There is a dangerous and increasingly widespread confusion between possibility and legitimacy — between the right to speak and the duty to judge responsibly.
“S/he made it public, so I can comment” is the digital equivalent of saying “the door was open, so I walked in.”
Behind this rhetoric lies a culture of the internet that has mistaken freedom for impunity, and other people’s visibility as implicit permission for one’s own pettiness.
But a public context does not abolish individual responsibility — if anything, it makes it even more urgent.
Being on social media is not an excuse to suspend ethics.
Writing a comment — even when it’s not openly offensive, but rather insinuating, belittling, or laced with malice — is still an action that leaves a mark.
A mark on the emotional body of the person who receives it, and a trace in the way one inhabits public space.
Because when everyone does it, that space stops being a place of exchange: it becomes a minefield, where shooting at others feels legitimized.
Respect should be the bare minimum in any interaction.
Not an arena. Not a confessional. Not a trash bin for unloading personal frustration.
And like any community, it needs a culture of presence — even when that presence is mediated by a screen.
One of the problems is that the web has handed a microphone to people who never learned to use their voice with measure.
And worse: it has offered a stage, not a mirror.
Because on social media, you can speak without ever truly seeing the eyes of the person on the other side.
In real life, people often hold back for fear of truly confronting the impact their words can have.
Online, instead, the lack of immediate feedback numbs that perception.
And that’s exactly where personal ethics should come into play.
But such awareness, unfortunately, is not universal.
And so we end up picking up shards — shards of dignity, shards of humanity, shards of broken empathy.
Because that respect — which for some is the basic threshold of civil living — seems to be nothing more than an inconvenient optional for others.
And what leaves me most disheartened is one of the shapes that dehumanization has taken today.
Not shouting, not insults — but flaunted lucidity, controlled sarcasm, coldness disguised as analysis.
There is no real dialogue — just venting.
No critical thinking — just verdicts.
A need to feel superior, dressed up as clarity.
What I see happening — more and more clearly — is a distortion of virtual sociality.
A total disregard for the difference between debate and defamation, between freedom of speech and abuse of space.
People no longer share impressions — they hand down judgments.
Fundamentally, just the need to feel “right” — and the self-granted right to rewrite someone else’s reality in order to feel better about their own.
If this has been the evolution of social media for some people, then something — somewhere — has gone awry.
Because the human element within the content has been completely forgotten.
And maybe it’s time to ask the question: who has truly understood what?
Because in all of this, there is no healthy critique.
No constructive dialogue.
And often — in the way it’s done — a form of violence as well.