The people in them ought be prosecuted, as in, thrown in jail. The social media sites ought be prosecuted insofar as they can be, which may not be very far unfortunately. In addition to AWDTSG kind of groups, there are related groups that are centered on a notion of women vigilante types ‘protecting’ women from ‘creepy guys’.

In these kinds of groups, the aim is to target and harass men in particular based on ‘creepy’ behavior. Not abusive, not anything that the men might have done that is illegal, just ‘creepy’. Tho tbh even if it was towards the aims of targeting based on supposed illegal behavior, it wouldn't really make them any better legally speaking.

It doesn't matter if they are saying truths or falsehoods either, they are targeting individuals and purposefully destroying their lives. The only time historically that that has been viewed as even remotely acceptable was if it was a public figure. These people are not doing it to public figures, they generally aren’t even doing it to people who made anything public online. Typically they are centered on women gossiping bout men they have dated, or who have had some kind of contact with them in an online dating setting.

These groups have been around for many years now. The practice is also common pre-internet age; it is the kind of activity that historically leads to lynchings.

Some legal definitions in shorthand that apply to these groups, follow the link at the bottom of this post to the source for the legal shorthand definitions, which has links to the longer form legal definitions.

"Cyber harassment
Cyber harassment is online expression targeted at a specific person that causes the individual substantial emotional distress. In many states, the harassment must be repeated such that it amounts to a “course of conduct” and the perpetrator must act with the intent to harass, annoy, alarm, or threaten. Also referred to as online abuse or online harassment, cyber harassment is defined more broadly than cyberstalking and encompasses a broader range of abusive tactics."

All of these kinds of groups, including all their members who participate in them beyond just watching what’s going on therein, likely qualify as criminal harassers. The groups are literally dedicated to harassing people. It is their stated purpose.

"Cyberstalking

Cyberstalking generally refers to severe forms of abuse or harassment that constitute a credible threat of harm to an individual. In a legal context, cyberstalking is the prolonged and repeated use of abusive behaviors online (a “course of conduct”) intended “to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate” the victim."

Plausibly these people can be charged with cyberstalking too, as oft enough their intent is to cause harm and threated an individual. If that is unclear, they are specifically trying to cause the lives of these people, generally men, to be ruined. They oft enough openly proclaim this like cartoon villains. This is a bit more difficult to prove, but given the prevalence of these groups, and their cartoonish villainy, perhaps not that difficult.

"Defamation
Defamation refers to a false “statement that injures a third party’s reputation.” If the victim of defamation is a public figure, they must prove that the perpetrator showed “actual malice,” meaning that the statement was published “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”

Defamation is a more difficult thing to prove at least in regards to the original publisher of a claim in these kinds of groups. That is, someone saying 'so and so was creepy' may not be defamation, they might sincerely believe that. But anyone else sharing that is far more likely to be culpable for defamation, as they as displaying clear reckless disregard for if the thing is true or not.

indeed, they are prima facie destroying people's reputations, and only after the fact are they considering if it is true or false. Which is practically definitional of reckless disregard.

Note tho that as we are not dealing with actual public figures, but rather private ones, most likely this is easier to prove.

"True threats

Threats that “a reasonable person would interpret as a real and serious communication of an intent to inflict harm.”

This clearly depends some upon the circumstances involved, but note that these kinds of groups have in part as their expressed aim to harm people that they think deserve it. In other words, they are vigilante groups; batwoman. The harm they are looking to inflict is emotional, social, sometimes financial, ruin their existing relationships as well as the possibility of future relationships, etc... but it is harm.

“Liability

Liability is defined as the “legal responsibility for one’s acts or omissions.” If a perpetrator is found liable, they can face civil or criminal penalties for their actions.”

Without much ado to it, yes, these people are liable for their actions online, at least prima facie. Still has to be proven, but posting stuff online and acting on it, is something that people can are liable for.

all quotes taken from: https://onlineharassmentfieldmanual.pen.org/online-harassment-legal-basics-101/

These are not kind and good people y'all, they are horrible people doing horrible things to other people. Do not show them mercy, for they will show you none.

If you or someone you know has been targeted by them, get a lawyer and go after them. If there are lawyers out there interested in dealing with this pro-bono, cause it is a massive problem, consider posting something in the LWMA group. Maybe the mods here could pin such resources to the page if and when they should come?

Consider sharing these points widely too. Perhaps folks who are doing this will become more reticent to doing so if they realize that they are doing something highly illegal and destructive.