Online Shaming

Online shaming is a form of public shaming in which targets are publicly humiliated on the internet, via social media platforms (e.g. Twitter or Facebook), or more localized media (e.g. email groups). As online shaming frequently involves exposing private information on the Internet, the ethics of public humiliation has been a source of debate over internet privacy and media ethics. Online shaming takes many forms, including call-outs, cancellation (cancel culture), doxing, negative reviews, and revenge porn.

Description

Online shaming is a form of public shaming in which internet users are harassed, mocked, or bullied by other internet users online. This shaming may involve commenting directly to or about the shamed; the sharing of private messages; or the posting of private photos. Those being shamed are perceived to have committed a social transgression, and other internet users then use public exposure to shame the offender.

People have been shamed online for a variety of reasons, usually consisting of some form of social transgression such as posting offensive comments, posting offensive images or memes, online gossip, or lying. Those who are shamed online have not necessarily committed any social transgression, however. Online shaming may be used to get revenge (for example, in the form of revenge pornography), stalk, blackmail, or to threaten other internet users.

Privacy violation is a major issue in online shaming. Those being shamed may be denied the right to privacy and be subject to defamation. David Furlow, chairman of the Media, Privacy and Defamation Committee of the American Bar Association, has identified the potential privacy concerns raised by websites facilitating the distribution of information that is not part of the public record (documents filed with a government agency) and has said that such websites "just ivea forum to people whose statements may not reflect truth."

Types

Call-outs and cancellation

''Cancel culture'' or ''call-out culture'' describes a form of ostracism in which someone or something is thrust out of social or professional circles, either online on social media, in the real world, or both. They are said to be "canceled". Merriam-Webster defines ''cancel'' as "to stop giving support to that person", and dictionary.com defines it as "calling out the bad behavior, boycotting their work (such as by not watching their movies or listening to their music), and trying to take away their public platform and power". Lisa Nakamura, professor of media studies at the University of Michigan, defines ''cancelling'' as simply a "cultural boycott" in which the act of depriving someone of attention deprives them of their livelihood.

The notion of cancel culture is a variant on the term "call-out culture", and constitutes a form of boycott involving an individual (usually a celebrity) who is deemed to have acted or spoken in a questionable or controversial manner.

Over the past few years, cancel culture has become a pervasive presence in American society. Most Americans find the term more associated with social media and entertainment instead of politics. ''Business Insider'' conducted a poll in conjunction with SurveyMonkey that asked 1,129 respondents "When you hear the term 'cancel culture,' which of the following do you most associate it with? Please select all that apply." 48% of respondents identified cancel culture with social media, 34% identified cancel culture with the entertainment industry, 31% associated it with the news media, 20% listed colleges, and 16% did not know what cancel culture was. Regarding politics, partisan splits on this issue were widespread; for instance, almost half of Republicans associated cancel culture with Democrats.

Doxing

Doxing involves researching and broadcasting personally identifiable information about an individual, often with the intention of harming that person. This information may include the person's home address, workplace or school, full name, spouses, credit card information, and phone number.

Bruce Schneier, a lecturer and fellow at Harvard Kennedy School, has elaborated that doxing does not just happen to individuals. Companies such as Sony and Ashley Madison have been involved previously in doxing schemes.

Negative reviews

User generated review sites such as Yelp, Google Maps and Trip Advisor have been used to publicly shame or punish businesses.

Revenge porn

Non-consensual sharing of sexually explicit material in order to humiliate a person, frequently distributed by computer hackers or ex-partners. Images and video of sexual acts are often combined with doxing of a person's private details, such as their home addresses and workplaces.Eric Larson
"It's Still Easy to Get Away With Revenge Porn"
, ''Mashable'', October 21, 2013. In some jurisdictions, revenge porn is a criminal offense.

Social status shaming

Social status shaming is a form of online shaming that involves bullying others online due to their socioeconomic status. This phenomenon is centered around using someone's income, social status, health, and influence to subject them certain types of bullying and online criticism. It is often utilized as a vessel for social control among classes, and has been regarded as one of the most effective models in which to examine social status and its influence on controlling those below oneself. In the digital world we live in, there is a social standard that people fall into and try to mimic. Thus, social status shaming is a form of social exclusion, where if someone isn't as rich as another, then that person will be subjected to some form of bullying and criticism in order for them to retain social control over the poorer person.

Notable examples

Ashley Madison data breach

In July 2015, a group hacked the user data of Ashley Madison, a commercial dating website marketed as helping people have extramarital affairs. In August 2015, over 30 million user account details; including names and email addresses were released publicly.

A variety of security researchers and Internet privacy activists debated the ethics of the release.

Clinical psychologists argued that dealing with an affair in a particularly public way increases the hurt for spouses and children. Carolyn Gregoire argued " cial media has created an aggressive culture of public shaming in which individuals take it upon themselves to inflict psychological damage" and more often than not, "the punishment goes beyond the scope of the crime." Charles J. Orlando, who had joined the site to conduct research concerning women who cheat, said he felt users of the site were anxious the release of sexually explicit messages would humiliate their spouses and children. He wrote it is alarming "the mob that is the Internet is more than willing to serve as judge, jury, and executioner" and members of the site "don't deserve a flogging in the virtual town square with millions of onlookers."

Tim Hunt controversy

In 2015, the Nobel laureate Sir Tim Hunt was involved in a highly publicized controversy at the World Conference of Science Journalists (WCSJ) in Seoul. At a lunch for female journalists and scientists, Hunt gave a speech at short notice which was later recounted by an unnamed EU official:

In the audience were science journalists Connie St Louis, Deborah Blum and Ivan Oransky, who found Hunt's remarks highly inappropriate. They decided to publicize his remarks on Twitter, giving St Louis the task of writing a short text to be tweeted and corroborated by the other two. The tweet cast the remarks in starkly sexist terms, declared that Hunt had "utterly ruined" the luncheon, and gave no indication that he had been joking.

St Louis's tweet went viral, setting off what ''The Observer'' described as a "particularly vicious social media campaign." The Royal Society quickly distanced itself from Hunt's comments as reported and emphasized its commitment to equality in the sciences. To ridicule the "sexist scientist", the online feminist magazine ''Vagenda'' urged female scientists to post mundane pictures of themselves at work under the hashtag "#distractinglysexy".

Two days after the speech, Hunt gave a BBC radio interview saying "I did mean the part about having trouble with girls. It is true that I have fallen in love with people in the lab, and that people in the lab have fallen in love with me, and it's very disruptive to the science. It's terribly important that, in the lab, people are on a level playing field. And I found these emotional entanglements made life very difficult. I mean, I'm really, really sorry that I caused any offence – that's awful. I certainly didn't mean – I just meant to be honest, actually." Hunt went on to say "I'm very sorry if people took offense. I certainly did not mean to demean women, but rather be honest about my own shortcomings."

Numerous media outlets reported on the incident and the interview, citing portions of Hunt's original remarks and criticizing them as sexist. The editors of ''Nature'' called on "all involved in science ocondemn the comments", which they took as a seriously intended suggestion "that single-sex labs might be preferable". Hunt felt he had made it clear he was joking because he had included the phrase "now seriously" in his statement.McKie R
Sir Tim Hunt: my gratitude to female scientists for their support
The Observer, June 20, 2015. The reconstruction of his words by an unnamed EU official corroborated the inclusion of these words.

Resignations

On June 10 Hunt resigned from his position as an honorary professor with the University College London's Faculty of Life Sciences and from the Royal Society's Biological Sciences Awards Committee. Hunt's wife, immunologist Mary Collins, had been told by a senior t UCLthat Hunt "had to resign immediately or be sacked". He was consequently required to step down from the science committee of the European Research Council.

Jonathan Dimbleby resigned from an honorary fellowship at UCL in protest at its treatment of Hunt. Also, author and journalist Jeremy Hornsby wrote University College London out of his will in protest, leaving it "about £100,000 worse off".

Wider reaction

At least 8 Nobel prizewinning scientists and 21 honorary fellows had criticized the treatment of Hunt following his resignation. Boris Johnson, the mayor of London, and Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist expressed similar indignation. A few scientists, such as Hunt's co-Nobelist, Paul Nurse, were critical of Hunt's conduct and said that his resignation was warranted.

Imran Khan, Chief Executive of the British Science Association, speaking to the BBC
...