People have a right to share information with each other about abusive people or places who should be avoided.
The lists could be campus rapists, or bad drunks, toxic places to work, or a list of towns or businesses that aren't safe for black or queer folk to visit.
Most of these informal lists have been around for decades. For some people, these lists help them to avoid some dangerous people or places.
Are there some people in these lists who don't deserve to be? Probably.
But how are you going to regulate it? It's speech after all.
If you aren't mocking someone, I would advise that you contain your enthusiasm to a single exclamation mark.
But anyone who is angered by the existence of these lists because someone might not deserve to be on them.... is worth mocking.
Of all the injustices committed by governments and corporations and even some wealthy people, that ranks pretty low.
That people need to share a secret list of powerful members of parliament who have a history of abusing their colleagues isn't what makes you angry?
I agree with the utility, practicality and necessity of informal lists. Mocking someone who was falsely included on one of them and made to experience consequences is an ugly thing to do.
We've had centuries of experience on this topic - retaliation should follow from evidence. That evidence should be challenged and held to consistent fair standards. Laughing at people condemned by gossip is unfair.