I have always thought not, but the tale of Pookie and Jett, the silly couple pictured above, is causing me to re-think that conclusion.

Because of my oft-mentioned sock drawer issues, I never heard of TikTok stars Campbell Puckett and her hubby Jett, and was happy in my ignorance.

The Georgia couple, like so many entertainingly trivial people, became prominent and wealthy on TikTok because—and I do NOT understand this— Campbell, aka “Pookie,” posts videos of the pair modeling their outfits as Jett blathers on about his wife. “Pookie looks absolutely amazing,”says in a recent video. It has been viewed over 6 million times.

The Times article focuses on the almost inevitable result of social media fame and fortune: eventually, someone sets out to dig and find dirt on the “stars” to bring them down. On Reddit, someone posted photos of Pookie, including one in which she was posing in front of a Confederate flag. This, of course, means she’s a racist and is a defender of slavery, or something. Another showed her wearing a “Gone with the Wind”-style gown as a costume for an “Old South” plantation-themed ball. Mrs. Campbell has told publications that she regrets the photos, but that she was 20 and “didn’t fully understand the impact of my actions the way I do now.” She has grovelled an apology “for the harm this may have caused for some and take full responsibility.” Of course she has. She’s an aspiring “influencer” with nothing to justify her power and influence but her popularity.

The episode has been cited by the Times as a teachable moment, demonstrating how “everyone should understand the speed and ease with which everyone’s entire online experience is available for public consumption.” That’s worth thinking about, but I’m wrestling with whether my reaction to Pookie’s Predicament should be sympathy or a Nelson…

My general ethics position here is that no one should be held to account for old social media posts unless the posts have direct relevance to a current public figure’s statements, positions and stated values, and even then, evidence that a previous impolitic, undiplomatic or otherwise disreputable statement no longer is a fair representation of that individual’s character should be considered definitive. Attacking a star baseball player for dumb tweets he made to a handful of friends in high school is wildly unfair, for example. Old social media posts that indicate that rabid leftist propagandist such as, just to pull a name out of the hat, MSNBC’s prime racist Joy Reid, was an unabashed homophobe and gay-basher before her cable TV gig are a bit more justifiable, especially when they provoke a reaction like Reid’s, which was to lie her head off.

Part of me wants to say that social media dirt-farming is a valid and ethical enterprise when it exposes hypocrites, villains and poseurs, with “influencers” like the Pucketts falling into the latter category. That same part is inclined to argue that people who influence millions with no real expertise or special powers of perception are irresponsible and dangerous, and taking them down a hundred pegs or so is a virtuous objective That part also believes that public figures invite public scrutiny, and if their past actions and statements can’t stand up to that scrutiny, well, that’s good to know.

Another part, however, feels that setting out to harm someone’s reputation and livelihood when an individual isn’t doing anyone any harm is mean-spirited and wrong.