Begosh and begorrah! “Rolling Stone” published a useful ethics essay! The topic: Gen Z altering their conduct and becoming wary of social contact because of fear of public shaming.
Eli Thompson writes in part,
At the Chicago high school I graduated from in June, phones were out during private and public moments. It could be in class when someone fumbled a presentation, or the cafeteria when someone tripped. Most clips stayed in private Snapchat group chats, shared among a few dozen kids. But they could spread further, and cut deeper. Last year, a friend from another school was filmed in his attempt to ask a girl out in the hallway. Even though it was awkward, he didn’t do anything crazy in the video and it was mostly just a rejection. But someone recorded him and posted it on a Snapchat story. The video had the caption, “Bro thought he had a chance,” and over 200 people saw it by the time he got to lunch…Trends such as “fail compilations” or “cringe challenges” — posts showing awkward mistakes or uncomfortable situations meant to make others laugh — encourage people to document embarrassing moments…After seeing these moments play out, I realized this was no longer a far-off fear. It changed how young men conducted themselves in real life. The threat of public shaming makes normal interactions risky and at times can lessen the chance young men will pursue relationships or go on dates. Constant fear of embarrassment can leave some young men too hesitant to take the social risks needed for dating. The fear of online exposure doesn’t just stop certain young men from asking girls out — it can plant seeds of resentment that threaten to fracture gender relations for a long time.
Ethics Alarms has quite a few posts condemning those who post videos, private emails or text messages to social media in order to embarrass people or just to attract hits and likes. It’s despicable conduct except in the most egregious situations, and, of course, what is egregious is often in the eye or ear of the beholder. Currently a Virginia election is on the verge of being decided by a set of inflammatory text messages that the recipient shared with the public to embarrass the sender.
There is an ethical principle that should preclude such behavior, and it is a principle to be found in most religions and philosophical systems: in Christianity, it is known as the Golden Rule; among ethicists, it is referred to as reciprocity. Organized religion has declined in influence in U.S. society, and I doubt that the schools teach reciprocity, as teachers are too busy indoctrinating students in “social justice.” When ethics fails, the law steps it, and that seems to be where the author of the ‘Rolling Stone” piece is tilting; he writes,
We need to establish consequences for digital cruelty. Schools and communities need to treat this seriously and implement clear policies that treat online shaming the same way as they do bullying. Even if online shaming continues, this accountability will make sure that the victimizer will face social consequences as well. If schools and communities did so, it would show victims and perpetrators that integrity and respect is important online and offline. Cruelty behind a screen is no less harmful than cruelty in person and we need to send that message loud and clear.
I agree.
Ethics Alarms 
Re: The inflammatory texts
I can agree fully with the conclusions drawn here. However, the text messages in question are shared to expose the real person behind the political mask that is often created. In such cases, where the exposed is seeking an important post as is the case here, the public has a right to know if the candidate has the right judgement for a job that requires impartiality. In this case, I have no problem with reciprocity. I would argue that the public had a right to know that Clinton was using his office as place to be sexually entertained but I don’t think the public needed to know Ms. Lewinsky’s name if we are going to label his behavior has sexual harassment.
I simply believe there is a significant difference, ethically speaking, of exposing behaviors of those seeking public office for information purposes and posting events involving Joe or Jane average citizen at their expense simply for laughs.
Caveat: I may have misinterpreted the point regarding election related texts. When I read “It’s despicable conduct except in the most egregious situations, and, of course, what is egregious is often in the eye or ear of the beholder.” I initially interpreted that which followed that sentence as being “despicable” as well but upon a second reading I am not sure whether that was the point or not.
I have a feeling that I missed the point completely. What hit me most was trying to draw a distinction between bullying and “embarrassment” videos. I don’t see any difference. Using embarrassment to get power over another individual is absolutely a bullying tactic and should be treated accordingly. Mean girls do it all the time and that’s the female equivalent of bullying.
I have a lot of questions here, as our host uses the term “code of ethics” and Rolling Stone hints at policies and laws. I associate the term “code of ethics” with professional bodies who have to power to discipline their members. I think here about doctors, lawyers, accountants who can be stripped of their license if they violate an ethical rule. But regular folks are not bound by an official “code of ethics” with the teeth of enforceable disciplinary measures. We can of course compile ethical rules on the use of social media, but in the society at large this has no more bite than an etiquette handbook; schools and employers may have enforceable social media policies. Having the law step in may create other challenges, e.g. First Amendment challenges, as it is already difficult in the USA to forbid revenge porn and AI deepfakes.
First we need to make make the right ethical distinctions. My gut feeling is that expectation of privacy is a key concept here. A politician may not have an expectation of privacy when texting inflammatory messages (e.g. Jay Jones who is running for AG in Virginia), but what about Justine Sacco who was one of the first victim of cancel culture after she tweeted some ill advised comments regarding her travel plans?
What about making TikTok / Snapchat videos about a) boy asks girl for a date and gets rejected b) a person running an errand gets involved in a argument and makes racist comments such as Shiloh Hendrix c) crazy antics of leftwing protesters d) bar brawls, and other activities that break the law? My personal preference would be to draw the line between b) and c), however I am hesitant to see it enforced by law. A person is out in the open and behaving poorly for everybody to see is unlikely to have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Trying to fix this by law may create remedies worse than the disease.
We were at a little league soccer game Saturday. There was a trash talking parent on the other team who berated the referee verbally from the sideline during the first half. As we seem to have a very conflict and confrontation averse community, this man’s commentary proceeded unabated until he said in my hearing “If you don’t change how you are reffing, I might have meet you on the other side of the field after the game.”
At this point, I snapped loudly “Did you just threaten physical violence against the ref?” He then educated me that he had first amendment rights and I challenged not to threaten physical violence. After repeating my question loudly and insistently several times, the man informed me “I’m bigger than you.” to which I responded “This is true. Physical violence is unacceptable. Did you just threaten the ref with physical violence?”
Eventually, the ref stopped the game, spoke to the coaches and that team’s coach came over and told the parent to be quiet.
One thing I noticed was that I was the only person with a phone out simply warning him that I was a button press away from calling 911.
It was refreshing that everything was resolved in an analog way in the end and without law enforcement. It would be a tragedy if someone were to post his talk on the internet and him get cancelled somehow. Based on some of his other comments, though he he is MAGA, I genuinely believe he was projecting lingering frustration with the country onto the game and would not have actually acted out violence.