Twitter Outrage and My Grande Disillusion

As the Internet offers the distinct ability to interact without direct confrontation, how one conducts themselves on it is seemingly without consequence. Or at least this is assumed to be the sentiment shared by those who use its secure vantage point to broadcast hatred and insolence to a potentially limitless audience of groups and individuals who may or may not be deeply offended. Recently, there has arisen a disturbing trend of people, particularly teenagers, using social media platforms such as Twitter to voice their most intolerant and abhorrent of views. This quickly gained attention after a mass of tweets were published around the time of the US Presidential Election that expressed extreme racially-charged vitriol against Barrack Obama. And so, a contrary movement has sprung forth among "Internet vigilantes" whose aim is to expose the offenders and avenge their wrongdoings by use of public shaming. Ostensibly, this measure serves not only as  punishment, but also to prevent the occurrence of further "hate speech" as it were. Responses to this practise, as I have observed in related articles and their respective comment threads, have been largely polarised. While there are many ardent supporters, urging the importance of teens facing repercussions for their online actions, usually informed by some form of "don't dish it out if you cant take it" posture, others strongly disagree, suggesting that their age should permit them to make mistakes and that exposing them will only bring about more aggression. My stance however, may not be as decisive, and is as follows; though I find the public shaming efforts to be wildly misguided, I also see no reason or comprehensible method to protect the teens in question.



One example of the "Tweets" in question

Firstly, it should be noted that the practise of public shaming and humiliation is highly controversial on ethical grounds, and its effectiveness as a deterrent for bad behaviour is dubious as best. Though some studies have shown it to be useful in preventing criminal behaviour among adults, it is almost universally rejected by professionals with regards to being used on children. Even so, there is little grounds for comparison to almost any research on the subject as the circumstances surrounding this issue are so vastly different, to the degree where it begs the question of whether re-circulating racist Tweets can even be classified as such. Traditionally, "public shaming" involves exposing people for committing crimes that they would feel shame for. Quite differently, in these instances the "crimes" being exposed are by nature of their execution, intended for public viewing. Yes, the tweets that are receiving attention on shaming sites and articles were first obtained from publicly accessible Twitter accounts, and thus any notions of privacy invasion can be quickly abandoned.



Typical responses display lack of remorse

 

I actually do think shame is an important and increasingly underused societal tool ('m not even opposed to the "dog poop girl" tactic), but the sheer confidence and steadfastness with which these tweets are delivered suggests a resilience to such application. In the cases I have seen, directly critical replies are met with no visible remorse whatsoever, and its even harder to imagine what little effect the distribution and viewing of said tweets among  a silent, faceless Internet jury would have. And however vile the Tweets may be, I am also somewhat bothered with the fervent efforts put forth by the shamers . As one online commenter so eloquently put it;

“ I can't help suspecting that the business of "shaming" is akin to the same warped impulse that instigates bullying. Nothing justifies hectoring and scolding like the Moral High Ground, and racism is the lazy moralist's platform of choice. ANYTHING done in the service of correcting racism is apparently justified, as though remarks (racist or otherwise) made by teenagers via social media are anything we should take notice of at all."- Semoco, can be accessed in comment thread here

So, perhaps if nothing else, this activity can provide the "shamer" a feeling of semi-satisfaction, knowing that they at at least addressed the issue of racism in some way, though each racist remark in and of its self  may have little bearing on any ones well being. Jezebel, which has been at the forefront of this humiliation campaign, actually contacted the schools of several of the culprits. Among the  schools that did respond, a general displeasure with the tweets was expressed, and some stated that disciplinary actions would be taken.  Though not overly encouraging, one would think this method is more likely to yield actual results. However, when combined with the voyeurist shaming aspect, it sends mixed messages. What are your priorities, Jezebel? And I would ask the same of Matt Binder, creator of the  popular and aptly named tumblr blog Public Shaming, who along with exposing racial hatred and staggering elitism is going after tweets that aren't even particularly offensive, such as those displaying the failure to know when John Lennon died. When exposing real societal issues is accompanied with the relentless desire to simply make fun of the stupidity of others, is the moral intention not blurred?

Is this worthy of public shaming?



 Purveyors of the opposition seem to be just as deluded, however. In the article Hey Internet, Quit Outing Kids for Racism, Slate contributor Emily Bazelon expresses her dismay with public shaming sites and Internet vigilante-ism , quoting fellow Slate journalist Emily Yoffe in saying “these sites are pinning kids like butterflies as permanent racists", and may have a detrimental to their career opportunities. While this remains to be seen, I would argue that to display such complete and utter moral bankruptcy evident in the tweets should bring a negative effect. Furthermore, its hard not to notice the subtle hypocrisy at work. While she stresses the notion of protecting the "kids" from said exposure, the article itself is simply attracting more views to very sites she renounces. The same can be said about Bust magazines Genevieve Bleidner, who in her article entitled Public Shaming Tumblr Outs Internet Assholes: Lose-Lose?  goes as far as to make a comparison to the shaming of Amanda Todd, but then shares the screen shots from Twitter, name and all included, further shedding light on the potential victims of harassment. And apart from writing about it, what possible method is there to thwart this type of retaliation. There is little find a legal basis for intervention, as I have stated previously that these tweets were made public to begin with. Even a site like Hello There, Racists, which compiles personal information about the posters, is only doing so by means of referencing their active Twitter and Facebook accounts. Furthermore, if someone is allowed to voice their opinions, however reprehensible, others should and do have the right to respond by referencing those opinions. Indeed, almost as Newton's third law of motion would dictate, for every action of a racist twitter user, there seems to be an equal and opposite reaction by angry / opportunistic bloggers.

Hey Slate, Quit Outing Kids for Racism

 My bitter rejection of both camps may come across simply as stoic pessimism, but let me assure you otherwise.  While I find most voices within  this uproar to be uninformed and largely inconsequential, I do think the issue at large is one worth discussing, and that course of events that has transpired is one that will only give us more frame of reference for future struggles. My final analysis? Though in varying proportions, the twitter offenders, the vigilantes, and the journalists who criticise them all appear to have common motivator; the incessant need for attention.







-Connor Dennehy