《So You"ve Been Publicly Shamed》是一本由Jon Ronson著作，Riverhead Books出版的Hardcover图书，本书定价：USD 27.95，页数：304，特精心从网络上整理的一些读者的读后感，希望对大家能有帮助。
《So You"ve Been Publicly Shamed》精选点评：
●06.23
●不算Ronson的最好作品，但是让我想起一些事情。而且，很多Twitter的点其实在我们身边都可以看到了不是吗？不是有没有包容心的问题，而是evil is protected by the crowd。a snowflake never feels responsible for the avalanche /I refuse to feel ashamed, that"s the only way to win it out.
●“We are using shame as a form of social control.” 感觉说得好有道理，太狠了，抛弃SNS几天恢复一下人与人之间的信任（啥
●好多好多好多八卦啊。。捧上天的勒庞其实是个趋炎附势的伪科学家。。。
●有意思。
●其实还是蛮琐碎的，也没有太多理论，但众多事件和人物让public shaming这个主题变得愈加复杂和深刻，教你要善良。
●3.5/5 Led by the fascinating question of public shaming in the digital era, this book genuinely proves how fun self-sponsored journalism can be. Though it doesn"t carry much weight in academic terms,it"s a fantastic and engaging read for leisure and shows us just how it feels like to be on the receiving end of unrelenting character assassinations.
●看到最后发现作者是Frank的编剧！就是那部我觉得是2014年最棒的电影没有之一的那个Frank！今年感觉到处都有呼应，简直让我产生了一种things are coming together的错觉。
●英国WHSmith畅销书第一 （non fiction），读了4章，好看。英国出版的封面和这个不一样，是那本蓝色的红色版。
●鲁迅在日本时看纪录片，内容是中国人被砍头，一群人津津有味地围观，他痛恨于国人精神的萎靡，决定弃医从文。但先生没想过这样一种可能性：100年前爱看处刑的中国人并不是邪恶、反社会或格外麻木，事实上，观赏别人受折磨在各时各地都非常流行。从女巫狩猎到网络暴力，公众要的是融入社会主流的安全感，以及个人意见被其他网民认同的自尊感。——P.S.：原来女人和黑人的脑容量比白人男性小的理论是勒庞发明的，额，重新认识了这个人。。。
《So You"ve Been Publicly Shamed》读后感(一)：A Thought-provoking Read
我想我会一直记得作者的贴切比喻： “A snowflake never feels responsible for the avalanche." 看似微小且貌似正义的行为往往最后给他人带来摧毁一切的灾难。
今天，网络和社交平台给原本力量渺小几乎没有话语权的人群带来了发声的渠道，这一点一
直是被欢迎和赞扬的。但它的另一面以及其潜在的危害，较少有人关心。在当今很多社会已
废除公开羞辱(public shaming)作为治法的惩罚手段时（因为这样的惩罚毁灭的是人格和灵魂，即使面对罪犯也不应使用这样的惩罚手段）， 网络上的人肉行为，暴力言语和威胁，或者仅仅是对当事人的负面情绪发泄都恰恰形成了自发性的公开羞辱。
而利用网络实施的公开羞辱，影响深远且毁坏力极大。书里有好些个被羞辱的人的例子，当读者跟着作者靠近这些因为种种原因被羞辱的时候，你会发现，他们也是平凡人，而每一个站在道德制高点利用网络抨击他们的人的每一个评论，转发，辱骂，威胁或呼吁，其加起来力量之大摧毁了那个人的一切。一个很简单的例子，某人在公众场合开了一个自以为无伤大雅的玩笑，而当场在其身边的人听到后觉得受到了冒犯，转身，拍照，上传社交平台，于是事情像滚雪球般变成事件，开玩笑的某人被人肉，被解雇。但网民们还不解恨，返回来人肉最开始上传照片和故事的人，最后结局？上传的人收到无数辱骂，暴力甚至死亡威胁，也被解雇。
也许你会想最开始就不该开玩笑，或者不该拍他人照片上传。 可是这样的话，像作者指出的，这是否意味着要么远离，要么变得无趣才是在网络时代最安全的方式？
该这样让雪崩发生吗？什么心理和原因让我们这么积极地羞辱和我们并不相关的人？被羞辱的人们的结果是什么？公共羞辱的摧毁力量为何这么强大？带着这样的疑问，我们在作者的“旅程”里读他的分析和探讨，读他寻找的答案，以及作者的关于如何在巨大的羞辱之后生存的尝试。
很棒的一本书。
这是一本每一个接触网络的人都应该读的书。
《So You"ve Been Publicly Shamed》读后感(二)：当荣森撞上许知远－推特世界及更多 When Jon Ronson and Xu Zhiyuan Collide in the World of Twitter
误打误撞知道了乔恩·荣森（Jon Ronson）这个人，男友在痴迷的看着他的前期的书， Them: Adventures with Extremists 还有The Men Who Stare at Goats , 后者被改编拍成了电影 。而我其实对这部片子的记忆仅限于乔治·克鲁尼。 恩，很可能还有那只羊。 在这个信息量发达，视听素材随手可下载的多媒体环境， 我听了几段他的podcasts和看了几个相关Youtube视频后，开始对荣森着迷，于是在接下来的整整一个星期，继续寻找，看，听有关他的资料，随之产生了一种好像熟识了他十几年般的错觉。我知道他在15还是16岁那一年被同学仍进了湖里，到现在还有阴影。是的， 我几乎知道他的几乎一生！
周六雨夜，男友和我两人惆怅地坐在家中的沙发上，一边为无味电视节目感到身心疲惫，一边为没能买到荣森新书启动活动的票懊恼丧气。就这样错过了这个语音温柔的刚左男，错过了他用一口威尔士口音热烈好奇地介入采访对象们的生活，探寻极端或平凡分子的另类人生。
我之所以对Jon Ronson非常感兴趣的另一个原因是他的新书 So You’ve been Publicly Shamed 中提到一个参照物，在许知远第43集，和大内密谈一起做的单独中也出现过，一本叫做书《乌合之众》（The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind by Gustave Le Bon）的书 ，一本我在社区图书馆只找得到中文版的书。
我感兴趣的两个人， 一东一西，身份略有雷同，都是作家/记者，他们在同一个时空交集穿插感，并且借由同一本书表达信息膨胀下社会与人的关系变化的看法，让我激动无比。其实更理性的解读可能是社交网络和大众群体的必然关系让俩人都自然地追溯到大众心理学的源头吧。
荣森和许都不约而同地把信息时代，大众癫狂现象和社交网络工具融入了讨论分析中。 与许不同的是，荣森对现象本身和相关的个体可能更感兴趣，全书围绕着几个个案中的主人公的twitter门展开，由流行的网上人肉，道德制裁现象为起点, 挖掘相关于人物的具体网络暴力遭遇，体验。他一贯的刚左风格，Journey路线，尝试在历史学，心理学专家的分析，法律执行者身上问问题 ，找答案。为什么每个人都如此理所当然地羞辱一个和他们毫不相关的人？ 是集体的癫狂？出于人类向善的好意和偷窥的本性？还是早期公众羞辱刑法的消失？在这个社交网络的时代, 公开羞辱（public shaming）的确变得更具规模和效率， 在几个小时以内就可以群众的压力，指责把一个人的一生毁掉，并且因为勒庞书中提到的群众中的匿名性(anonymity)而完全不负责，全身而退。这种现象在中国微薄微信圈里也非常突出，完全印证了《乌合之众》中谈到的另一个要点，传染性 （contagion）, 并多带有鲜明的社会阶层色彩，是草根向上层建筑的质问，仇富， 揭贪，性丑闻等。这些信息的分享是带有民主意识的，但同时也是恶俗煽情的。荣森在访谈里面提到，现代人到了宁愿看到别人遭受苦难，也无法忍受自己的twitter feed无聊乏味的阶段。
许则在单独里谈到现在所有事物所标配的即时性，很多时候，并容不得人们在点”发送“前好好地思考。事件中暗藏的复杂体系，深层的关联被迅速地平面化。人们只能在左或右，是或否的阵营里进行选择，义无反顾， 并说服自己当时的决定是正确的。他看到的可能更多是一种在做决定以前的焦虑感，一种迷茫， 对自身判断能力的丧失了信心，畏惧发出不同声音而被众人围剿。这是一种当下泛滥中国的情绪，像是一场无限循环的流行病。
在虚拟世界的平台探讨本源，人性，荣森关注的是为什么普罗大众一下子自认为他们拥有了裁判官一样断定是非的能力，并且具有予以制裁的权力，这是他不解的，也是有兴趣挖掘的。 社会的秩序框架是否只能依照法律的条文来执行稳定？那么执法人和犯法者的关系有是怎么样的？ 这一切被转移到社交网络又是按照什么原则运作的？社会形态，法律管制的严苛是否在某种程度上导致了网民骇客在虚拟世界的任性撒野，以正义道德的名义制裁哪些和他们价值观不符相反的人？是否还是回归到人的尊严？人与人之间的平等的关系才是良性循环的基础？
在许的单读里，他不只一次地用印刷革命带来的文化冲击和我们现在所正在经历的技术革命给人们带来的震撼进行类比。表示现在是一个反精英的时代，在人人都有了话语权的时候，整体输出的思想价值就注定会下滑，变得平庸。 而荣森则挑选了另一个层面来分析，关于民主和自由。在虚拟的世界里大家似乎以人人平等的身份相处，然而在网络暴力前，大众的意见其实只是给某一种单一的声音在另一个平台做了加持，通常是一面倒的，不容置疑的。这种全民24小时7天的全民平等和自由参与，建立了一个巨大的瞬时监督信息反馈体系（feedback loop），平庸无趣地将自我限制起来了。澳洲政府最近5年来上演的5次总理更换就是非常能说明这个问题，政客们反复地把民调数据奉为圣旨, 这就是政治体系里的feedback loop的最直接体现，政策的制定与执行沦为媒体访谈中的面子工程，缺乏了大刀阔斧的实干力和一致性。
数字电子的平行宇宙建立起来，似乎愈发开始模拟真实社会的复杂性，一开始时，它承诺的是平等，自由，然后一旦全民科技时代的进程开始成熟起来时，它有被修饰得精英化起来， 因为只有精英权贵们才能支付起新媒体团队在不断地修整维持他们的twitter门面的昂贵花销，并将自己的斑斑劣迹在google上全面消除！我们可以简单地把这一切归为资本主义运作的必然规律吗？
: 荣森出版的第一本书，Clubbed Class, 根据wikipedia, 是一本与众不同的旅行书（A Travel Book with A Difference), 但除了一个内容梗概之外就完全找不到任何信息了， 让我怀疑是不是该书的内容太不堪，让他不得不采用了google 除痕服务。不管如何，他和许知远除了同年生之外，也都是旅行作家！
《So You"ve Been Publicly Shamed》读后感(三)：The Lies And Truth About Public Shaming
The book is very enlightening about how the public shaming works. I’d like to freshen myself up by regrouping it into three questions. What motivates shamers to lash out？ How individual acts evolve into group madness？ What can shamees do to find a way out of it？
Thanks to internet, we are bestowed the power that we’ve never had before and wield it to an unwitting end. The less voice we have in real life, the more stern we tend to become when finding a target online. This can be malicious, or simply motivated by a desire to do something good. I think the latter one speaks for the majority of people. The problem is we don’t realize how far we can go. We take the roll as a presiding judge, but are unaware of the consequences. Do they deserve the punishment of lives being ruined？ If not, should we take the blame？ Like Jon Ronson sharply pointed out, “the snowflake never needs to feel responsible for the avalanche.” And this leads to my second question.
More succinctly put, it should be mass destruction instead of group madness. Ronson here unveiled some interesting facts that really blew me away. The notion of group madness was first presented by Gustave Le Bon. His idea was that humans in a crowd lose control of their behavior and a contagious madness takes over. I still remember how thrilled I was when reading Le Bon’s signature work: The Crowd. It seems so solid a fact that people lose reasoning and are easily manipulated by designing parties. What I didn’t expect is Le Bon’s presumptuous bias against females, but it digresses from our topic here, so I’ll just focus on his core theory, which was reinforced by a psychology experiment carried out by Philip Zimbardo en 1971. Twenty-four applicants were split into two groups, prisoners and guards. The prisoners got so violent that the experiment had to be abandoned six days later. But as Ronson dug deeper, he discovered that there was only one prisoner who turned volatile and he only did it to pander to the researcher. So the experiment actually couldn’t prove anything, let alone support for group madness. Furthermore, Jonson thought that frenzy may be contagious within a group defined by similar class and power, but never a randomly mixed community. There are always patterns. Thus contagion can’t take responsibility for online attacking, which is often spontaneous.
What might be the answer？ Ronson shifted his attention onto the Your Speed signs. The idea is really esoteric. It’s just a sign that tells your speed aligned with speed limit with no punitive follow-up. People drive by, see the signs, and unexpectedly slow down. How this mechanism works？ Ronson reached a conclusion of feedback loops. Reading signs is like you get instant feedback for a decision of whether to go on like before or slow down, and people tend to choose the latter. It means we can be placed in a weird circle in which our beliefs get more and more enhanced by people with same views. This can be utterly dangerous, like when an online shaming happens. We drop charges against people we think of as monsters and get congratulated for this. Decision made, belief strengthened, justice served. Unconsciously we sack people who think differently. It sounds virtually inconceivable. How come in a supposedly more liberal than ever age we get most rigid and conservative？ It’s like my resonance for Le Bon. His work strikes a chord and intensifies what I believe. I’m actually pleased with what I’ve already known. My mind is constrained by two cabinets, known knowledge and limited imagination. This leads to a narrow and unsurprising world.
While we fall into traps without realizing it, victims on the other end of internet get tarnished for stupid impropriety. How can they escape from this angry carnival？ Ronson gave an interesting case. Max’s life didn’t change one iota. He thought that was because he refused to feel ashamed. But later Ronson came to realize that Max survived the shaming because there had been no shaming. Nobody cares a man in a consensual sex scandal. In fact, there are companies that can offer service for shamees, rebranding them with massive photos and updates on social platforms. By doing this, they make information against their clients go down to page 2. It might cause repercussion, but it’s also a prelude to full recovery. A piece of side information is funny. Google makes a lot of money from searches for shamees and guardians of justice get nothing. Like Michael Fertik said, “The biggest lie is that the Internet is about you.” It’s actually “about the companies that dominate the data flows of the Internet.” Our hubris also lies in the belief that we view ourselves as people who are different and creative and with choice.
I think the story of Max tells me two things. When we build a pattern, we need to carefully avoid sophistry. They seem true and logical, but are indeed false. The other thing is although this remains a misunderstanding, it’s a plausible mindset. We refuse to take the blame for others. It might help us get back on track. Shame is intrinsically an agonizing pain. Every time we feel ashamed, a part of us was stripped off until our true selves succumb to numbness. To get rid of it, we need to first recognize its existence. Why do we have this feeling？ Because we care, care what other people think and say, which actually means nothing. Maybe we can change a way of thinking. This is all adolescent concern. To find a way out of it is to wipe out this fear. But it’s always easier said than done, after all, “we are a mass of vulnerabilities, and who knows what will trigger them？”
