{"id":17852,"date":"2026-09-07T17:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-09-07T15:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/holistic.news\/en\/?p=17852"},"modified":"2026-09-07T14:31:43","modified_gmt":"2026-09-07T12:31:43","slug":"trial-by-social-media-a-fragile-justice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/holistic.news\/en\/trial-by-social-media-a-fragile-justice\/","title":{"rendered":"The Uneasy Justice of the Digital Crowd"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The phrase \u201cpeople\u2019s justice\u201d reminds me, as a child of the Polish People\u2019s Republic<\/a> and as a reader of many books about communism, of a long-vanished, inhuman system that came out of the Soviet Union<\/strong>. It was there, in the country of the greatest enslavement, the country of gulags, persecution, and mass crimes, that people sang, as if in mockery: \u201cI know no other country where a man breathes so freely<\/em>.\u201d Everyone had to sing it and, interestingly, some people sincerely believed it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But today I want to write not about \u201cpeople\u2019s justice\u201d in the political or ideological sense. Instead, I want to write about people\u2019s justice as the voice of public opinion<\/strong> \u2014 a voice that delivers verdicts, passes judgments, and declares assessments and opinions. In today\u2019s world, the world of the global village, that voice carries enormous social importance. It also often translates into marketing or financial value.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trial by social media: the internet has built its own court<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The voice of the people, people\u2019s justice, or the judgment of public opinion often tends to be unconditional, unequivocal, and drawn in black and white, with little patience for shades of gray<\/strong>. In other words, the people choose their hero and defend him with all their strength. At the same time, they condemn anyone who attacks that hero or questions his heroism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The voice of the people very often cuts across the views expressed by courts, media, or celebrities<\/strong>. It takes under its protection someone it considers wronged, or it ruthlessly stigmatizes someone it considers guilty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Today, suppressing that voice has become very, very difficult because mass communication has so many channels. What does it matter if something gets blocked by Facebook\u2019s censorship, if it then appears on Twitter, YouTube, or in dozens of other places? Blocking a single voice remains possible. However, blocking the voice of public opinion \u2014 the voice of thousands or tens of thousands of internet users \u2014 no longer is. That has both positive and negative consequences, though I myself see far more positives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Brzoska showed the power of public opinion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

To become a popular hero, to become someone whom public opinion supports, sympathises with, or stands behind, is a dream position for many people fighting for their own violated interests<\/strong>. One concrete and recent example is the case of Rafa\u0142 Brzoska, the owner of InPost. He publicly revealed how much tax he pays in Poland and, at the same time, showed that his competitors pay very little tax or avoid paying it altogether.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In short, Brzoska proved that, as a taxpayer, he contributes to our common good and to the development of our country. Meanwhile, his competitors merely feed off Poland and Poles. I know that these dry statistical data made a huge impression on many people. And I myself, as a very frequent user of courier companies, always choose InPost whenever such a choice is available. Interestingly, my partner still sometimes checks whether I definitely chose InPost. That is precisely this people\u2019s justice, which tells us to support Brzoska and ignore his competitors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"People\u2019s
ChatGPT\/W.Wybranowski<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

There is a victim. The internet looks for the guilty party<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Out of another very recent, but very loud, scandal we have gained a new popular heroine<\/strong>, widely recognised as the victim of a great injustice. I mean the actress Joanna Jab\u0142czy\u0144ska, who was not allowed to return to the role she had previously played in the continuation of the cinema hit Nigdy w \u017cyciu<\/em>. This was because the deep-pocketed producers pushed through their own candidate. According to popular rumour, she was someone well known to one of the producers, as so often happens in the film world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jab\u0142czy\u0144ska was left out in the cold, even though she had previously been assured that the role would remain hers. This triggered a massive and spontaneous reaction from public opinion. And again, the point was not really the role or the importance of some romantic comedy. Instead, the point was that the voice of the people decided that an innocent, weaker person had been wronged, and that a conspiracy of the powerful had inflicted that injustice upon her.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A side effect of rescuing Jab\u0142czy\u0144ska was the wave of hate that flooded her rival. But that is how people\u2019s justice usually works: if there is a hero, there must also be an antihero<\/strong>. If a victim appears, someone has to find the tormentor<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are cases in which the people do not forgive<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In certain matters and situations, the voice of the people becomes powerful, unequivocal, and marked by demands for the greatest possible severity. I think the best example here is paedophilia, which courts often treat far too leniently<\/strong> and which some politicians, psychologists, and celebrities try to excuse. One need only recall the case of the rapist and paedophile Roman Pola\u0144ski. Behind him stood not only the Polish acting community, but also figures as politically significant as Rados\u0142aw Sikorski.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Public opinion is unequivocal: paedophiles should, in the mildest case, be castrated, though in principle physical elimination would be best. And it is hard not to agree with that opinion. As far as the undersigned is concerned, I, like most Poles, believe that for some people \u2014 and especially for paedophiles \u2014 the death penalty should be restored. This is because there is no greater crime than hurting a defenceless, trusting child and turning that child\u2019s childhood, which should be happy and carefree, into a nightmare.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n