Thoughts on the rampant dependence on social media as an adjudicator of justice
It usually starts with a buzz, most often on Twitter. Someone shares a message alleging that a person or organisation has wronged, hurt, or taken advantage of them or someone they know. The personalities involved may be known or unknown, but the details of the matter are so sensational that most people become immediately interested. Bear in mind that the majority of these online bystanders have absolutely no background information as to the events that led to the matter and as such, may not be able to provide an informed opinion.
Very quickly, that tweet takes on a life of its own. It floats all the way to Instagram and Facebook, changing forms as people either add to or subtract from it. The initial story, like a caterpillar, morphs into a butterfly or a moth depending on who is looking. Then from Instagram and Facebook, it finds its way into WhatsApp, where it spreads quickly like a deadly virus from chat to chat, group to group. And not forgetting the blogs that pick the news from various social media platforms, galloping away in the race for viewership.
Like the wildfire that it has become, it spreads from the various social media platforms to traditional media. The print media: newspapers and magazines, not wanting to be outdone, quickly reproduce the news sometimes without verification. It could even take pride of place on Page Three, and if the matter rings significantly within society, it could be the cover story. Trust the breakfast morning crew on various television stations not to be left out, as the anchors fervently share their opinions while dissecting the topic. The radio stations would be in the race as well, as they open the phone lines to listeners with front row seats in the matter. In turn, many traditional media platforms share this news on their social media handles.
The people, having been summoned across all the various media platforms, lend their voices to the discussion. Everyone and their cats weigh in on the matter, after all, this information was presented to us unsolicited. Surely, we have a right to present our opinions, whether they be informed, uneducated, or even pretentious? There is no limit to what people say as they share unbridled opinions, their keypads amplifying their thoughts like their mouths could never do.
Every time a random person breaks some news online, I wonder, what is their intention? Do they plan to inform us of the matter? Have we been retained as witnesses to the allegation? Is the plan to galvanise support in seeking justice for the matter? Is it even to trend? Has this news been shared on the appropriate platform and before the right audience? Have they exhausted all the available channels in seeking redress?
In thinking about how people sought resolution of their issues outside formal processes before the advent of social media or even how people with no access to social media currently seek issue resolution, some images come to mind. A woman screaming her lungs out as she rolls on the floor because she has been cheated out of a lot of money. A man standing outside his former employer’s premises threatening to bring down fire and brimstone as he believes his employment has been wrongfully terminated. The family destroying property and equipment at the hospital where their child has just died because they believe the medical practitioners were negligent. These aren’t just random happenings; they have happened before.
For many, seeking resolution of issues on social media is just an extension of what they have always done and still do offline: taking matters into our hands. The first thought is to handle issues through personal means as some believe that is the only way to resolve matters. But why don’t we direct our issues to law enforcement, relevant regulatory agencies, or the court system? Why must we rush online to share matters that should be handled professionally?
One reason could be a lack of awareness about the various formal establishments and processes that exist to address issues. For example, how many people are aware that public and private helplines exist to report issues, either directly with the establishments we are in contention with or with law enforcement?
It could also be that people are aware of the formal steps to resolve issues but either from personal experience did not get the response they expected or from reported speech, heard about the futility in pursuing a formal process. This stems from a lack of trust in the system as their initial experience testing the formal process most likely did not end in their satisfaction.
Another issue is that the amount of time and stress involved in seeking resolution, as far as many are concerned, does not justify following formal means. Taking a matter before the police, for example, has its attendant constraints with the time required to conduct investigations and other informal requirements and expectations that have made many lose hope in that institution. And when it comes to the law courts, many have noted that the time it takes to go through the process till judgment is served and then enforced, can be a burden. A final issue could also be the cost of seeking legal redress as not many may be able to retain a lawyer’s services. For such people, the Office of the Public Defender could be a good place to start, but how many people know this is available?
At the end of the day, social media does have its uses as it could help amplify an issue that attracts the attention that may lead to its resolution. However, people must understand that resolution would always be achieved by following the established formal processes. Yes, some of the formal institutions have their lapses but people still need to learn that their chances of success are potentially higher through formal means. Running to social media should not be the first thing people do except they have tried all available means, hit a stumbling block, and need help pushing past their challenge.
There is no joy in sharing your personal affairs before a diverse online audience as people will only ever respond through the lens of their biases and limited information. We need more people to test formal systems and stretch these agencies. People should adopt formal processes as the first point of call and allow the law to take its full course. The matter that has been tabled before the court of public opinion can only be addressed before the established agencies of resolution. The sooner we realise this, the more likely we can achieve issue resolution: this is the way I see things today.
