argument top image

Is social media outrage a positive force in society? Show more Show less
Back to question

The age-old maxim goes, "if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention". This has never been more applicable. Nothing drives social media engagement like outrage and social media platforms have embraced models designed to inflame and spark anger. The success of positive social and political movements like #MeToo and the Arab Spring largely stem from social media outrage but is it a positive societal force, or a dangerous sociological weapon that can destroy as fast as it creates?

Social media outrage is good Show more Show less

Social media outrage spurs political change by increasing political and social participation.
(1 of 3) Next position >

Social media outrage offers a mechanism for accountability

Social media outrage, like the mainstream media and other institutions, offers an additional mechanism for accountability.
< (3 of 3) Next argument >

Context

Social media platforms seize control of the narrative from the political elite and the heads of national media outlets. Social media outrage, therefore, cannot be controlled by governments, making it the ideal tool to hold them to account.

The Argument

Recently, the government in Brunei introduced a law that would punish gay sex with stoning. Keyboard warriors from across the globe immediately took to social media to condemn the decision and before long the hashtag #BoycottBrunei had gained traction.[1] The incident illustrates how social media outrage can hold governments to account for unjust policies that run roughshod over human rights and civil freedoms and punish political agents that offend the public sense of morality. It isn't just governments that can be held to account on social media. It can also function as a corrective or punitive mechanism for those who have escaped civil or legal justice. For example, after fatally shooting 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, Florida's George Zimmerman was acquitted of second-degree murder charges and manslaughter, prompting social media outrage [2].

Counter arguments

Social media outrage that is directed towards government and political figures is rarely constructive. For every incident of outrage about a policy that breaches human rights, there are 1,000 trivial incidents that do political damage to politicians for no reason. We only have to look at the social media outrage surrounding Labour leader Ed Milliband eating a bacon sandwich to see how this outrage is most often deployed.[3] Social media outrage can derail a politician's career for eating a bacon sandwich, eating fried chicken with a fork[4], or for Tweeting their own name by mistake.[5] It is hard to see how this has improved society and politics.

Premises

[P1] Social media outraged is often used to hold politicians to account. [P2] This extra mechanism of accountability is of benefit to society.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejectin P1] Social media outrage is more often used to derail a politician's career for arbitrary reasons. [Rejecting P2] As a result, it does far more harm than good to the political narrative and conversation.

References

  1. https://www.france24.com/en/20190329-george-clooney-calls-boycott-brunei-owned-hotels-over-countrys-anti-gay-law
  2. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/17/opinion/blow-the-curious-case-of-trayvon-martin.html
  3. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ed-miliband-bacon-sandwich_n_5bbe27b0e4b01470d0580898
  4. https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/commentary/presidential-campaign-media-coverage-warren-klobuchar-gillibrand-fried-chicken-20190212.html
  5. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/28/ed-balls-day-how-the-former--shadow-chancellor-became-twitters-f/

Vote

Not sure yet? Read more ↑

Discuss

This page was last edited on Monday, 14 Sep 2020 at 13:19 UTC

Explore related arguments