Digital Virtue and Hypocrisy
Recently, we discussed about The Reverse Flynn Effect, which is certainly a complex phenomenon, of which social media are both a manifestation and accomplices, in the same way. Manifestation because they are, in fact, a reflection of society, and accomplices because of their restrictive regulations that push for an extreme Political Correctness and Its Flip Side that borders on the grotesque and therefore leads to hypocrisy, silencing those who would like to express themselves freely.
The social media environment has become a breeding ground for the spread of so-called “goodism,” a phenomenon that promotes kindness, positivity, and mutual support as key values in online interactions.
However, behind this facade of digital virtuosity, there often lies hypocrisy that requires a comparison with social media of a bygone era to be fully understood.
Goodism on Social Media Today
The widespread dissemination of messages promoting positivity and kindness has seamlessly integrated into the fabric of our digital existence, becoming a defining characteristic of our online interactions. From the proliferation of hashtags championing kindness to the orchestration of awareness campaigns for diverse causes, and the proliferation of virtual gestures of solidarity, expressions of goodwill permeate every corner of social media platforms.
However, in this river of kindness, there’s also a shadow: the quiet yet ever present hypocrisy that often accompanies this surge of goodwill. Despite the outward appearance of good intentions, many individuals and groups engage in acts of “goodism” for validation and social approval rather than genuine altruism. This contrast between outward kindness and underlying motivations reveals the complexities of online interactions, emphasizing the need for a deeper understanding of authenticity in the digital world.
The Hypocrisy of Online Goodism
One of the main critical aspects of goodism on social media is its tendency towards superficiality. Too often, people share messages of kindness and support only for the sake of virtual applause, without actually committing to concrete actions to do good in the real world. This phenomenon, known as “virtue signaling,” has transformed social media into a stage for digital moral narcissism, where the main goal seems to be to appear morally superior rather than to act for genuine altruism.
Furthermore, online goodism can contribute to the spread of a kind of “toxic positivity.” People often feel pressured to hide their negative emotions behind a veil of happiness and optimism perpetuated by social media, creating a climate where emotional discomfort is often ignored or minimized. This can have harmful consequences for mental health, contributing to feelings of isolation and inadequacy among those who fail to live up to the unrealistic standards of happiness promoted online.
Social Media Some Years Ago
To fully understand the current phenomenon of goodism and hypocrisy on social media, it is useful to compare it with the online environment of a bygone era. Fifteen years ago, the dynamics of social media were radically different from those of today.
While today’s platforms are dominated by the sharing of positive content and the incentivization of kindness, a decade and a half ago the situation was much more varied and focused on personal expression and direct social interaction.
At beginning, social media was primarily used as a space to express personal opinions, share specific interests, and connect with people who shared the same interests. This meant that the variety of content and tones was much wider than it is today. There was not the same pressure to conform to an ideal image of positivity and happiness, and people were free to express a wider range of emotions without the fear of being judged or criticized.
The Unfiltered Nature of Early Social Media Platforms
The social media platforms of that era, such as discussion forums and chat rooms, were spaces where people could interact in a more direct and unfiltered way. Conversations took place in real time and often covered more controversial and debated topics. There were no algorithms that favored the sharing of positive content or that filtered content based on users’ personal tastes, which meant that the flow of information was more diverse and unpredictable.
However, even in that more free and varied context, there were signs of goodism and hypocrisy online, albeit in different forms than those of today. Mass email chains and discussion forums were often permeated with messages of solidarity and good wishes, but the lack of a large global audience limited the impact of these gestures.
Additionally, without the same emphasis on the public sharing of positive content, there was less room for hypocrisy and the search for social consensus.
In Conclusion
Goodism and hypocrisy on social media are phenomena that characterize the current digital landscape. However, by comparing this reality with social media of a bygone era, we can better appreciate how these dynamics have changed over time. While today’s social media offers an unprecedented opportunity to promote kindness and mutual support, it is essential to remain aware of the dangers of hypocrisy and superficiality that can accompany this online goodism. Only then can we hope to create a more authentic, inclusive, and responsible digital culture.
