I think "shame" is the wrong anchor point. I don't like the "industrial-complex" framing much either. The design of twitter, FB or whatnot have something to do

I think "shame" is the wrong anchor point. I don't like the "industrial-complex" framing much either. The design of twitter, FB or whatnot have something to do with this phenomenon. But, I don't think this is the main point. I'll (heavily) paraphrase the prophetic Douglas Adams. Social media gave us back our "normal" mode of human communication: unmediated many-to-many. With it, we got back all sorts of negative social behaviours, like mob behaviours. Dynamics where violence, hatred and such overcome moderation are... human. They have negative consequences, so we develop social machinery to deal with them. That machinery doesn't exist in brand new spheres. Most people that came across the aids tweet didn't dunk on Justine Socco.. just all people that weighed in. That's a ratchet. When a mob forms to beat an apple thief or promiscuous woman in the street... most people dont join the mob. Most people walk on by. Very few are going to try and moderate the mob. Same kind of a ratchet. Spontaneous anger is a much stronger phenomenon than spontaneous moderation and restraint. Something external needs to prevent mob violence. Maybe you need police, with an explicit mandate to break up mobs. Maybe you need a court system, so the mob might deliver the apple thief to justice instead of DIYing it. Maybe you need an explicit anti-mob belief system, so that an anti-mob mob can form to balance out the anti-thief mob. That kind of cultural machinery is reactionary. It appears as an eventual solution to a problem. Our modern cultural frameworks (like twitter) evolve so fast that we never reach maturity though.