Devorah Akhamzadeh

CST 300 Writing Lab

October 9, 2016

Ethics Report: Social Media Shaming

The rapid growth in technology has allowed for social media to gain much power as a

communication tool, with communication taking place in a matter of seconds. In a 2016 New

York Times article, it states that the normal person spends an average of 50 minutes a day on

Facebook alone, up 10 minutes from the 40 minutes per day in 2014 ​(Stewart, 2016)​. Adding in

the additional time for Whatsapp, Twitter, Snapchat, and Instagram, can accumulate to an

average of 1. 4 hours a day spent on social media sites​(Davidson, 2015)​. Youtube videos and

Facebooks pages can run up views in the millions, with Adele’s “Hello”, reaching 27.7 million

viewers in the first 24 hours alone ​(Groves, 2015)​ . These statistics coupled with the fact that

approximately 91 % of adults own cell phones, portrays a world where instantaneous

communication via the internet is a fact of life. ​(Rainie, Posts, & Bio, 2013)​.

As social media has become more prevalent in our society, it has taken a gradual yet

noticeable path towards social shaming. The most viral shaming experiences occurred against

people who had uttered a statement or acted in a way that was counter to the message of social

justice (Ronson, 2015). Be it exhibiting sexism, racism, or a trend towards dishonesty, social

justice warriors pounced on the “violator” and publicly shamed him or her until consequences

ensued or an apology was issued. In January 2015, Victor Paul Alvarez, a reporter for

Boston.com, posted an article questioning ​whether "anyone would notice if [Speaker of the

House] Boehner had been poisoned because Boehner's pickled liver could have filtered out the
toxins”​(Alvarez, 2015)​. Within a matter of hours, Alvarez’s post had spread, and by the next

morning Alvarez describes ​“I was called everything from a liberal hack to a fat Mexican on

Twitter. Mr. Boehner’s people call for my head.”​(Alvarez, 2015)​.

In his book, ​So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed, ​Jon Ronson describes the early 2010s as

“the start of a great renaissance of public shaming.”​(Ronson, 2015)​. In the late 2000s and early

2010s, social media users began grouping together and attacking those whom they deemed

counterproductive to social justice. The first cases involved LA Fitness, which was shamed

because they refused to cancel the membership of a couple who could not afford the gym

(Bachelor, 2012), and the Daily Mail, which ran into controversy while reporting on a gay couple

(Brook, 2009)​. Ronson explains the phenomenon as social media users thrived with the

immense power they wielded, and “hierarchies were being leveled out, the silenced were getting

a voice, [and] the democratization of justice [was occurring]” (Ronson, 2015).

Although social media shaming is a fairly new phenomena, it stems from an age-old

occurence of public shaming. In centuries past, communities would utilize the town square as a

means of public shaming; with wrongdoers, murders, treasonists, and the likes put in stocks and

pillories, whipped, and hanged, in front of the public. The colonial America’s justice system was

based on vengeance, making a wrongdoer pay for his/her misdeed. Yet an additional benefit,

taken into the account when preparing a punishment, was that of deterring others from

committing a similar crime. Thus, most of the punishments meted were of public nature, with

records numerating hundreds of colonial sinners forced to sit in the stocks in public view.

(“Colonial Crimes and Punishments,” n.d.)​. The guillotine employed by the French

Revolutionists’ followed a similar philosophy, by showcasing the guillotine and publicly cutting
of the heads of the royalty and bourgeois. ​Only in 1837 and 1839 was public punishment

abolished from the United Kingdom and the United States respectively ​(Woods, 2002)​.

Only in the twenty- first century, where citizens had the ability to publicly shame-

without involving any form of authority, did public shaming undergo a renaissance. Although

previously in the hands of authority, public shaming is now purely democratic in nature- with

any person capable of wielding the power of public shaming, even against the government;

whether to demand greater transparency or fight against its corruption. Additionally, the social

justice side of the issue is not new either. Social justice battles had previously been fought in

protests on college campuses in the twentieth century. That aspect of society has largely

migrated to an online platform since the advent of social media. Public shaming on social media

is a combination of the fight for social justice and the power of public shaming, both with a

heavy precedent.

Social media shaming covers a broad scope of people doing the actual shaming and those

individuals shamed. Yet, this report analyzes only shamers claiming to be “social justice

warriors”, those who value equality between race, gender, and social statues and are trying to

achieve social justice, in all areas of society. These shamers want individuals, companies,

politicians, and the media to reflect their values of social justice. Ronson explains that due to the

necessity of equality and the fact that it can only be achieved when there is a general consensus

towards it, leaves little room for difference of opinions (Ronson, 2015). Ta-Nehisi Coates, a

national correspondent for the Atlantic, explains the necessity for tolerance in speech:

“Tolerance is about warfare-it makes your army bigger than the other guy’s army. It gives you

access to weaponry that your enemies have seemingly never heard of” ​(Coates, 2016)​. Shamers
use claims of cause to explain the necessity for ridding society, and specifically the internet, of

offensive speech .Tolerance and acceptance, according to Coates and many other journalists and

social media users, is a matter of quantity more so than quality. The more people supporting and

tolerating, the closer the quest becomes to equality. The fewer people tolerating, the weaker the

resistance becomes. Therefore, shamers believe it is essential to rid the internet of harmful,

bigoted speech; with each offensive statement or action, society takes one step further away from

equality.

Unlike the shamers, the victims of shaming cannot be given one distinct label, as they do

not all fall under one category. The victims range from guity of minor offenses against the

public, such as Jonah Lehrer, who plagiarized and fabricated facts and Victor Paul Alvarez who

has no record of discrimination, aside from his one comment that the public decided to view as

indicative of his bigoted outlook. Yet these people receive the same public backlash as Ariel

Castro, a convicted kidnapper and rapist, whose actions prove his bigoted nature and his lack of

consideration for basic human rights. The victims do not share a common trait or value system,

yet they are all victims of shaming. This analysis focuses on the earlier mentioned victims, in

order to present an ethical dilemma, as the latter category, of Ariel Castro, does not present much

of an ethical dilemma, as it does an agreed upon basely immoral act.

An incident similar to that of Victor Paul Alvarez is that of Adam Mark Smith. In 2012,

Adam Mark Smith, a Chief Financial Advisor for a medical device firm, posted a YouTube

himself haranguing a Chik- Fil - A employee, exclaiming ​"Chick-Fil-A is a hateful

corporation… I don't know how you live with yourself and work here…you deserve better."​, as

part of a protest against Chick- Fil - A’s anti gay stance ​(News, 2015)​. Within a matter of hours,
Smith’s video went viral, and he was fired from his CFO position on the same day. The

consequences Smith suffered were brutal, including losing his job, reputation, and home, forcing

Smith, his wife and four children to move into an RV. Months later, Smith was offered a CFO in

a different state, only to be fired two weeks later when his new boss discovered he was “​the guy

from the Chick-Fil-A video”​(News, 2015)​. As of recent, ABC News posted a follow- up with

Smith, only to find that his family has been forced to live off of food stamps, due to Smith’s lack

of employment. Both Alvarez’s and Smith’s experiences are small glimpses of the larger trend of

present day social media shaming. Clearly, Smith’s video by most standards exhibited bigotry.

Yet, was is fair for Smith to receive such an extreme punishment for his one time rant, where he

was defending the gay population? And similarly was the extent of the backlash Alvarez got for

his ill received joke regarding John Boehner, warranted?

This issue regarding the ethics involved in the shaming trend, is further heightened by the

fact that there is no categorized distinction between the levels of offense. Both Victor Alvarez

and Adam Smith were publicly shamed for their online posts, and received virtually the same

public treatment as Bill Cosby, as convicted sex offender. Cosby would be not be hired should he

attempt to find a job, and he is looked down upon by the larger part of society. Technically, there

is no distinction between the consequences Alvarez, Smith, and Cosby bear. However, their

violations or offenses were so clearly on different scales. Cosby is allegedly guilty of rape,

drugging women, sexual assault and many other crimes that transgress basic human rights.

Alvarez is guilty of posting an offensive article, which he claims was supposedly a joke, and

Smith that of bigotry, which he claims was a stance against the company’s gay discrimination.

Yet, in the court of public opinion, the three men's’ verdicts appear eerily similar.
 In spite of the discussed cons, shaming cannot be instinctively labeled evil. For shaming

can be used to fight for the rights of disadvantaged humans, people who are suffering and and

not receiving their basic human rights. Technology provides empowerment to the powerless;

minorities and others traditionally seen as less-than now have a voice, thousands, if not millions,

of supporters, and can feel comfortable in their environment ​(Woodyatt, 2015)​ . In essence,

shame can serve as a check and deterrent against engaging in offensive, inappropriate or

damaging behavior. Due to the severe consequences of shaming, people fear the experiences,

thus making people automatically become more responsible with their words and actions. The

internet is absorbing the migration of social interactions, and shame is replacing the usual checks

that are present in face-to-face interactions. Dr. Whitney Phillips ​(Awl, 2012)​ , a sociology

professor at Humboldt State University, described the role as of shame much “like more

traditional offline deterrents...Online shaming allows certain individuals or groups to model what

is and is not acceptable within a specific cultural context.” Social injustices ignored by

mainstream media and the government can be highlighted through social media exposure. For

example, feminism has seen its revival on social media, and feminists can call out purveyors of

sexism or rape culture in the hopes of experiencing a more egalitarian society. “Hashtag

activism,” the social media version of activism, has pressured politicians into introducing

reforms that would have otherwise been ignored. Most importantly, public shaming can expose

government corruption, demand government transparency, bring down white collar criminals and

prosecute violators of basic human rights.

Both those shamed and those doing the shaming, work under some form of ethical

framework. Many of those shamed identify with the Natural Law theory that stem from stating
that a thirteenth century philosopher THomas Aquinas. Aquinas writes “the rule and measure of

human acts is the reason, which is the first principle of human acts” ​(“Natural Law,” n.d.)​.

Related to absolute relativism, the basis of this theory is that as humans created by God, we are

only meant to act in accordance with nature. Meaning that because human are created by God,

humans are inherently rational, and thus should behave according to their human nature. This

creates scenarios were morality and the ethical considerations are merely extracted from the

human nature, and deviant behaviour is only morally ‘wrong’ when measured against an

objective moral standard. This standpoint can cause its advocates to force their view onto others,

because their framework does not allow for a subjective, pluralist or relativist ethical framework.

However, others shamed believe in the Agent-Focused Consequentialism framework, which

measures actions according to their consequences and evaluates the immediate welfare of an

individual involved ​(“Understanding the Tools - SMU,” n.d.)​, which in this case is the shamed

individual. These individuals would argue that shaming produces a negative outcome, and

therefore the act of shaming is ethically objectionable.

Unlike those shamed, shamers operate under the cohesive ethical framework of Ethics of

Care, where they believe they can more easily champion social causes by shaming those who

claim values antithetical to their cause. This category of virtue ethics originates from feminists

and emphasizes “the importance of solidarity, community and relationships rather than universal

standards and impartiality”​(“Virtue Ethics - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy,”

n.d.)​ . It is based on the premise that traditionally valued masculine-based virtues, such as justice

and courage, should be set aside for the pursuit of feminine values, such as community, patience,

and caring for others. Ethics of Care advocates that people should place the interests of those
close or relatable to them before the interests of strangers. Carol Gilligan, one of the most

instrumental contributors to the Ethics of Care theory, delineated the basis of this theory: “In the

different voice of women lies the truth of an ethic of care, the tie between relationship and

responsibility, and the origins of aggression in the failure of connection” ​(Boyle, 1996)​.

Proponents of the Ethics of Care believe that the obligation to care exists where there is a

relationship, a need for care exists, and there is an ability to provide care.

With social media increasing the connections between people, the criteria for working

under the Care Ethics are easily met. Social media creates the relationship between people who

share a similar cause, for example feminism, and it lends the ability to provide the care, namely

the ability to publicly shame. Because the relationship between people of a cause exists, there is

an obligation to protect one another. When the individuals fighting for social justice form a

community, they implement an Ethics of Care system because of the collective responsibility

they hold towards one another. Thus, when someone displays values counter to their cause, every

member will immediately address the problem as an outcome of the collective responsibility they

feel. Ethics of Care emphasizes the care of individuals or groups closer to home or with a joint

cause before the care of strangers. Therefore, social media users will choose to defend their

cohorts instead of thinking about the consequences that will emerge for the stranger.

Public shaming encompasses both benefits and negative attributes. Some positivity

stemming from public shaming, is the awareness it creates regarding the racism and sexism

society faces. Additionally public shaming gives those whose voice was unheard, a platform to

broadcast their voices. However, the severe consequences that come in hand with social media

shaming, has destroyed lives. Due to the nature of the internet, there is no distinction or
subtleties, making it virtually impossible to proportionally measure the punishment a perceived

bigot should receive. Additionally, the public has rarely been forgiving; they have only forgotten,

but can easily remember. To social media users, the issue has become so black and white- either

the person is bigoted or is not- when in fact it is so nuanced and gray. Regulation is problematic

for two reasons: firstly, because it can infringe on First Amendment rights, and secondly,

because it is nearly impossible to create an objective standard of what constitutes shaming and

which shaming should be regulated.

In the process of developing a solution to the issue, one should could look for similar

issues and the successful methods used to resolve those issues. One such case brought about by

the normalization of the internet is that of cyberbullying. Unaware of the power and impact of

their words, and cloaked by anonymity, people use the internet as a means to hurt individuals.

Although cyberbullying is still occurring, the numerous awareness campaigns, as to the power

and harm inherent in cyberbullying has reduced the accounts ​(“School Bullying, Cyberbullying

Continue to Drop,” n.d.)​. Together schools, government officials, and parents have stood up

against the issue and worked to promote awareness as to its perils. Similarly, an awareness

campaign should be launched for that of social media shaming. Internet and social media users

need to know the dangers and consequences incurred by social shaming, and that good intentions

do not justify the severe outcomes those shamed face. However it is important to note, that

cyberbullying and social media are intrinsically different, for social media shaming usually

comes from a place of good intentions and not as a means or form of bullying. Therefore social

media shaming cannot be regulated, ast it would infringe on the social media user’s right to the

first amendment of freedom of speech.

 In addition to a shaming awareness campaign, there needs to be measures in place to

allow for those shamed to recover and rebuild what they have lost. Jared Rutledge and Jacob

Owens, who co-owned a coffee shop, were publicly shamed for following a playbook to bed

women and recording their exploits anonymously online. Shortly after being shamed, Rutledge

and Owens were ostracized and forced to close their coffee shop. Howard Hanger, a reverend of

a non denominational interfaith community, pointed out the injustice and the need for

forgiveness: “Do these guys deserve a good tongue lashing? Yes. And they got it. They’ve lost

the downtown coffee shop, business and the respect of the community. Now go ask them, ‘How

can I help you move on?” ​(Maxwell, 2015)​. Shamed individuals have an incredibly difficult time

recovering. The recent European “Right to be Forgotten” act can potentially help people recover

their internet reputation, but other damages still remains. People are more dimensional than one

comment or out-of-context behavior can ever express, and social media users need to be

conscious of that. Granted, people who were publicly shamed were sometimes guilty of

egregious offenses, such as Rutledge and Owens. However, the public leaves little room and is

fairly disinterested in their repentance. Shamers only destroy; they never fix. That is the crux of

the issue.

Although it may not be readily apparent, any form of ethical argument contains

assumptions and biases that underlie the writers recommendations. Personally, I have assumed

that many social media users reflect a strictly regimented morality of black and white. Similarly,

I have indicated both macro and micro biases in that may have swayed my recommendations.

Growing up, I attended an all-girls private school, with a predominantly white student body, as

such there was virtually no sexism or racism to contend with. The lack of exposure to minorities
on a daily basis, did not allow for me to see first hand the struggles minories undergo on a

constant basis. Additionally, through my research for this report and daily experience in general -

I have only met with those shamed and have yet to meet an actual shamer. Another important

and highly probable bias I hold on to, is that I myself, have experienced shame. Although the

shame I experienced was not due to social media, or on the catastrophic levels as those discussed

in this analysis, those shaming experiences may have caused biased tendencies towards the idea

of shaming.

There are dangers to eradicating public shaming, if that were even possible. The fear of

being publicly shamed does serve as a deterrent, and without it, people could abuse social media

to write offensive and harmful speech. Even if shaming does not eradicate the root of the

structural problem, it still prevents it from being perpetrated yet again. Social media users who

have the ability to write unchecked speech can mercilessly target minorities and disadvantaged

groups without any fear. With an absence of shaming, users will again feel comfortable to spout

bigotry. Even if the bigotry was intended as a joke, it can still offend the target of the joke.

Shaming regulates and curbs that behavior. Disregarding its consequences, the Internet has

become a safer place for traditional targets of bigotry, and shaming has played a crucial role in

that.

Despite the potential downsides to decreasing shaming, it is still worthwhile to be

cautious and judicious in situations that would call for public shaming. Firstly, although shaming

can act as a check for offensive speech and actions, it can also create a culture that curbs free

expression and forces conformity. Ronson quotes a man saying “I suddenly feel with social

media like I’m tiptoeing around an unpredictable, angry, unbalanced parent who might strike at
any moment” (Ronson, 2015). Initially, social media seems to promote freedom of expression.

With a person’s ability to craft a personality different than s/he presents him/herself in reality,

social media would ostensibly be a medium for nonconformity. However, shaming has instead

harnessed the power of social media and has acted as a silencer. “We see ourselves as

nonconformist,” Ronson writes, but in reality, social media has “created a more conformist,

conservative age” (Ronson, 2015).

Defenders of shaming, as noted above, have claimed that shaming has strengthened social

activism because the traditionally powerless are now armed. Social media has contributed to

highlighting the causes of social justice warriors, and it has been proven to be effective.

However, the shaming aspect is not vital to that function of social media. Viral culture and social

media wield far too much power over the life of an individual. Shaming has pulled apart people’s

lives. While it has made the internet a more comfortable space, it has also destroyed people’s

lives. People who have read Justine’s statement or Jonah’s books were not emotionally damaged

by their actions. But Justine, Jonah, and all the other victims were damaged- emotionally,

physically and financially, and with long-term effects. Is that fair treatment?

Shamers harness the power of the mob in their quest for vigilantism. Social activists

should learn to channel the power and sincerity of the crowd to make a positive mark. Instead of

shaming people into silence, educate and preach tolerance and respect. The world needs to be

more accepting- but that acceptance should come out of love and altruism, not out of fear and

conformity.
 References

Alvarez, V. P. (2015, February 10). I Was Fired from Boston.com for Way Lesser Journalism

Crimes Than Brian Williams. Retrieved October 8, 2016, from

http://observer.com/2015/02/i-was-fired-from-boston-com-for-way-lesser-journalism-crime

s-than-brian-williams/

Awl, T. (2012, December 19). The Internet’s Vigilante Shame Army. Retrieved October 9, 2016,

from ​https://theawl.com/the-internets-vigilante-shame-army-70646c1581b4

Boyle, A. M. (1996). FEMINIST GENERATIONS: THE PERSISTENCE OF THE RADICAL

WOMEN’S MOVEMENT . ​NWSA Journal: A Publication of the National Women’s Studies

Association​, ​8​(3), 166–171.

Brook, S. (2009, October 19). Jan Moir: more than 22,000 complain to PCC over Stephen Gately

piece. Retrieved October 9, 2016, from

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/oct/19/jan-moir-complain-stephen-gately

Coates, T.-N. (2016, October 9). The Importance Of Being Politically Correct. Retrieved

October 9, 2016, from

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2009/05/the-importance-of-being-politica

lly-correct/18471/

Colonial Crimes and Punishments. (n.d.). Retrieved October 8, 2016, from

http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/spring03/branks.cfm

Davidson, L. (2015, May 17). Is your daily social media usage higher than average? Retrieved

October 5, 2016, from

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/11610959/I
 s-your-daily-social-media-usage-higher-than-average.html

Groves, N. (2015, October 27). Adele’s Hello beats Taylor Swift's record for most-viewed video

in 24 hours. Retrieved October 5, 2016, from

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/oct/27/adeles-hello-beats-taylor-swifts-record-for-

most-viewed-video-in-24-hours

Maxwell, T. (2015, September 26). Forgiveness in a digital age of public shaming. Retrieved

October 9, 2016, from

http://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2015/09/26/waking-life-public-shaming/728

26726/

Natural Law. (n.d.). Retrieved October 9, 2016, from

http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/natural-law.htm

News, A. (2015, March 30). Former CFO on Food Stamps After Controversial Viral Video.

Retrieved October 9, 2016, from

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/cfo-food-stamps-controversial-viral-video/story?id=29533

695

Rainie, L., Posts, & Bio. (2013, June 6). Cell phone ownership hits 91% of adults. Retrieved

October 5, 2016, from

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/06/cell-phone-ownership-hits-91-of-adults/

Ronson, J. (2015). ​So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed​. Picador.

School Bullying, Cyberbullying Continue to Drop. (n.d.). Retrieved October 9, 2016, from

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/05/15/school-bullying-cyber-bullying-

continue-to-drop
Stewart, J. B. (2016). Facebook Has 50 Minutes of Your Time Each Day. It Wants More. ​The

New York Times​. Retrieved from

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/06/business/facebook-bends-the-rules-of-audience-engag

ement-to-its-advantage.html

Understanding the Tools - SMU. (n.d.). Retrieved October 9, 2016, from

https://www.smu.edu/Provost/Ethics/Resources/EthicsToolBox/UnderstandingtheTools/Kin

dsofEthicalTheories

Virtue Ethics - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy. (n.d.). Retrieved October 9,

2016, from ​http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_virtue_ethics.html

Woods, G. D. (2002). ​A History of Criminal Law in New South Wales: The Colonial Period,

1788-1900​. Federation Press.

Woodyatt, L. (2015). The power of public shaming, for good and for ill. Retrieved October 9,

2016, from

http://theconversation.com/the-power-of-public-shaming-for-good-and-for-ill-38920