We are witnessing increasing use of the Internet, particular social media, to criticize (perceived) moral failings and misdemeanors. This phenomenon of so-called ‘online public shaming’ could provide a powerful tool for reinforcing valuable social norms. But it also threatens unwarranted and severe punishments meted out by online mobs. Drawing on the work of John Locke, as well as on recent discussions of social norms, we analyze the dangers associated with the informal enforcement of norms, but ...
We are witnessing increasing use of the Internet, particular social media, to criticize (perceived) moral failings and misdemeanors. This phenomenon of so-called ‘online public shaming’ could provide a powerful tool for reinforcing valuable social norms. But it also threatens unwarranted and severe punishments meted out by online mobs. Drawing on the work of John Locke, as well as on recent discussions of social norms, we analyze the dangers associated with the informal enforcement of norms, but also highlight the promise of this practice. We then consider two crucial conditions that online public shaming must meet in order to be justifiable: proportionality and accountability. We argue that these requirements are in fact frequently violated, rendering most cases of online public shaming unjustified. While the use of online public shaming against others’ vices has some apparent virtues, it is currently rarely justified, given its own vices.
+
