This phenomenon isn’t just annoying—it’s deeply troubling and symptomatic of a society that’s confused revelation with racket, justice with spectacle, and accountability with “clicks”.
This isn’t some innocent act of concern or sensitivity towards the country’s ills. This is a dangerous distortion of public debate, where the critic or self-proclaimed saviour—exploiting the thirst for scandal and now-universal access to a platform—has gained such momentum that they’ve reached the point of replacing institutions, procedures, and ultimately, logic itself.
And imagine—we’re still at the beginning. Today we’re seeing the prototype emerge on social media. A prototype, however, that’s been embraced with unprecedented enthusiasm and hasn’t left even the mainstream media indifferent—which reproduces every fart, for obvious reasons, of course.
The phenomenon has taken on unpredictable dimensions. What happens tomorrow when the prototype becomes the norm?
The major issue is the bypassing—as I mentioned above—of institutions, procedures, and even logic itself. Some cases may have merit, and even with dubious evidence might warrant investigation by the relevant authorities. But what about cases that simply serve agendas, personal grudges, and vengeful impulses? Both types expose individuals who—once named—are socially condemned.
They’re left—as we say—with the stain, and good luck washing that off afterwards. Meanwhile, their accusers bask in the “popularity” afforded by the platform the media offers them to air their “revelations.”
And the stupefied public watches them with reverence, as if they were saviours. And they all share common traits: daily interventions as flawless, unblemished, moralising judges of everything. Only the halo is missing.
But let’s call things by their name: the situation has obviously reached this point because of the lack of trust in institutions, which has spawned these digital vigilantes.
And we’ve swung from one extreme to the other.
We see this phenomenon daily, after all, even from people in our circles and next door. A figure emerges presenting themselves as all-knowing. They know everything, see everything, denounce everything. Without institutional role, without accountability, without being subject to any oversight.
The more this attention mechanism is fed, the more the “shouter’s” confidence swells—they unleash new accusations, new insinuations, new fragments of “revelations.” This isn’t a fight against corruption, it’s a well-staged performance.
The most worrying thing isn’t that problems are being highlighted. Problems exist and must be brought to light. What’s worrying is the method: unfiltered, fragmentary, based on hearsay, on selective documents of dubious origin, on an unstoppable blah-blah that leaves a stain on whoever they talk about.
Society is being asked to condemn before understanding, to rage before checking, to applaud before thinking. This isn’t democracy—it’s a mob in digital form.
