For example, in case of this "sexual harassment in tech", I really think it's a matter of significant lack of understanding between the parties involved. Apparently it's not the case that most women would agree to have sex with just any random dude, but nevertheless some men seem to expect exactly that. OTOH, I very much doubt that they would be willing to take them by force, but nevertheless women end up worrying about all the possible things that may have happened.
> good policy and good laws depend on a logical and unemotional view of things
That's plausible. Good policy probably benefits from understanding, which seems to be improved by familiarity, which reduces emotional reactions, particularly the negative ones.
> You should not, however, make decisions based on how you feel about things.
But OTOH, if for whatever reason you can't obtain familiarity and understanding, it probably may be safer to follow your gut feeling. I think that's what guides many people and they probably don't think about it much.
> The internet is all about the feels - the mob, the pain, the sadness, the outrage.
THB, you could equally well describe Bolsheviks or Nazis that way. And they have this curious property of predating the Internet by several decades ;)
But what you've said rings true: there's something really wrong here, and it has to do with the internet.
I've come to the conclusion -- and I may certainly be wrong -- that good policy and good laws depend on a logical and unemotional view of things. As a human being, you can and should acknowledge and feel for people in pain. You should not, however, make decisions based on how you feel about things. And I mean that in the extreme: whether something makes you personally happy or disgusted shouldn't play any role at all in which polices you support or advocate.
The problem is, that's not how the internet or public discourse happens. The internet is all about the feels - the mob, the pain, the sadness, the outrage. Everybody is a publisher and emotion sells eyeballs. There's simply too much attention to be gained by having some outrage-of-the-week. Now that we're all instantly connected, this means that any public discourse that has the potential to manipulate people emotionally will manipulate people emotionally. That's great for publishers, but not so much for trying to have a just society.
The only solution I've come up with is to simply disengage from public conversations about things people get really upset about, which is kinda the default stance on HN. Or at least it used to be. But even that approach is problematic, because the larger your audience, the more topics and subtopics become off-limits.
In this area, how to have a fair, just, and decent society, the internet is not helping things. Just the opposite, in fact.