In mid-2015, an Australian man was visiting a shopping mall nearby to his home in Melbourne, completely unaware that he was about to become the next victim of the vicious yet persistent Internet phenomenon known as trial by social media
Trial by social media refers to the proliferation of rumours and allegations across social media, accusing others of actions that they may or may not have committed. The social media community – more specifically those who choose to engage – act as judge, jury and executioner, without the formalities of a court trial.
In the digital realtime age of social media, such accusations can fly across the globe in a matter of clicks. And those at the receiving end – regardless of innocence – are left to deal with the very real consequences. Consequences that will often extend to both the online and offline worlds.
However, trial by social media or its consequences were most likely the furthest things from Scott’s mind that day in Melbourne. [Disclaimer: that’s not his real name.] His concerns that day were far more mundane while he browsed the usual slew of shopping mall stores looking for a gift for his partner.
During his shopping trip out however, Scott’s mind was, for a while, occupied with getting a “daggy” photo selfie in front of a large cardboard cutout of notorious Star Wars villain Darth Vader that was on show outside the local Target store that week promoting the upcoming movie in the franchise. A photo his three kids would have no doubt laughed at and jovially poked fun of. But also a photo that started an online ordeal Scott would most likely want to forget.
I was in two minds whether to take the selfie, but I thought it’ll be a good daggy dad joke.
He wasn’t aware that through a combination of incorrect assumptions, misunderstandings and of course the Internet, there was another photo of Scott at the shopping center that was about to make its way online. One that Scott didn’t take.
A mother who mistaken believed he was taking surreptitious snaps of her children at the shopping center had also snapped Scott with her own camera phone. Moments later she had posted it from her own Facebook account, branding him a “creep”.
Sponsored Content. Continued below...
According to the mother’s accusatory post, Scott had taken a photo of her children and told them he was “sending it to a 16 year old”. In reality, he had done none of those things. It was only after Scott had been alerted by a friend that had seen the post and his photo being shared on Facebook – along with its accompanying accusations – that Scott contacted the police and explained the situation. But not before the post had been shared thousands of times and had been seen by a number of friends and colleagues.
And not before Scott was branded a deviant and was even sent numerous death threats by disgusted social media users acting out of impulse rather than the facts.
Scott spoke to the police at length and even had his phone analysed, before being told that it was clearly a misunderstanding.
The evolution of social media as one of our primary ways of keeping in contact and sharing information is littered with examples exactly like this. A conduit so effective at disseminating information will have its advantages, and like this, its flaws. It’s another example that the baying mob around us all of the time can be roused with a single post and no verification.
Sponsored Content. Continued below...
The mother who uploaded the photo has since apologised, but retractions never get the same response as the accusations. Just like a front page headline can be retracted on a small corner of page 6, only a fraction of people will end up actually seeing both.
Don’t fuel the fire. Before you hit share, ask yourself if you know the information you’re sharing is completely accurate, and imagine yourself the unintended target and how’d you like it if others shared your information without knowing the facts.
We discuss three examples of social media witch hunts gone wrong in our blog post here which we recommend for some further reading.
