Using change.org for personal attacks and misguided purposes is inherently dangerous.

Recently, I discovered a personal attack using change.org. It seems like a criticism of hunting activities. I feel this is problematic in terms of how the service is used. As a premise, whether I hunt or not, either is fine, and I'd only want people to refrain if it impacts the ecosystem. So, this is purely an opinion on how the service is used.

I understand change.org as a service for gathering signatures to protest or convey opinions. And basically, I thought it was something used to direct things like systems or activities in a broad sense. However, look at this.

Link :
Abolition of hunting activities and hunting activity appeals for self-display.

They make it obvious who the individual is and attack them. Because, if you think about it normally, stopping one individual doesn't stop hunting activities as a whole, does it? If I were to engage in opposition activities, I would do something like "Demand a ban on hunting activities" or something that would have a more general effect. Why target an individual specifically?

Are they thinking of starting small…?

Ultimately, I think "self-display" is just the subjective opinion of the person who started the project, or those around them. For example, let's say the person wasn't doing it for self-display, but purely because they had some policy (I don't have a particular opinion on hunting itself). Would the term "self-display" still apply then? Surely, no one would say that if a third party perceives it as self-display, then it's okay to recognize it as such.

In the first place, the person seems to have a policy, and if this looked like self-display, wouldn't it be fair to say it's shallow?

Link :
http://blog.junyamori.com/2015/08/14/change-or-not/

Therefore, I don't know why, but instead of "signing against overall hunting activities," I found it incredibly sad that a site like change.org is used to specifically target an individual and use disparaging language.

If such personal attacks are allowed to pass, it's chaos. For example, "I don't like what that person is doing, so let's start a petition." Regardless of the content (and whether hunting is a serious activity or not), it's a method that could induce such behavior.

Usually, if you engage in somewhat radical activities, there are many opposing opinions. For any activity, if the perspective differs, it can be seen as either good or evil. Attacking an individual using a public site is not much different from slandering someone by naming them on a blog because you don't like them, is it? It's sad that change.org is used for such things.

Even if we concede a hundred steps and say it's okay to stop an individual's activities, how can one interpret the listing of "self-display" and photos without seeing it as malicious intent? Did they talk, but had no choice but to do this to make a strong impact? No, no, unless the hypothesis of "self-display" is a fact, this method is completely at a criminal level. At the very least, they should conceal photos and names.

On the other hand, Takigawa Christel, as expected, is protesting against the entire system. I think this kind of usage is good. No individual is blamed either.

Immediately ban the use of lead bullets (rifle bullets, shotgun pellets) in hunting, nationwide in Japan.

I picked this from a hunting perspective, so regardless of whether the content of both is similar or not, don't you think it's good if they appeal to the whole in this way?

Anyway, I question the major premise of "self-display," and the people signing probably eat meat too, so I'm not sure what they're actually signing against. They should just make it something like "Ban on hunting activities for personal hobbies." In the first place, does this petition have any meaning for an individual's activities? Almost none, right?