Dr. Max Pemberton, a columnist, has detailed a disturbing rise in online threats and harassment directed at him, his family, and colleagues. Pemberton stated that individuals who disagree with his published opinions have escalated their actions beyond simple criticism.
In an account, Pemberton described how authorities assessed the security of his home and placed his address on a 'rapid response' list due to the nature of the threats. He noted that not only he but also his partner, friends, agent, and publisher have been targeted. In one instance, the woman managing his website was bombarded with messages, leaving her fearful. Photographs of his residence were circulated online, accompanied by discussions about his living situation.
Pemberton observed that the individuals behind these attacks often do not appear to be hiding. Many use their real names and photographs, seemingly believing their actions are justified. He posited that these individuals often perceive themselves as defending vulnerable people from a doctor they believe is letting them down, rather than attacking someone whose opinion they simply do not agree with.
"Every message, every photograph of my flat, every call to my publisher was, in their own minds, a righteous act," Pemberton wrote. He attributes this escalation to the way people communicate online, suggesting that "moral certainty takes the brakes off." When individuals are convinced they are defending the vulnerable, restraint can be perceived as cowardice, and cruelty as courage.
Social media platforms are noted to encourage these tendencies, as research indicates that posts using moral and emotional language spread further and faster, effectively rewarding outrage with audience engagement. Pemberton highlighted the disconnect where an individual sending a message might think little of it, while the recipient can be inundated with thousands of similar communications.
For those experiencing such harassment, Pemberton suggests that showing distress can embolden attackers, as the recipient's suffering is the intended outcome. Appealing to the harasser's humanity is also deemed ineffective, as they often believe themselves to be the more humane party. Psychologists recommend a neutral response, stating that the behavior is unacceptable.
Pemberton also emphasized the importance of bystander intervention. He argued that individuals who are met with disapproval from others, even if those bystanders do not agree with the target's opinions, are likely to abandon their harassing behavior. He urged readers to speak out in defense of those being trolled online, regardless of personal agreement with the target's views, suggesting such actions can have a significant positive impact.