Why ‘digital vigilantism’ is not the problem, Pg7

Key Highlights:

• The Delhi High Court addressed "digital vigilantism" in a defamation suit related to alleged misconduct on a flight.
• Social media is increasingly used to amplify harassment claims due to a lack of faith in formal justice systems.
• Victims use social media to "crowd source" retributive action when institutions fail to provide timely redress.

Detailed Insights:

• Justice systems often deliver justice too slowly, compounded by apathy and victim-blaming, making it difficult to report harassment.
• The lack of effective redress mechanisms leads victims to use social media, resulting in unverified allegations and reputational damage.
• The term "vigilantism" implies a threat to an established order and assurance of security, which is not the case with social media posts.
• Social media amplification is often a result of systemic failures, where victims have no other recourse to address grievances.
• Adequate processes, like strict no-fly lists for airlines, can prevent the need for social media intervention in cases of misconduct.
• Unlike consumer services with prompt grievance redressal, justice systems often fail to act on harassment complaints, pushing victims to social media.
• The core issue is the failure of formal processes, not freedom of expression, necessitating a strengthening of these processes to restore public faith.

Key Concepts Involved:

• Digital Vigilantism: Using social media to amplify claims of harassment and misconduct due to perceived institutional inaction.