Ganging up on random people isn't activism

Social media primes us for quick, emotional responses, often fuelling mob mentality.

When does it start living on its own, and is that what we want?

Social media and hormones

Our reactions on social media are rooted in neurochemistry.

Dr. Lustig explores this extensively in his book: “The Hacking of the American Mind.”

In a nutshell, Dr. Lustig’s view is that social media platforms exploit the brain’s natural reward and stress systems, making users more reactive and less reflective.

By driving dopamine dependency and increasing cortisol through exposure to emotional content, social media fosters impulsive and often polarized reactions, ultimately undermining users’ mental well-being and creating an environment ripe for misunderstanding and conflict.

Is sobriety present in some people? Maybe.

But I know I have to be careful when I log into LinkedIn or Facebook.

And you won’t find me anywhere near Twitter.

When public shaming is needed

More often than not, public shaming and collective anger are necessary to make systemic change happen.

People who are not impacted by systemic injustices typically propose that we keep things upbeat and positive, but that doesn't stop situations that are heavy, negative, and flat-out dangerous.

Many powerful players who don’t play a fair game will only change their behaviour when forced by the public. Harvey Weinstein and other predators come to mind.

If women (and men!) hadn't gone public with their horrendous experiences, these people wouldn't have stopped what they were doing.

I'm all for calling someone out in public when they have immense influence and represent or create an abusive system.

On the other hand, going after social media users with a handful of followers isn't something I'm interested in.

Reporting people

Unless someone says something so bad that they should be reported to an authority or their employer, I don't see the point.

Suppose someone makes a joke about a black child who has gone missing and suggests they'll be their house slave after they return.

I’m not making this one up.

On Facebook, a young Québécois woman wrote this about Ariel, a 10-year-old Montrealer who went missing a few years ago (and was never seen again).

Her Facebook page also displayed her employer's name (Lunetterie New Look). Her intelligence made her stand out in more than one way …

The screenshots disgusted me.

According to what I know, Facebook users sent New Look those screenshots, and they fired her the following day. There may be legal implications here regarding free speech and whether she was rehired, something I am not aware of.

Even if their behaviour isn't technically illegal, I'm not sad when people like that lose their jobs.

However, I imagine she received many threats online as well. No matter how disgusting someone's behaviour is, that doesn't fly with me.

The Court of Public Opinion

I think it is misguided to believe that putting someone in the hot seat of the comment section will make any significant change.

It's OK and healthy to express disagreement or to report people in extreme cases.

In contrast, the Court of Public Opinion should be reserved for those who abuse people and situations using their enormous influence and who have ample means to defend themselves.

This article was written in English. Any translation you may see is AI-generated.

To discuss your translation requirements, please connect with me here on LinkedIn , email [email protected] , or call +1 438 883 6989 (ET).