[mitchellst]

Different things. The snark plays to individual psychology in the moment. When someone comes at you in a way that's demeaning and clearly states that they think you shouldn't have the position you have, that's a bad way to start a conversation where you're supposed to admit error. More likely, you avoid them.

To the real brass tacks incentives: yeah, it's "someone is angry on the internet" vs, "I will have to deal with a discipline process with documentation and meetings and maybe depositions and adversarial lawyers. That's not my bag, I'm a scientist. There will be volatile young people and bad feelings communicated in person, plus gossip among my close coworkers. Also undesirable. If this becomes a repeated pattern, learners might start avoiding my lab, and deans/my superiors might start asking very awkward questions." Yeah, stacked against that, angry person on the internet is a weak incentive. Even if they're right.

And the snark does matter. Because this guy writes like a YouTube comments section, and that's not how you talk to adults or solve problems in elite institutions. So the contrast in styles draws lines of "us" vs "them." And it's natural to care more about the opinions and esteem of your in-group (who talk like you) than the out-group (who deride you).

[boxed]

I think the snark comes from having screamed about the situation for years and years and no one listening.

Let's all remember what we are talking about here: every single one of us will know someone who will die several years early because of scientific fraud. It is reasonable to be angry as hell.

[eviks]

> Because this guy writes like a YouTube comments section, and that's not how you talk to adults or solve problems in elite institutions

Indeed, we've seen how the polite approach is so hard to ignore/avoid that the adults in elite institutions solve problems before snarky folks wake up!

[wrs]

There’s no individual psychology at play here. It’s not a conversation between peers. This person is already in the out-group by bringing this subject up at all. They have no institutional power. It’s not as if they just have to act like an adult and file some paperwork to get this fixed. They need to make a lot of noise to embarrass people who do have power into asking those awkward questions. Being tweetable (X-able?) also makes it more likely those volatile young people will hear about it before they join the lab.