Main Edition
US
FR
August 8, 2023 - 3:00pm
From the high-octane world of auto racing to the hallowed halls of academia, the digital footprint of public figures remains under microscopic scrutiny. When top-division NASCAR driver Noah Gragson recently hit the “like” button on a meme involving George Floyd, he likely didn’t foresee the indefinite suspension that would follow. Similarly, Thomas Jefferson University’s President Mark Tykocinski finally resigned from his leadership position after facing severe repercussions, not for words of his own, but for a series of tweets about Covid-19 vaccines and gender reassignment surgery that he “liked” three months ago.
Hollywood big shots weren’t spared either; Jennifer Aniston came under fire after she liked an Instagram post by Jamie Foxx about the murder of Jesus by his “fake friends” that was perceived as antisemitic. Across these instances, the narrative is clear: in our interconnected digital age, even the seemingly innocuous act of liking a post can come with a hefty price tag, costing everything from clout to a career.
Social media has evolved into a public court where personal beliefs are tried against the collective conscience. Recall the storm already brewing in 2013: Justine Sacco’s ill-conceived tweet about Africa and AIDS set a precedent for how social missteps can lead to widespread outrage. Following in that trail, even seasoned politicians and renowned celebrities such as Ted Cruz and Samuel L. Jackson have seen their NSFW post “likes” spiral into controversies. Amid this decades-long whirlwind of reactions, it’s worth reflecting: are we genuinely offended? Or are we caught in a media-induced frenzy, hungry to express our outrage before understanding context?
Consider the curious case of Douglas Mackey, known online by his “poster handle” of Ricky Vaughn. As proven during the federal trial in which Mackey — whom I interviewed on a handful of prior occasions — was convicted earlier this year of “conspiracy against rights”, he and other Twitter users conspired to deceive Hillary Clinton supporters by spreading the false idea of voting via text. Yet, while the coordinated online deception was clearly wrong, it’s worth asking if his punishment matched the crime or if he was merely a scapegoat in a broader media spectacle.
More than that, it’s evident that not everyone fully grasps the intricacies and implications of social media. Those from the same generation as 54-year-old Aniston might not be as fluent in extremely online etiquette as younger counterparts, even if it is just liking a friend’s post. Ditto Foxx, who may lack the know-how to translate his offline thoughts and feelings into properly-constructed, safe-for-work posts (hence the need for publicity teams, but even they can mess up).
Having navigated the ever-shifting landscape of journalism for years, I’ve personally witnessed and sometimes even partaken in this cycle. Back in 2016, I found myself on an assignment for Vice, combing through Palmer Luckey’s tweets, searching for the slightest hint of an “alt-Right” association. The task, though easy enough to do, underscored an ugly reality for me: there is an insatiable appetite for a stage-managed scandal.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe“Back in 2016, I found myself on an assignment for Vice, combing through Palmer Luckey’s tweets, searching for the slightest hint of an “alt-Right” association.“
This is the lightbulb moment you realize you’re profession has lost all credibility.
Finding oneself working for Vice should have been the lightbulb moment.
Vice used to be good before it got into pious judgmentalism.
It may have been a Free Press article if not Unherd (or maybe another substack-type publication), but a former Vice journalist talked about the demise. If I recall correctly, they were purchased by a larger organization or had an IPO or something of that nature. Thus, were less willing to pay for the incredible frontline coverage that made the source popular in the first place. So, they began churning out the incendiary clickbait and sponsored content (i.e. propaganda) produced by MSM nowadays. It’s tempting to see some nefarious conspiracy, but at the end of the day I think it’s all just economical.
I wish I could find the article; it was a great read. I really enjoyed Vice when it was new. It was old school front-line journalism, and I bet those journalists were grateful for what was probably the last chance for that kind of journalism for the foreseeable future.
It may have been a Free Press article if not Unherd (or maybe another substack-type publication), but a former Vice journalist talked about the demise. If I recall correctly, they were purchased by a larger organization or had an IPO or something of that nature. Thus, were less willing to pay for the incredible frontline coverage that made the source popular in the first place. So, they began churning out the incendiary clickbait and sponsored content (i.e. propaganda) produced by MSM nowadays. It’s tempting to see some nefarious conspiracy, but at the end of the day I think it’s all just economical.
I wish I could find the article; it was a great read. I really enjoyed Vice when it was new. It was old school front-line journalism, and I bet those journalists were grateful for what was probably the last chance for that kind of journalism for the foreseeable future.
Vice used to be good before it got into pious judgmentalism.
Strange choice of words, like he just woke while sleepwalking and was surprised to find he was reading tweets for suggestions of Wrongthink to report to the Star Chamber.
I think you’re right. As a journalist, it would be such a degrading thing to do.
I think you’re right. As a journalist, it would be such a degrading thing to do.
I’m astonished he admitted to that. Did he apologize ? To simply drop that as an afterthought ? WTF?
Finding oneself working for Vice should have been the lightbulb moment.
Strange choice of words, like he just woke while sleepwalking and was surprised to find he was reading tweets for suggestions of Wrongthink to report to the Star Chamber.
I’m astonished he admitted to that. Did he apologize ? To simply drop that as an afterthought ? WTF?
“Back in 2016, I found myself on an assignment for Vice, combing through Palmer Luckey’s tweets, searching for the slightest hint of an “alt-Right” association.“
This is the lightbulb moment you realize you’re profession has lost all credibility.
One thing that is becoming increasingly clear about American celebrities is that they are spineless cowards. Why can’t they ever have the strength of their convictions and tell the perpetually offended to go f*** themselves? If they lose a little work, big deal. It’s not like they’ll starve.
It’s one of the more pathetic things about this trend. I can have sympathy for those who work a day job, have a mortgage/rent and actually need to make decisions about what brands of food they can afford for climbing down in the face of cancellation. Whether right or not, it is at least a pragmatic decision.
Celebrities have the privilege to fight back with relative financial impunity – they’re not choosing that, they’re choosing popularity and ego.
They are losing in the popularity stakes too though.
That’s true, but it seems to be their peers they crave the respect of, not the people who buy and support their products.
That’s true, but it seems to be their peers they crave the respect of, not the people who buy and support their products.
Agreed 100%.
They are losing in the popularity stakes too though.
Agreed 100%.
Quite right. I thing the grovelling apologies are despicable and, apart from anything else, these don’t work.
It’s one of the more pathetic things about this trend. I can have sympathy for those who work a day job, have a mortgage/rent and actually need to make decisions about what brands of food they can afford for climbing down in the face of cancellation. Whether right or not, it is at least a pragmatic decision.
Celebrities have the privilege to fight back with relative financial impunity – they’re not choosing that, they’re choosing popularity and ego.
Quite right. I thing the grovelling apologies are despicable and, apart from anything else, these don’t work.
One thing that is becoming increasingly clear about American celebrities is that they are spineless cowards. Why can’t they ever have the strength of their convictions and tell the perpetually offended to go f*** themselves? If they lose a little work, big deal. It’s not like they’ll starve.
I imagine the next phase in this Clown World purity spiral will be pile-ons of people who fail to dislike a supposedly ‘problematic’ post.
Indeed so. It is also quite possible to live perfectly well without any presence at all in mainstream social media.
Indeed so. It is also quite possible to live perfectly well without any presence at all in mainstream social media.
I imagine the next phase in this Clown World purity spiral will be pile-ons of people who fail to dislike a supposedly ‘problematic’ post.
Employers are panicked not so much by “public reaction” but by targeted campaigns by small groups of activists who don’t actually represent that much of the public.
Employers are panicked not so much by “public reaction” but by targeted campaigns by small groups of activists who don’t actually represent that much of the public.
‘… he and other Twitter users conspired to deceive Hillary Clinton supporters by spreading the false idea of voting via text.’
Surely if you fell for that one, you should probably not be allowed to vote in the first place.
There is no low bar to voting. I’d even settle for a statistical one: salt ballots with several fake candidates and initiatives. Anyone who votes for any of these gets their ballot thrown out.
I remember listening to an interview with a Judge years ago who held an elected judgeship. He was older, had had a long career in jurisprudence and according to both the interviewer and himself (and my own recollection) had never been involved in any kind of public scandal or serious controversy. It was a boring judgeship. And as these go, mostly these guys run unopposed. When they retire someone will decide to step up and run and maybe occasionaly someone will run against one on some issue that gets public attention.
Anyway, in the race that just happened this guy had an opponent. Somebody filed to run against him out of nowhere. His opponent ran no campaign. Did not submit even a sentence of a statement of who he was or why he was running. He just paid the filing fee that automatically put his name on the ballot. He was completely unknown. The judge tried to look him up – he wasn’t even a lawyer (it’s not a requirement). He wasn’t a discernible person.
The judge won the race. But by the barest of margins. What he said stuck with me. He assumed he had no plausible enemies in any numbers and so the votes for this other guy were entirely random. The marginal difference must be the people who actually knew who he was – that he was an actual judge. All the others were randomly voting which gave him half their vote and half to the other guy.
That’s why I came up with the idea of salting ballots with phony candidates and throwing out ones with evidence of random voting.
A good notion in theory, but deliberate attempts at deception, however well-intended, seem like a bad, and “legality challenged” thing to build into the system.
I’m not someone who supports increased turnout as an end in itself, so I’d like to see a systematic, non-partisan way to discourage–but not invalidate–dumb votes.
A literacy test has too fraught a history (Jim Crow South), but some kind of a self check box: “I have studied the issues and candidates over at least two total hours and feel that I am informed enough to make a sensible vote”. Without stripping fibbers of their votes, test questions could be used to see how many knew the basics of what at stake. Then they could “shame” the populace or maybe even individual by publishing the percentage of ignorance or sending individual “citizenship fail” texts to the clueless.
American’s would never accept such interference though, and I’m not sure they should, my idea isn’t quite right either. Too weird and invasive. But I reject the notion that more votes is intrinsically favorable, and not only because I am somewhat of an elitist, though not a fan of most members or practices among our current elites–corporate, academic, economic, fame-based–or a one-percenter or anything like that.
A good notion in theory, but deliberate attempts at deception, however well-intended, seem like a bad, and “legality challenged” thing to build into the system.
I’m not someone who supports increased turnout as an end in itself, so I’d like to see a systematic, non-partisan way to discourage–but not invalidate–dumb votes.
A literacy test has too fraught a history (Jim Crow South), but some kind of a self check box: “I have studied the issues and candidates over at least two total hours and feel that I am informed enough to make a sensible vote”. Without stripping fibbers of their votes, test questions could be used to see how many knew the basics of what at stake. Then they could “shame” the populace or maybe even individual by publishing the percentage of ignorance or sending individual “citizenship fail” texts to the clueless.
American’s would never accept such interference though, and I’m not sure they should, my idea isn’t quite right either. Too weird and invasive. But I reject the notion that more votes is intrinsically favorable, and not only because I am somewhat of an elitist, though not a fan of most members or practices among our current elites–corporate, academic, economic, fame-based–or a one-percenter or anything like that.
There is no low bar to voting. I’d even settle for a statistical one: salt ballots with several fake candidates and initiatives. Anyone who votes for any of these gets their ballot thrown out.
I remember listening to an interview with a Judge years ago who held an elected judgeship. He was older, had had a long career in jurisprudence and according to both the interviewer and himself (and my own recollection) had never been involved in any kind of public scandal or serious controversy. It was a boring judgeship. And as these go, mostly these guys run unopposed. When they retire someone will decide to step up and run and maybe occasionaly someone will run against one on some issue that gets public attention.
Anyway, in the race that just happened this guy had an opponent. Somebody filed to run against him out of nowhere. His opponent ran no campaign. Did not submit even a sentence of a statement of who he was or why he was running. He just paid the filing fee that automatically put his name on the ballot. He was completely unknown. The judge tried to look him up – he wasn’t even a lawyer (it’s not a requirement). He wasn’t a discernible person.
The judge won the race. But by the barest of margins. What he said stuck with me. He assumed he had no plausible enemies in any numbers and so the votes for this other guy were entirely random. The marginal difference must be the people who actually knew who he was – that he was an actual judge. All the others were randomly voting which gave him half their vote and half to the other guy.
That’s why I came up with the idea of salting ballots with phony candidates and throwing out ones with evidence of random voting.
‘… he and other Twitter users conspired to deceive Hillary Clinton supporters by spreading the false idea of voting via text.’
Surely if you fell for that one, you should probably not be allowed to vote in the first place.
“ Social media has evolved into a public court where personal beliefs are tried against the collective conscience. ”
I’d say devolved. Just stop participating!!
“ Social media has evolved into a public court where personal beliefs are tried against the collective conscience. ”
I’d say devolved. Just stop participating!!
Could someone explain to me how anyone knows that any you’ve ‘Liked’ a Tweet? Obviously if you reTweet it, it’s obvious, but I assumed that Likes were anonymous. Please let me know if I’m wrong!
The entire purpose of all social media is to track, measure, file and monetize every click or key stroke you make.
Sure – I realise that. But how does an ordinary Tweeter (X-er?) discover who’s liked a particular Tweet?
I’d also like to know how the whistle-blowers (fault- finding scrutinizers) pierced the veneer of anonymity. Inside source? Or maybe skilled hackers can access social media “like histories” at will.
I’d also like to know how the whistle-blowers (fault- finding scrutinizers) pierced the veneer of anonymity. Inside source? Or maybe skilled hackers can access social media “like histories” at will.
Sure – I realise that. But how does an ordinary Tweeter (X-er?) discover who’s liked a particular Tweet?
The entire purpose of all social media is to track, measure, file and monetize every click or key stroke you make.
Could someone explain to me how anyone knows that any you’ve ‘Liked’ a Tweet? Obviously if you reTweet it, it’s obvious, but I assumed that Likes were anonymous. Please let me know if I’m wrong!
The smartest guy here, seems to have been Mark Hamill, who not only liked a JKR tweet, but managed to convince his fanbase that he had butter-fingers or a senior moment.
The smartest guy here, seems to have been Mark Hamill, who not only liked a JKR tweet, but managed to convince his fanbase that he had butter-fingers or a senior moment.
I remember when the internet was this beacon of free speech, a forum where anyone could say anything. If it proves anything, it’s the age-old adage that any thesis taken to its extremes becomes its own antithesis.
Indeed. Your informal thesis seems to both prove nothing and sum up everything at the same time. Just kidding, I liked it. Total anonymity is obviously not a reality–and perhaps that’s good. But there should be more forceful questioning of the motives, agendas, and methods behind public shaming of this kind.
Indeed. Your informal thesis seems to both prove nothing and sum up everything at the same time. Just kidding, I liked it. Total anonymity is obviously not a reality–and perhaps that’s good. But there should be more forceful questioning of the motives, agendas, and methods behind public shaming of this kind.
I remember when the internet was this beacon of free speech, a forum where anyone could say anything. If it proves anything, it’s the age-old adage that any thesis taken to its extremes becomes its own antithesis.
First world problems – just get off the damned things – not needed
I just did – yesterday. Deleted accounts
I gave up Twitter “for Lent” (I’m not religious, I just thought it was a good excuse to have a rest from it.) I just didn’t go back. I really don’t miss it, and feel less stressed about things I can’t actually control, anyway.
I gave up Twitter “for Lent” (I’m not religious, I just thought it was a good excuse to have a rest from it.) I just didn’t go back. I really don’t miss it, and feel less stressed about things I can’t actually control, anyway.
I just did – yesterday. Deleted accounts
First world problems – just get off the damned things – not needed