Why do people on social networks act as if they were "judges"?

[Julie4]

I see it happen a lot, packs on social networks are created against this person or that personality.

For example there is a comedian who was accused of rape, people on social networks judge him guilty. But the final verdict was that he was innocent. Worse still, despite his innocence, people on social networks continue to judge him guilty.

[Anonymous]

Oh @julie4 how I wish we could talk into the evening under the French sky about the human condition.

You are familiar with Gustave Le Bon, no doubt?

The crowds of people on social networks calling for some person’s ouster, fall, firing, imprisonment, or death are no different than the rabid mobs that howled for blood during the Revolution that Le Bon wrote about:

A crowd is not merely impulsive and mobile. Like a savage, it is not prepared to admit that anything can come between its desire and the realisation of its desire. It is the less capable of understanding such an intervention, in consequence of the feeling of irresistible power given it by its numerical strength. The notion of impossibility disappears for the individual in a crowd. An isolated individual knows well enough that alone he cannot set fire to a palace or loot a shop, and should he be tempted to do so, he will easily resist the temptation. Making part of a crowd, he is conscious of the power given him by number, and it is sufficient to suggest to him ideas of murder or pillage for him to yield immediately to temptation. An unexpected obstacle will be destroyed with frenzied rage.

[RavVid]

Anonymity allows us too. It would be very different if we were identifiable.

People don't think much either and are very willing to take what is alleged at face value as fact. Sadly people also don't accept that a person is entitled to a defense. The comedian you referred to obviously had a successful defense and the rape charges could not be sustained. It doesn't necessarily mean he acted with utmost integrity at all times.

There can be aspect of the Scottish judgement of 'Not Proven'. In that there is suspicion that there is guilt but not enough evidence for 'Beyond Shadow of Reasonable Doubt'.

Generally I think we would be right into stoning people if we could only bring that back.

[Taniisokay]

People have their opinions of things and the funny thing is that their opinions is influenced by someone else. What a dangerous place to live in.

[OtterMan68]

Hypocrisy. Everyone is entitled to due process, but people will judge an accused person based on whether or not they like him or agree with his politics.

"Believe women!" should have been "Believe women if they accuse someone of the other party!"

[Anonymous]

Haha. I see that all the time as well.. when it comes to men getting accused of SA.. lots of women would come out the woodwork saying dude SA’ed them and there is no evidence but EVERYONE finds that make guilty. Or even when it’s one persons word against the other. Usually the women is believed by the majority without actual evidence on social media.

[Anonymous]

This is why laws need to change to either protect the identity of the accused if and until they are found guilty, OR expose the identity of the accuser.

As it is, it is very unfair and unjst to men.

[DarkLegacy]

It is the same offline, when it comes to sexual offences people lynch people even if they are innocent.

[genericname85]

everyone has their opinion. it is what it is.

[Mettbltt]

lynching culture

[msc545]

Little people with unfortunately big power.