Karma vs. Shame



   In his TedTalk, Jon Ronson brings up one of the most important, and true, points that relate to social media. The very first minute in, Ronson says, "voiceless people realized that they had a voice". That caught my attention immediately because that is one of the main things I constantly see on Twitter. Twitter, and so many other social media sites, revolve around one major thing; people giving their opinions. Their "voice" is their opinionated and biased tweets-- which are usually a response to something in the news, or something someone else tweeted. Ronson uses the example of, "if a newspaper ran some racist or homophobic column, we realized we could do something about it. We could get them". It's one hundred percent true. For example, log onto Twitter and search up Donald Trump's profile. Click on any of his tweets (seriously, any), and the replies are all over the place. Because most people dislike Trump for the nasty person he is, the replies are constantly tearing him down and calling him out. It's all far from positive; it's all people trying to get him out of office.
   Five minutes into his TedTalk, Ronson's focused on the topic of how sometimes it goes too far. Ronson says, "But she wasn't fine, because while she slept, Twitter took control of her life and dismantled it piece by piece", which I half agree with, half don't. In the case of Justine Sacco, I don't feel bad that she had such a negative experience with the reactions that came from Twitter users. Sometimes, especially in the case of what happened to Justine and what she had tweeted, the person deserves that bad feedback. They need to know and understand that despite Twitter (and other sites) being only social media platforms, you cannot be an ugly, nasty person. Her tweet was out of line and not funny, or cute, at all. People who tweet such vile things, like Justine did, need to learn that you cannot get away with it; no matter where, or how, it is said.
   But, the name calling and nasty tweets towards people, like Justine, is just plain hypocrisy. People will go after her for being nasty, while being nasty themselves. Just because a person tweets, or says, something negative, bashing and constantly attacking them is not the way to handle it. I think the best, and most effective, way of handling an issue like this is to calmly talk to the person; be civil over tweets. I think it's best to tell them why what they said was wrong, because then you're not being a hypocrite; you're doing the right thing. 
   Online shaming can definitely go too far. When you become the nasty person you're trying to correct, that's when you need to step back and remind yourself that you're better than that. Looking like a hypocrite (and being one) isn't going to help your case at all. The best way to do it is be civil; you look mature, educated, and you're more than likely going to get through to the person who did wrong!
Image result for hypocrisy

Comments

  1. The problem is that it wasn't just bad feedback she got; she lost her job and got death threats as a result. Is free speech, no matter how nasty it may be, really warrant a death sentence? She didn't threaten anyone.

    It seems to me that the main problem lies in what happened to people like Justine Sacco, who was tried, found guilty and executed in the public's eye before she even had a chance to defend herself. It's that very group think mob mentality that comes from anonymity on Twitter that make it so dangerous. It's also pretty Unamerican if you think about it; aren't we supposed to believe in the presumption of innocence?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment