everybody lost their minds. We are nowhere near as tolerant as we were in, say, 1969. Better than Arthur Dimmesdale certainly, but jeepers how do you forget **** like this?

https://www.cnn.com/2015/04/02/living/indiana-religious-freedom-pizza-feat

Don’t give me the it’s not happening it’s good it’s happening two-step all over again. Jiminy, I thought that garbage had ended.

To be clear, threats to burn down a business that people think is being discriminatory are wrong.

However, the author might think the business owners should be put in stocks and have feces thrown at them to “keep the bonds of community strong”.

 

[rockaction]

The worst pain of shaming wasn’t in being called names, or put naked in the stocks and pelted with dung; it was having to look into the faces of the people you’d hurt, people who sat beside you in church, who ate meals at your table, whose children played together with yours.

I really don’t agree with her historical comparison here. In many cultures there were even more serious repercussions for adultery. Even being put to death.

Yes. I think her point was in the old days, the person was shamed but it was personal. You knew who was doing the shaming. "it was having to look into the faces of the people you’d hurt,",

In today's world, there isn't that personal connection. It's more as she said a spectator sport.

And this is nonsensical. Much like John Snow, she knows nothing. Much of that sort of accusation in period is just made-up nonsense of the kind that led to accusations of witchcraft. You have a mother-in-law or daughter-in-law you don't like, accuse her of something. So I guess it was personal, but there wasn't necessarily a fault on the person being "shamed". And a lot of the onlookers weren't "hurt" at all. They were just lookyloos.

These twerps decides to shame themselves in a public place. And the CEO has no chance of winning a lawsuit. Both the ticket agreement and the venue mention the possibility of being filmed/photographed. You don't want that, maybe rent a room.

I’m not familiar with the website that published this article, but it does annoy me. We see this stuff all too often. A writer tries to harken back to mythical good ol’ days when the good ol’ days were certainly worse. Yes, we didn’t have the tools to make insults “viral” back then but, as a society, we have, overall, moved towards more compassion and understanding.

I disagree. This happened to be a public-facing citizen but non-public citizens are getting their lives destroyed at times because of this. Here’s what I will agree with: the impulse to do this to non-public citizens is dying down a bit but is still extant. See mass’s young woman.

See the Christian pizza place that people wanted to nuke from orbit. I mean, what the heck? We argued about this stuff here a decade ago right up until 2020 when everybody lost their minds. We are nowhere near as tolerant as we were in, say, 1969. Better than Arthur Dimmesdale certainly, but jeepers how do you forget **** like this?

https://www.cnn.com/2015/04/02/living/indiana-religious-freedom-pizza-feat

Don’t give me the it’s not happening it’s good it’s happening two-step all over again. Jiminy, I thought that garbage had ended.

To be clear, threats to burn down a business that people think is being discriminatory are wrong.

However, the author might think the business owners should be put in stocks and have feces thrown at them to “keep the bonds of community strong”.

I think you’re missing the author’s point about community. She’s saying that as draconian and awful as that public shaming was (she is not advocating for a return to the criminal law getting involved in this like some) that at least it was localized and limited in that way. That the shame had a purpose and the punishment was at least plausibly commensurate because it was “at scale” as they say now. And your accusers and punishers had limits and checks of their own. In addition they were presumably the ones hurt and disrupted by the cheaters.

The punishers here aren’t at scale (they’re enormous and seemingly infinite) and they’re removed from having skin in the game, they haven’t had anything hurt them by these people’s actions, and they’re punishing them without checks and with a wild abandon and gleeful sadism.

The more I type the more problematic it is and the more I agree with Kat aside from the dumb part I mention above.

 

[Jayrod]

This is going to sound odd—but while I agree with the last sentence in the article, I don’t think that it accurately describes what is going on here. I do think that some people do “take joy in the distress and ruination of others”—-but I also think that pretty much all of moral humanity takes joy in poetic justice. If a bully picks on the wrong person and pays the consequences, or if a criminal gets caught in the act—is celebrating that “taking joy in the distress and ruination of others” or is it the masses celebrating some sort of poetic justice or karmic lightning bolt? We have a CEO that makes the rules for a company—and the head of HR—a person that is fully aware of those rules and enforces them for other employees of the company—-acting like victims when they get caught breaking the rules that they have almost certainly punished others for breaking. We are talking about two people that were actively engaging in adultery (as the CEO is married, and I don’t believe for a second that the mistress was not aware of this—completely spazzing out on a cam—when in reality—had they just stood there, smiled, and waived—this almost certainly would have remained a private “non-story” for the masses. The CEO is now doubling down on one of the very reasons why the public is so interested in this story (the notion of hypocrisy and the attitude of some people being above the rules) by suing Coldplay. This is a person that bullied his wife and kids by committing adultery, a man that creates rules for his workplace that he and his HR manager are breaking—who now thinks that he is a victim because his “private affair” being exposed was a fault of a kiss cam—and not because of the fact that he and his mistress thought it was a good idea to keep their relationship a “secret” by going to a Coldplay concert that was attended by 50k people (most of which were taking photos and videos throughout the show). This is a man (a bully) who thinks that he is a victim because he got caught committing adultery and breaking the very rules that he created in a public place.

I have a hard time categorizing the reaction of the public as “taking joy in the distress and ruination of others” in this case. I think there might be a small element of that here—but I also do think that a lot of the public interest here is in the poetic justice of it. I think we’ve all felt some sort of bullying, hypocrisy in the workplace, and have had experiences where we’ve dealt with people that acted in a manner where they felt like a different rule set applied to them. This is a case where the bullies got exposed and poetic justice occurred in a manner that was available for the world to see.

Are you saying that he is a bully because he is a CEO or because he had an affair or some other reason?

Just seems like a misplaced label unless Im missing something.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Some of her points are really questionable but she’s right that anonymous strangers taking delight in the stoning is awful and reflects poorly on both us and our nationally broadcast passions. Not a good sign for the Republic or just society absent the political implications.

That was my take on it. Her point was that in the old days the people doing the mocking and shaming were people they were in actual real life community with. Not anonymous. I don’t think that’s “nonsensical”.

 

[Joe Bryant]

The worst pain of shaming wasn’t in being called names, or put naked in the stocks and pelted with dung; it was having to look into the faces of the people you’d hurt, people who sat beside you in church, who ate meals at your table, whose children played together with yours.

I really don’t agree with her historical comparison here. In many cultures there were even more serious repercussions for adultery. Even being put to death.

Yes. I think her point was in the old days, the person was shamed but it was personal. You knew who was doing the shaming. "it was having to look into the faces of the people you’d hurt,",

In today's world, there isn't that personal connection. It's more as she said a spectator sport.

And this is nonsensical. Much like John Snow, she knows nothing. Much of that sort of accusation in period is just made-up nonsense of the kind that led to accusations of witchcraft. You have a mother-in-law or daughter-in-law you don't like, accuse her of something. So I guess it was personal, but there wasn't necessarily a fault on the person being "shamed". And a lot of the onlookers weren't "hurt" at all. They were just lookyloos.

These twerps decides to shame themselves in a public place. And the CEO has no chance of winning a lawsuit. Both the ticket agreement and the venue mention the possibility of being filmed/photographed. You don't want that, maybe rent a room.

I’m not familiar with the website that published this article, but it does annoy me. We see this stuff all too often. A writer tries to harken back to mythical good ol’ days when the good ol’ days were certainly worse. Yes, we didn’t have the tools to make insults “viral” back then but, as a society, we have, overall, moved towards more compassion and understanding.

I don’t think she’s saying at all to harken back to any mythical good ‘ol’ days. She’s just pointing out the difference now.

 

[culdeus]

Not much is being made of the third person from work there. So it wasn't a big secret.

The last place my wife was at the CEO and CFO had a relationship and it blew up both marriages but they stayed awhile. Everyone knew. Then the both left for each other and a new CEO and CFO joined and they had an affair too!

Open relationships are a thing but being out in the open like that you still have cover of a work event as long as no pda. Internet can have at it.

 

[TennesseeJed]

Before the Internet was really a thing - and harkening back to times when the pen was mightier than the sword - a scene from A Knight' Tale:

https://clip.cafe/a-knights-tale-2001/i-will-eviscerate-in-fiction-s1/

Chaucer:
I will eviscerate you in fiction. Every pimple, every character flaw. I was naked for a day; you will be naked for eternity.




I suspect the CEO is not really angry at Coldplay, nor is "the internet" to blame here. The CEO is angry that he was caught, in such a public way. He is the source of his own embarrassment - and rightly so.

 

[urbanhack]

It's not shaming. "The Internet" is always going to do what the Internet does. At the end of the day the Internet's memes and putting other people in those positions was what went viral. Once the story got out about who they were, no one was doxing or trying to destroy their lives. At least most of what I saw were the fake memes of other people.

 

[John123]

I don't think it's fair to say the "Internet" did anything here. You're talking about a minuscule percentage of the users of the Internet doing anything here. Most people found it mildly amusing and a little bit of a comeuppance but otherwise went about their lives without much of a second thought.

 

[djmich]

This is going to sound odd—but while I agree with the last sentence in the article, I don’t think that it accurately describes what is going on here. I do think that some people do “take joy in the distress and ruination of others”—-but I also think that pretty much all of moral humanity takes joy in poetic justice. If a bully picks on the wrong person and pays the consequences, or if a criminal gets caught in the act—is celebrating that “taking joy in the distress and ruination of others” or is it the masses celebrating some sort of poetic justice or karmic lightning bolt? We have a CEO that makes the rules for a company—and the head of HR—a person that is fully aware of those rules and enforces them for other employees of the company—-acting like victims when they get caught breaking the rules that they have almost certainly punished others for breaking. We are talking about two people that were actively engaging in adultery (as the CEO is married, and I don’t believe for a second that the mistress was not aware of this—completely spazzing out on a cam—when in reality—had they just stood there, smiled, and waived—this almost certainly would have remained a private “non-story” for the masses. The CEO is now doubling down on one of the very reasons why the public is so interested in this story (the notion of hypocrisy and the attitude of some people being above the rules) by suing Coldplay. This is a person that bullied his wife and kids by committing adultery, a man that creates rules for his workplace that he and his HR manager are breaking—who now thinks that he is a victim because his “private affair” being exposed was a fault of a kiss cam—and not because of the fact that he and his mistress thought it was a good idea to keep their relationship a “secret” by going to a Coldplay concert that was attended by 50k people (most of which were taking photos and videos throughout the show). This is a man (a bully) who thinks that he is a victim because he got caught committing adultery and breaking the very rules that he created in a public place.

I have a hard time categorizing the reaction of the public as “taking joy in the distress and ruination of others” in this case. I think there might be a small element of that here—but I also do think that a lot of the public interest here is in the poetic justice of it. I think we’ve all felt some sort of bullying, hypocrisy in the workplace, and have had experiences where we’ve dealt with people that acted in a manner where they felt like a different rule set applied to them. This is a case where the bullies got exposed and poetic justice occurred in a manner that was available for the world to see.

Are you saying that he is a bully because he is a CEO or because he had an affair or some other reason?

Just seems like a misplaced label unless Im missing something.

Really great discussion. I see both angles from @jvdesigns2002 and @rockaction

There is certainly a lot of "comeuppance" that is driving the online venom, this was the point I made earlier about the guy being a CEO (and to a lesser extent her head of HR) exacerbates this.

There is a lot of human nature to seeing those that enforce the rules get caught breaking them. Many people take it to far...but that gets to rocks point about scale, I don't think the scale is necessarily intentional as much as simply a function of technology. And when you scale things up you also get more outliers (really mean people) who probably also get amplified via the technology. My guess is 2,000 years ago if the internet existed instead of local stonings we would have still seen online ones that go viral.

@Jayrod I don't think a bully because he is a CEO or had an affair, but because he "makes the rules". In reality I don't think he makes them as much as enforces them, but either way he's seen as a hypocrite.

 

[MTskibum]

Cancel culture is ridiculous. Infidelity is reported to be as high as 20%. We don't go and fire 20% of all americans.

Yes what they did was terrible but the punishment outweighs the crime here and internet is to blame.


The only repercussion of this whole event should have been on their existing marriages.

 

[FairWarning]

And this is nonsensical

That was the part of Kat’s argument that fell totally flat. No, it wasn’t the personalized shame. Cheaters are acting sociopathic and already know the hurt they’re causing. They don’t care. It’s the stockade and the dung that suck, not the look of hurt. Oh, Kat. I feel for you if you think that if you ever cuckold your husband you’ll be moved by his hurt and that’s what will lead to his forgiveness. Please.

Duck the dung.

Some of her points are really questionable but she’s right that anonymous strangers taking delight in the stoning is awful and reflects poorly on both us and our nationally broadcast passions. Not a good sign for the Republic or just society absent the political implications.

It was like Reddit took over the internet for a day.

 

[Juxtatarot]

The worst pain of shaming wasn’t in being called names, or put naked in the stocks and pelted with dung; it was having to look into the faces of the people you’d hurt, people who sat beside you in church, who ate meals at your table, whose children played together with yours.

I really don’t agree with her historical comparison here. In many cultures there were even more serious repercussions for adultery. Even being put to death.

Yes. I think her point was in the old days, the person was shamed but it was personal. You knew who was doing the shaming. "it was having to look into the faces of the people you’d hurt,",

In today's world, there isn't that personal connection. It's more as she said a spectator sport.

And this is nonsensical. Much like John Snow, she knows nothing. Much of that sort of accusation in period is just made-up nonsense of the kind that led to accusations of witchcraft. You have a mother-in-law or daughter-in-law you don't like, accuse her of something. So I guess it was personal, but there wasn't necessarily a fault on the person being "shamed". And a lot of the onlookers weren't "hurt" at all. They were just lookyloos.

These twerps decides to shame themselves in a public place. And the CEO has no chance of winning a lawsuit. Both the ticket agreement and the venue mention the possibility of being filmed/photographed. You don't want that, maybe rent a room.

I’m not familiar with the website that published this article, but it does annoy me. We see this stuff all too often. A writer tries to harken back to mythical good ol’ days when the good ol’ days were certainly worse. Yes, we didn’t have the tools to make insults “viral” back then but, as a society, we have, overall, moved towards more compassion and understanding.

I don’t think she’s saying at all to harken back to any mythical good ‘ol’ days. She’s just pointing out the difference now.

It's right there is the subtitle: "The original function of public shaming was to keep the bonds of community strong."

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Cancel culture is ridiculous. Infidelity is reported to be as high as 20%. We don't go and fire 20% of all americans.

Yes what they did was terrible but the punishment outweighs the crime here and internet is to blame.


The only repercussion of this whole event should have been on their existing marriages.

The company chose to fire them on their own. People were laughing at a meme. This wasn't some big movement to try and get them fired. The company decided to do that on their own.

Besides, this wasn't the CEO caught cheating with some random lady. It was with the head of HR. Pretty sure that's always been scandalous enough to lead to people likely losing their jobs.

 

[MTskibum]

Cancel culture is ridiculous. Infidelity is reported to be as high as 20%. We don't go and fire 20% of all americans.

Yes what they did was terrible but the punishment outweighs the crime here and internet is to blame.


The only repercussion of this whole event should have been on their existing marriages.

The company chose to fire them on their own. People were laughing at a meme. This wasn't some big movement to try and get them fired. The company decided to do that on their own.

Besides, this wasn't the CEO caught cheating with some random lady. It was with the head of HR. Pretty sure that's always been scandalous enough to lead to people likely losing their jobs.

Would of the company fired them if this didnt blow up?

I think every general news site had this near the top/on their front page. The media coverage was overblown in my opinion. The company had no options at that point.

Obviously i am in the minority on my viewpoint though. This story was on the front page of every general news site, apparently the public ate it up and my preferences are wrong.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Cancel culture is ridiculous. Infidelity is reported to be as high as 20%. We don't go and fire 20% of all americans.

Yes what they did was terrible but the punishment outweighs the crime here and internet is to blame.


The only repercussion of this whole event should have been on their existing marriages.

The company chose to fire them on their own. People were laughing at a meme. This wasn't some big movement to try and get them fired. The company decided to do that on their own.

Besides, this wasn't the CEO caught cheating with some random lady. It was with the head of HR. Pretty sure that's always been scandalous enough to lead to people likely losing their jobs.

Would of the company fired them if this didnt blow up?

I think every general news site had this near the top/on their front page. The media coverage was overblown in my opinion. The company had no options at that point.

Obviously i am in the minority on my viewpoint though. This story was on the front page of every general news site, apparently the public ate it up and my preferences are wrong.

That's not cancel culture though. Cancel culture would imply there was a movement born of people saying "I'm not going to use Astronomer as long as this guy is working there". But that wasn't the case, it was just something funny that blew up. People weren't threatening some mass boycott of this random data analytics company to get the guy fired.

So not cancel culture, just publicity. And that has really always been the case. Plenty of times before where people end up getting fired over things because they happened publicly, even if similar or worse things happen non-publicly and don't lead to the same. That's not some new thing.

And again, given that it was the CEO and the head of HR, yes I think there is a pretty good chance that was scandalous enough to lead to them getting fired even if it had been discovered during a closed doors inter-company meeting.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I'd like to remind folks or add this to the mix and widen the discussion
I knew they were putting cameras in almost everywhere but until more recently I wasn't aware of just how many are out there
We have a family that I just discovered has a camera mounted pretty high up off the ground in a tree that you likely would never notice but it got my attention one day
They are literally filming the sidewalk in the neighborhood which seems creepy to me

I understand Ring/Door security cameras, most public places and halls, churches and synagogues, I understand the need for most of them but it's getting to be where you can't even take a step out of your house without being filmed by someone constantly.

It's the main reason I've calmed the bleep down when I am out and about and try to not be out and about as much as I was in my 20s and 30s, I was very reckless earlier in life
I try to make myself aware that every time I want to be a wise *** and have a word with someone or get animated to get my point across, I'm likely being filmed
Add in all the millions of cameraphones and you really can't get away with much these days

If you decide you need to cheat on your spouse, it's likely to end badly
BTW: The Coldplay Lovers should not have overreacted when the camera shot to them, the likelihood anyone would have caused it to go viral if they had just exchanged a sweet embrace instead of that woman looking like she was breaking and entering when they panned the camera on her

It wasn't on closed circuit TV or being broadcast into peoples homes

 

[djmich]

Cancel culture is ridiculous. Infidelity is reported to be as high as 20%. We don't go and fire 20% of all americans.

Yes what they did was terrible but the punishment outweighs the crime here and internet is to blame.


The only repercussion of this whole event should have been on their existing marriages.

The company chose to fire them on their own. People were laughing at a meme. This wasn't some big movement to try and get them fired. The company decided to do that on their own.

Besides, this wasn't the CEO caught cheating with some random lady. It was with the head of HR. Pretty sure that's always been scandalous enough to lead to people likely losing their jobs.

Would of the company fired them if this didnt blow up?

I think every general news site had this near the top/on their front page. The media coverage was overblown in my opinion. The company had no options at that point.

Obviously i am in the minority on my viewpoint though. This story was on the front page of every general news site, apparently the public ate it up and my preferences are wrong.

CEO having an affair with his subordinate is certainly a fireable offense (whether its public or not) and in 2025, it typically is. Too much liability and risk. I've seen it happen at the exec level for sure.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

This is going to sound odd—but while I agree with the last sentence in the article, I don’t think that it accurately describes what is going on here. I do think that some people do “take joy in the distress and ruination of others”—-but I also think that pretty much all of moral humanity takes joy in poetic justice. If a bully picks on the wrong person and pays the consequences, or if a criminal gets caught in the act—is celebrating that “taking joy in the distress and ruination of others” or is it the masses celebrating some sort of poetic justice or karmic lightning bolt? We have a CEO that makes the rules for a company—and the head of HR—a person that is fully aware of those rules and enforces them for other employees of the company—-acting like victims when they get caught breaking the rules that they have almost certainly punished others for breaking. We are talking about two people that were actively engaging in adultery (as the CEO is married, and I don’t believe for a second that the mistress was not aware of this—completely spazzing out on a cam—when in reality—had they just stood there, smiled, and waived—this almost certainly would have remained a private “non-story” for the masses. The CEO is now doubling down on one of the very reasons why the public is so interested in this story (the notion of hypocrisy and the attitude of some people being above the rules) by suing Coldplay. This is a person that bullied his wife and kids by committing adultery, a man that creates rules for his workplace that he and his HR manager are breaking—who now thinks that he is a victim because his “private affair” being exposed was a fault of a kiss cam—and not because of the fact that he and his mistress thought it was a good idea to keep their relationship a “secret” by going to a Coldplay concert that was attended by 50k people (most of which were taking photos and videos throughout the show). This is a man (a bully) who thinks that he is a victim because he got caught committing adultery and breaking the very rules that he created in a public place.

I have a hard time categorizing the reaction of the public as “taking joy in the distress and ruination of others” in this case. I think there might be a small element of that here—but I also do think that a lot of the public interest here is in the poetic justice of it. I think we’ve all felt some sort of bullying, hypocrisy in the workplace, and have had experiences where we’ve dealt with people that acted in a manner where they felt like a different rule set applied to them. This is a case where the bullies got exposed and poetic justice occurred in a manner that was available for the world to see.

Are you saying that he is a bully because he is a CEO or because he had an affair or some other reason?

Just seems like a misplaced label unless Im missing something.

If you are a married man and you are cheating on your wife and your family—you are a narcissist and a bully. You are stomping on the feelings of others for personal pleasure or gain—which is what bullies do. Bullies often tell others what to do—but don’t apply those rules to themselves—which is what he demonstrated in how he broke workplace rules.

 

[Jayrod]

This is going to sound odd—but while I agree with the last sentence in the article, I don’t think that it accurately describes what is going on here. I do think that some people do “take joy in the distress and ruination of others”—-but I also think that pretty much all of moral humanity takes joy in poetic justice. If a bully picks on the wrong person and pays the consequences, or if a criminal gets caught in the act—is celebrating that “taking joy in the distress and ruination of others” or is it the masses celebrating some sort of poetic justice or karmic lightning bolt? We have a CEO that makes the rules for a company—and the head of HR—a person that is fully aware of those rules and enforces them for other employees of the company—-acting like victims when they get caught breaking the rules that they have almost certainly punished others for breaking. We are talking about two people that were actively engaging in adultery (as the CEO is married, and I don’t believe for a second that the mistress was not aware of this—completely spazzing out on a cam—when in reality—had they just stood there, smiled, and waived—this almost certainly would have remained a private “non-story” for the masses. The CEO is now doubling down on one of the very reasons why the public is so interested in this story (the notion of hypocrisy and the attitude of some people being above the rules) by suing Coldplay. This is a person that bullied his wife and kids by committing adultery, a man that creates rules for his workplace that he and his HR manager are breaking—who now thinks that he is a victim because his “private affair” being exposed was a fault of a kiss cam—and not because of the fact that he and his mistress thought it was a good idea to keep their relationship a “secret” by going to a Coldplay concert that was attended by 50k people (most of which were taking photos and videos throughout the show). This is a man (a bully) who thinks that he is a victim because he got caught committing adultery and breaking the very rules that he created in a public place.

I have a hard time categorizing the reaction of the public as “taking joy in the distress and ruination of others” in this case. I think there might be a small element of that here—but I also do think that a lot of the public interest here is in the poetic justice of it. I think we’ve all felt some sort of bullying, hypocrisy in the workplace, and have had experiences where we’ve dealt with people that acted in a manner where they felt like a different rule set applied to them. This is a case where the bullies got exposed and poetic justice occurred in a manner that was available for the world to see.

Are you saying that he is a bully because he is a CEO or because he had an affair or some other reason?

Just seems like a misplaced label unless Im missing something.

If you are a married man and you are cheating on your wife and your family—you are a narcissist and a bully. You are stomping on the feelings of others for personal pleasure or gain—which is what bullies do. Bullies often tell others what to do—but don’t apply those rules to themselves—which is what he demonstrated in how he broke workplace rules.

Narcissistic, selfish and hypocritical are all accurate. I just don't see a clandestine affair as "bullying".

When I think of bullying I think of a domineering, overt and intimidating act. A cheater can certainly be a bully as well, but I don't think the cheating act in itself would qualify as bullying.

It doesn't really matter because it is all awful behavior, but I just found that use of the word curious.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

There's a whole lot here that is so bizarre to me in terms of accountability and emotion. First, social media isn't doing this to them. They did it to themselves. The only victims here are the spouses/kids and it's way out of bounds for the internet to bring those people into this. Second, the question was raised over whether the company would fire them if it hadn't blown up. That question alone is an astonishing one to me in that it even has to be asked. It's a legit question, but shouldn't be. It should be a no brainer that these people be fired regardless of how big social media made it. I have zero sympathy for the CEO and HR lady.

 

[Jayrod]

One unintended consequence of the internet fame and viral nature of the whole thing is the additional pain it puts on the families of the two cheaters. They are reminded of and ashamed of something they can't get away from without abandoning social media altogether.

That would really, really suck if not only did my wife cheat on me, but the whole world knew it and also it was making circles on social media for a long time so I was constantly reminded of it. And not just spouses, but the children and parents of the cheaters having it so public.

Cheating is such a terrible thing in and of itself and destroys families. That doesn't need any more fuel or shame and it is very unfortunate for the victims of this whole affair.

 

[Mitchie]

Cancel culture is ridiculous. Infidelity is reported to be as high as 20%. We don't go and fire 20% of all americans.

Yes what they did was terrible but the punishment outweighs the crime here and internet is to blame.


The only repercussion of this whole event should have been on their existing marriages.

The company chose to fire them on their own. People were laughing at a meme. This wasn't some big movement to try and get them fired. The company decided to do that on their own.

Besides, this wasn't the CEO caught cheating with some random lady. It was with the head of HR. Pretty sure that's always been scandalous enough to lead to people likely losing their jobs.

Would of the company fired them if this didnt blow up?

I think every general news site had this near the top/on their front page. The media coverage was overblown in my opinion. The company had no options at that point.

Obviously i am in the minority on my viewpoint though. This story was on the front page of every general news site, apparently the public ate it up and my preferences are wrong.

CEO having an affair with his subordinate is certainly a fireable offense (whether its public or not) and in 2025, it typically is. Too much liability and risk. I've seen it happen at the exec level for sure.

Doesn't even have to be a CEO, any employee having a relationship with a subordinate at my company would likely be fired.

 

[Don Quixote]

Not much is being made of the third person from work there. So it wasn't a big secret.

The last place my wife was at the CEO and CFO had a relationship and it blew up both marriages but they stayed awhile. Everyone knew. Then the both left for each other and a new CEO and CFO joined and they had an affair too!

Open relationships are a thing but being out in the open like that you still have cover of a work event as long as no pda. Internet can have at it.

I don’t think the third person was affiliated with the company. She was initially reported to be, but the company put out a statement that it was not her.

 

[Mrs. Rannous]

The worst pain of shaming wasn’t in being called names, or put naked in the stocks and pelted with dung; it was having to look into the faces of the people you’d hurt, people who sat beside you in church, who ate meals at your table, whose children played together with yours.

I really don’t agree with her historical comparison here. In many cultures there were even more serious repercussions for adultery. Even being put to death.

Yes. I think her point was in the old days, the person was shamed but it was personal. You knew who was doing the shaming. "it was having to look into the faces of the people you’d hurt,",

In today's world, there isn't that personal connection. It's more as she said a spectator sport.

And this is nonsensical. Much like John Snow, she knows nothing. Much of that sort of accusation in period is just made-up nonsense of the kind that led to accusations of witchcraft. You have a mother-in-law or daughter-in-law you don't like, accuse her of something. So I guess it was personal, but there wasn't necessarily a fault on the person being "shamed". And a lot of the onlookers weren't "hurt" at all. They were just lookyloos.

These twerps decides to shame themselves in a public place. And the CEO has no chance of winning a lawsuit. Both the ticket agreement and the venue mention the possibility of being filmed/photographed. You don't want that, maybe rent a room.

I’m not familiar with the website that published this article, but it does annoy me. We see this stuff all too often. A writer tries to harken back to mythical good ol’ days when the good ol’ days were certainly worse. Yes, we didn’t have the tools to make insults “viral” back then but, as a society, we have, overall, moved towards more compassion and understanding.

I don’t think she’s saying at all to harken back to any mythical good ‘ol’ days. She’s just pointing out the difference now.

It's right there is the subtitle: "The original function of public shaming was to keep the bonds of community strong."

Doubtful. It's usually to pump up the enforcers. They get to decide who is in the stocks. Not that there is guilt at all, just rule by intimidation, like a dictator.

 

[TennesseeJed]

Cancel culture is ridiculous. Infidelity is reported to be as high as 20%. We don't go and fire 20% of all americans.

Yes what they did was terrible but the punishment outweighs the crime here and internet is to blame.


The only repercussion of this whole event should have been on their existing marriages.

A bit of an oversimplification in this case - the CEO was having an affair with the head of HR - which, optics aside, presumably violated company policy of relationships with subordinates.

 

[FairWarning]

Cancel culture is ridiculous. Infidelity is reported to be as high as 20%. We don't go and fire 20% of all americans.

Yes what they did was terrible but the punishment outweighs the crime here and internet is to blame.


The only repercussion of this whole event should have been on their existing marriages.

The company chose to fire them on their own. People were laughing at a meme. This wasn't some big movement to try and get them fired. The company decided to do that on their own.

Besides, this wasn't the CEO caught cheating with some random lady. It was with the head of HR. Pretty sure that's always been scandalous enough to lead to people likely losing their jobs.

Would of the company fired them if this didnt blow up?

I think every general news site had this near the top/on their front page. The media coverage was overblown in my opinion. The company had no options at that point.

Obviously i am in the minority on my viewpoint though. This story was on the front page of every general news site, apparently the public ate it up and my preferences are wrong.

Actually would the company have fired him if he didn’t draw attention to himself by ducking?

 

[FairWarning]

Cancel culture is ridiculous. Infidelity is reported to be as high as 20%. We don't go and fire 20% of all americans.

Yes what they did was terrible but the punishment outweighs the crime here and internet is to blame.


The only repercussion of this whole event should have been on their existing marriages.

A bit of an oversimplification in this case - the CEO was having an affair with the head of HR - which, optics aside, presumably violated company policy of relationships with subordinates.

Good point, many places do not allow interoffice relationships.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

It’s ok that things are funny. Even at someone else’s expense. Especially if it’s 2 grown adults. The fact that she’s the head of HR is GOLD.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Is the person bringing the frivolous lawsuit the victim here? I have no sympathy for someone that takes no responsibility for their transgressions.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

No doubt the people are at fault. They did an awful thing cheating on their spouses. No question.

What the article hits on is we as society turning it into a spectator sport is ugly.

I think the last line is accurate: "When we take joy in the distress and ruination of other people, we make monsters of ourselves."

I noticed the same sentence and I agree, but IMO this is a function of the digital age. Pre-internet, really pre social media, what happens to these people? They go to the concert, they romance, they may even be shown on the jumbotron, but it doesn't get thrown all over the multiple platforms we have now. In 1940, if two married people had been caught cheating in a public place, sure the husband may have lost his job and maybe both may have been ostracized by their social circles and neighborhood. Today their names and actions are cast to tens of millions, worldwide, their future reputations are ruined, and their actions are used a fulcrum for people or entities with agendas. IMO humanity is the way it is, it's in our DNA as a (human) race, but social media and the internet have amplified our uglier instincts with a magnitude of an order of many multipliers.

 

[TLEF316]

This whole situation obviously sucks for the spouses and families of the cheaters. And anyone bringing them into it (tagging them in posts...making their names public) really need to rethink their lives.

I think you can find something like this funny without taking actual real personal pleasure in it.

And I think that's where a vast majority of the internet falls. The image of them realizing how screwed they were while wrapped up in eachothers arms on the jumbotron at a freaking Coldplay concert is an all-timer.

Filing suit afterwards is ridiculous. You got caught with your side piece in a very public venue and blew up your family. You really thinking going to court fixes any of that? Take responsibility for your actions

 

[Mitchie]

No doubt the people are at fault. They did an awful thing cheating on their spouses. No question.

What the article hits on is we as society turning it into a spectator sport is ugly.

I think the last line is accurate: "When we take joy in the distress and ruination of other people, we make monsters of ourselves."

I noticed the same sentence and I agree, but IMO this is a function of the digital age. Pre-internet, really pre social media, what happens to these people? They go to the concert, they romance, they may even be shown on the jumbotron, but it doesn't get thrown all over the multiple platforms we have now. In 1940, if two married people had been caught cheating in a public place, sure the husband may have lost his job and maybe both may have been ostracized by their social circles and neighborhood. Today their names and actions are cast to tens of millions, worldwide, their future reputations are ruined, and their actions are used a fulcrum for people or entities with agendas. IMO humanity is the way it is, it's in our DNA as a (human) race, but social media and the internet have amplified our uglier instincts with a magnitude of an order of many multipliers.

This may be true but largely due to the anonymity of certain social media sites. And I'm just not sure this particular instance is a great example of this, I just haven't seen a huge ugly backlash, my guess is they both find new jobs once this blows over.

 

[Zow]

No doubt the people are at fault. They did an awful thing cheating on their spouses. No question.

What the article hits on is we as society turning it into a spectator sport is ugly.

I think the last line is accurate: "When we take joy in the distress and ruination of other people, we make monsters of ourselves."

So, sports fans.

It's not my fault that Philly fans exist.

 

[-OZ-]

Filing suit afterwards is ridiculous. You got caught with your side piece in a very public venue and blew up your family. You really thinking going to court fixes any of that? Take responsibility for your actions

Personal Responsibility? Such a wild idea.
For many taking some degree of perverse pleasure in this, it’s that we’re sick of seeing people escape accountability.

I train many people on personal / professional conduct and have for decades. In every session, I mention and often foot stomp to always assume you’re being watched. To see these people get caught out of pure arrogance and failure to consider the ramifications, serves as an example to others.

No pity for cheaters, especially when they act like this. We can feel for the wife and it would have been better if she had been left alone.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Regarding the lawsuit, all I've seen is one rumor-monger rag (Page Six) report this guy is "considering" suing Coldplay. No value in that whatsoever so really nothing to be outraged about just yet.

 

[Zow]

Regarding the lawsuit, all I've seen is one rumor-monger rag (Page Six) report this guy is "considering" suing Coldplay. No value in that whatsoever so really nothing to be outraged about just yet.

Yeah, I was going to ask to see the complaint itself as well. Sounds like there isn't even one.

 

[Jayrod]

If there is one thing I've learned in those whole debacle, it's that a lot of people think Coldplay sucks.

I kind of enjoy their stuff and they supposedly put on quite a show in concert but in some circles they seem to be considered on par with Nickelback.

 

[Dickies]

I was at the Giants game yesterday, and I thought this moment was hilarious.

Crazy Crab and Lou Seal’s Mom caught in a Coldplay moment