"The dark side of viral rage"

"I have learned that when you write for a large audience, people will interpret your words in ways you never anticipated. This isn’t their fault — it’s just that communication is difficult. But in this game of Telephone times a trillion, we will communicate more efficiently, and solve social problems more quickly, if we err on the side of assuming good intent. The world will not end if you swallow that virtual vitriol, or if you take the time to read someone’s work rather than assuming that everything worth knowing about them can be contained in a Tweet."

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2014/08/25/the-dark-side-of-viral-rage/

I have so many reactions to arguments like this, most of them skeptical, possibly because I haven't had a friend who was wrongly vilified and DO see a LOT of people fail to be corrected, on the daily, and it is not uncommon for them to be talking to and/or about me.

I have a lot to say about 'over-sensitivity' (which is real, but on a society-level who are the real victims? And also, can there be any sensitivity without over-sensitivity given that we are not calibrated algorithms? And lastly, who is creating the over-sensitivity and who do we blame for it?); I have a lot to say about the reactions of the Internet (which I expect to become more tempered over time but right now the vast majority of the dangerous reactions seem to be happening to people challenging the status quo - sometimes by merely existing in their identity on the Internet). But these are all extraordinarily subjective and I am not sure if they help anyone. So I will just say that I want to live in a world where I can assume good intentions, and where I can apply my rage only where it is appropriate to do so, but right now I live in a world where my trust is broken in little ways and where my rage is very rarely socially acceptable even when directed at those who are deserving of it