Social Media Vigilantism. Pros and Cons. 

 
Brick Bungalow
 
Avatar
 
 
Brick Bungalow
Total Posts:  5349
Joined  28-05-2009
 
 
 
27 June 2020 18:08
 


Pro:

*Social media has revealed a great deal of formerly covert racism, sexism and various other sorts of bigotry.
*People have a greater ability to locate a consensus of values and boundaries over greater distances.
*The leverage of public feedback puts pressure on companies and institutions to consider ethical norms more closely.
*The risk of public shame can motivate better behavior from people in public spaces.
*Institutions have a larger available database of perspectives to consider when making choices that affect a community.
*The historical value of public protest is empowered and supported by the ability to communicate sounds and images on portable devices.

Con:

*The internet tends toward the lowest common denominator with regard to both insight and compassion.
*Many people who participate in internet threads are not fact checking or even correcting for obvious logical contradictions
*Retribution is habit forming and quickly consumes a sober appreciation of justice
*Internet media is reverse engineered for confirmation bias and echo chambers
*Even when a manifestly guilty person is consequenced by online mob revenge a number of innocent people invariably get hurt.
*Vigilantes frequently sabotage formal legal recourse

 

 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  1262
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
27 June 2020 19:22
 

Con:

1. Social media has manufactured racism, sexism, and bigotry in a society where it is only an increasingly isolated problem.
2. People are as incapable of locating consensus as they have ever been—which has always been poor—and now they are even more provincial in their boundaries and values, making consensus even more elusive.
3. Decent people are afraid to engage in public spaces for fear of unjustified shaming.
4. Institutions are forced to reckon with opinions and perspectives that shouldn’t matter, but are amplified by a community that would best not exist; therefore—and regrettably—they have to be taken seriously.
5. Public protest is more mislead than ever by the artificial amplification of images through a communication network.  It’s availability and frequency bias on steroids, making protest a counterproductive mob all amped up over a manufactured problem.

Pro:

1. These people are the lowest common denominator. Now their commonness is exposed for all to see.
2. They don’t fact check; they are as ignorant as their internet threads; people will eventually catch on.
3. They’ve never cared about justice.  All they’ve done is hijack a morally unassailable cause in order to secure political power.  This will become clear in time too.
4. They make up guilt with manufactured imputations, then they lynch with an online mob.  Eventually people will tire of this, and cooler heads will prevail.
5. The woke and the social justice warriors are finally revealing their spots.  As more people see them, the more they will be discredited and thankfully dis-empowered.

 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6572
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
28 June 2020 09:35
 

Sorry I didn’t do a pros and cons list, I just had this thought:

Pejuritive terms aside, everyone should have a distaste for underinformed overreactors that go nuclear at the drop of a dime, but I’ve come to realize that it’s hard to have a meeting of the minds on facts when the disagreement is over a combination of knowledge, experience, and stats. Data without insight is rampant on hot blooded issues. What most people miss is that just the simple process of staying on issue is both hard enough AND more important than any conclusions on the hardest topics. One point or counterpoint slightly off topic is bad enough, but too many and it quickly devolves into a popularity contest for tourists.

 
 
MARTIN_UK
 
Avatar
 
 
MARTIN_UK
Total Posts:  5007
Joined  19-08-2010
 
 
 
28 June 2020 10:04
 
Jb8989 - 28 June 2020 09:35 AM

Sorry I didn’t do a pros and cons list, I just had this thought:

Pejuritive terms aside, everyone should have a distaste for underinformed overreactors that go nuclear at the drop of a dime, but I’ve come to realize that it’s hard to have a meeting of the minds on facts when the disagreement is over a combination of knowledge, experience, and stats. Data without insight is rampant on hot blooded issues. What most people miss is that just the simple process of staying on issue is both hard enough AND more important than any conclusions on the hardest topics. One point or counterpoint slightly off topic is bad enough, but too many and it quickly devolves into a popularity contest for tourists.

wink

 
Brick Bungalow
 
Avatar
 
 
Brick Bungalow
Total Posts:  5349
Joined  28-05-2009
 
 
 
28 June 2020 12:53
 
Jb8989 - 28 June 2020 09:35 AM

Sorry I didn’t do a pros and cons list, I just had this thought:

Pejuritive terms aside, everyone should have a distaste for underinformed overreactors that go nuclear at the drop of a dime, but I’ve come to realize that it’s hard to have a meeting of the minds on facts when the disagreement is over a combination of knowledge, experience, and stats. Data without insight is rampant on hot blooded issues. What most people miss is that just the simple process of staying on issue is both hard enough AND more important than any conclusions on the hardest topics. One point or counterpoint slightly off topic is bad enough, but too many and it quickly devolves into a popularity contest for tourists.

Absolutely. The value is almost entirely undermined by compulsive group think. I do think there is a potential utility which I’d to salvage. Like so many other issues I think it goes back to instilling a cultural appreciation for sound thinking methods.