Whenever a monumental event of injustice occurs somewhere in the world, social media erupts in a storm of outrage. For several days, Facebook statuses and profile pictures are updated. Newspaper stories are shared vigorously in order to communicate disdain and condemnation. It often occurs in situations where justice cannot be served in a legal sense and so it is left to the people to foster some sense of fairness in a world that is proving itself to be increasingly unfair. This use of social media platforms as the modern court of public opinion is a new phenomenon that has risen alongside our consumption of technology. The question is not whether this new form of quasi-justice is occurring, but rather, if it is actually just.

There are some situations where guilt is not particularly difficult to identify. One pertinent example of this is the kidnapping of young girls in Nigeria by Boko Haram. There was universal agreement that the members of these terrorist groups need to pay for their crimes against the girls and their families. After this kidnapping occurred, indignant Facebook and Twitter posts were published, condemning Boko Haram and other terrorist groups around the world. The hashtag #BringBackOurGirls exploded in the public sphere, raising awareness and gathering followers for the campaign against acts of violence.

Justice involves more than catching the bad guy. It also involves preserving the dignity of the victims. In this case, justice was performed by reprimanding Boko Haram as well as by using the hashtag to keep the voices of the kidnapped girls alive. Although this sort of activism does not necessarily put the terrorist group behind bars, it does the next best thing. It ostracizes them, labels them as terrorists and demonstrates that the world is against them. Thus instead of leading people to accept that it is impossible to catch all members of Boko Haram who commit such horrendous acts of terrorism, it empowers people to take justice into their own hands.

This search for justice on social media eventually translated into action in real life. Search and rescue teams were formed in Nigeria in an attempt to find the girls and their captors. This mobilization and engagement of people was fostered by the movement initiated through social networks, turning a bleak situation into a hopeful one.

By contrast, it is not always simple to determine right and wrong, and this is often where justice determined by social media becomes problematic. Those with strong opinions often express their views more openly and forcefully than those who are more balanced in their perspectives. As a result, the opinion that is more prominent online when there is no consensus tends to be of those who are drastically skewed to one side or the other. For example, in May 2016, a young boy fell into a gorilla enclosure, leading to the shooting of the gorilla in order to save the boy. The opinion that prevailed on Facebook was that the gorilla should not have been killed and that the mother of the child was to blame for not being attentive enough. If justice was based solely on social media, it is clear who the guilty party would be.

However, this perspective, although seemingly dominant at the time, did not constitute everyone’s viewpoint. A significant portion of the world population recognized the nuances of the situation and expressed sympathy for both the gorilla and the mother. People were more likely to blame the zoo for inefficient protection measures rather than the mother or the gorilla. Nevertheless, the first opinion gained traction and as it did, more and more people assigned blame to the mother. As such, this example demonstrates the dangers of using social media to administer justice. When there is conflict of opinions, those who can shout the loudest are heard the most.

Another issue when it comes to online quasi-justice is its efficacy. In the first example with Boko Haram, a positive, real-life result was reached due to discussions held across social media, but often this is not the case. Sometimes, people voice their opinions for more self-serving purposes. People may adopt a viewpoint because it will attract the most attention, instead of forming an opinion based on information that they have contemplated and analyzed. The convenience of social media also makes it easy to send out a message without necessarily thinking intently about the issue. Some people even adopt controversial opinions in order to stimulate uproar, something that we can recognize from U.S. President-elect Donald Trump’s election campaign.

As a platform for activism and banding people together against the common evils in our world, social media is an excellent tool. As a substitute for legal processes, it is not as successful because it tends to vocalize popular opinion that may not necessarily be the most fair judgement. If one actively seeks opposing perspectives on social media, it can be used to form personal judgements about issues. However, many people suffer from confirmation bias, which only serves to fuel their immediate feelings about a subject, whether these feelings are rational or not.