“Dear Disney”: Karen Tries To Take Down A ‘Scammer’, They Turn The Tables Around
Interview With Author
“People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones” is a saying that might seem overused at times, but manages to stay relevant through sheer human stubbornness. So when you decided to shame someone online, you had better be sure of yourself.
A netizen shared their bit of petty revenge when an Etsy seller started to harass them online, so they turned to reporting them for copyright infringement. Internet users were divided on who was in the right. We got in touch with the person in the story and they shared a few more details.
Sending angry comments online might feel cathartic
Image credits: Adam Smith (not the actual photo)
But one person was tired of harassment and decided to report their harasser to Disney for copyright infringement
Image credits: Ok_Mood_2109
Image credits: Loren Javier (not the actual photo)
Sometimes it’s good to hesitate before picking a fight
Bored Panda got in touch with the person in the story and they were kind enough to share a few more details. “Disney sent me a generic reply saying they are investigating but they can’t share any information. When I go to her Etsy page is says “seller is on a short break.” Idk if it’s just coincidence or if something happened.”
Naturally, we also wanted to know how their glasses-selling went. “I ended up selling 15 out 16 glasses for $22. I gave the last pair away to my neighbor as I had to leave town to drive to totality eclipse. If I learned anything, it is if you are going to scalp then actual make a real profit. Because regardless I was getting the same amount of hate for selling glasses for $3 compared to the guy who was selling them for $10,” they shared.
We also were curious to know how they felt about the various pretty nasty comments. “People are mad because I’m messing with someone livelihood, but if she just did the proper paperwork for copyright then her Etsy shop wouldn’t get taken down.”
The phrase “People Who Live In Glass Houses Shouldn’t Throw Stones” first appeared in Chaucer’s 1385 poem Troilus and Criseyde, albeit in a completely different form. A more modern, although still clunky variant showed up in a 1651 text by George Herbert, who wrote “Whose house is of glass, must not throw stones at another.”
All in all, this story is just another case of internet comments no longer being a self-contained space, but a sort of battleground. Where once any conflict would begin and end with the clacking of keys, now, as we are all perpetually online, where we live, work and what we like can all be found with a few keystrokes.
People tend to take online comments more seriously now
This is one of the main reasons why, when social media was just taking off, a common bit of advice was to not share too many personal details online. The vast majority of us simply ignored that advice and now with a simple click on a person’s Facebook page, you can find everything from their place of work, mother’s name and favorite niche local bands. In general, people tend to overshare a tad too much online, either blissfully lacking self-awareness or just not understanding how public posts actually are.
Unfortunately, the more time we spend online, particularly if it becomes a source of money, the more importance we add to every interaction. Hence why a few negative comments might rattle the person in this story enough for them to take the time and effort to track down the commenter and report them online.
After all, as best we can tell, the sunglasses seller is not some hacker, nor do they seem to have some special access to information. They simply took publicly available data and put two and two together. Do a little experiment, go to your own Facebook page, perhaps from another browser. Evaluate how much you can find. Google your name and see what comes up. Chances are, it’s a lot more than you expected. For every person that has this realization, there are probably millions who happily leave the most egregious posts, details and comments online.
Image credits: charlesdeluvio (not the actual photo)
Readers argued over the proportionality of the response
The other elephant in the room is the debate over who was in the right. Certainly, many people are naturally predisposed against “artificially” raised prices. That being said, the position and date of the eclipse has been known for quite some time, why the people in its path didn’t take time to get the necessary eye protection in advance is anyone’s guess.
At the same time, destroying someone’s livelihood over a comment is perhaps a tad excessive. Similarly, the person then spent some time arguing in the comments about why they were, actually, entirely correct, as impinging on Disney’s copyright was a crime. While this is technically true, a random netizen becoming a “white knight” for one of the largest media companies on the planet is just silly.
Some readers didn’t understand the math
The netizen’s plan was controversial, but some sided with them
While many other’s thought it was totally out of line
Poll Question
Thanks! Check out the results:
Subscribe to Access
Exclusive Polls
By entering your email and clicking Subscribe, you're agreeing to let us send you customized marketing messages about us and our advertising partners. You are also agreeing to our Privacy Policy.
Thank you! You've successfully subscribed to newsletters!
You May Also Like
Woman Refuses To Chip In For Babysitting Because She Doesn’t Even Have Kids, Asks If She’s A Jerk
Do you think childless individuals should be expected to chip in for group babysitting costs during friend gatherings?
17 Y.O. Is Done Sharing Her Birthday With Her Late Twin, Parents Are Not Having It
Do you think the girl should be allowed to celebrate her birthday without the remembrance of her deceased twin?
For the people who say she's price gouging, you need to calm down. Price gouging is dramatically raising the cost of necessities in an emergency even if your cost hasn't gone up. An eclipse isn't an emergency, and the glasses aren't a necessity.
They are a necessity to view an eclipse. You can go to the bathroom without using toilet paper but I think we'll all agree selling it at $10 a roll during COVID was price gouging. Dramatically increasing the price of a commodity that only has value during a period of shortage is price gouging. Selling the $1.25 glasses for $2 and making a 60% profit - a little excessive but ok. Marking them up 400% to $5 - price gouging.
Load More Replies...
So she bought 20 pairs for $25 and is now selling 16 of them for $5 each = $80. Is that not a profit of $55? I don’t care if she’s making a profit, just wondering where I misunderstood if anyone can help me out 😅
Two horrible people trying to screw over each other's horrible businesses. Whether we like it or not copyright infringement is copyright infringement. She's stealing someone else's intellectual property. 400% ($1.25 per pair vs $5) markup on a commodity that only has value during a period of shortage like an eclipse is price gouging. Those glasses were worthless 2 days ago and worthless today.
For the people who say she's price gouging, you need to calm down. Price gouging is dramatically raising the cost of necessities in an emergency even if your cost hasn't gone up. An eclipse isn't an emergency, and the glasses aren't a necessity.
They are a necessity to view an eclipse. You can go to the bathroom without using toilet paper but I think we'll all agree selling it at $10 a roll during COVID was price gouging. Dramatically increasing the price of a commodity that only has value during a period of shortage is price gouging. Selling the $1.25 glasses for $2 and making a 60% profit - a little excessive but ok. Marking them up 400% to $5 - price gouging.
Load More Replies... So she bought 20 pairs for $25 and is now selling 16 of them for $5 each = $80. Is that not a profit of $55? I don’t care if she’s making a profit, just wondering where I misunderstood if anyone can help me out 😅
Two horrible people trying to screw over each other's horrible businesses. Whether we like it or not copyright infringement is copyright infringement. She's stealing someone else's intellectual property. 400% ($1.25 per pair vs $5) markup on a commodity that only has value during a period of shortage like an eclipse is price gouging. Those glasses were worthless 2 days ago and worthless today.
34
21