Social media, a platform accessed by 1.96 billion people, is a battleground we all seem to avenge in, clouded by the confliction of morality and immorality. A haven to some, of the destruction of truth and reputation: the contortion of moral values at the hands of anonymity. But a tool of cultural democracy and expression to others- a platform to broadcast their thoughts and opinions freely to the world. So what behind this battlefield of perception and digital fog of rumour and gossip is social media’s true moral code? A moral code that we all seem to be in danger of losing sight of.

One stance on social media’ moral code is that it does not hold one. This view lies upon social media’s purpose: the providing of platforms that freely communicate our views without hindrance. This freedom being one of their key values and motives, which thus allows us, as its users to adhere to the moral code we choose.  

As a consequence of this this freedom in how to act, this absence of impediments in the expression of our thoughts, we absentmindedly inflict our own moral code onto the platform: we behave and distribute our views and opinions in accordance to our own inner sense of immorality and morality. Thus over time we believe that our own moral code is the moral code that social media is following and should follow, correcting all those that disagree and follow a different moral stance. However, do humans really have a moral code as our perceptions of morality are not truly our own, but based on a variety of external influence and opinions of others, such as religion. So thus social media’s moral code is just the echoes of views and happenings in society.

And if a moral code is retained by us humans, are our true views on morality what we follow online? This is as we alter our own moral code based on the anonymity of social media- no one is there to filter our hive mind and inner desires. So hence we ignore our true opinions on righteousness due to the leeway and ability to do as we please online. So thus social media is not following a moral code but the antithesis: our repressed inner desires and mentality of the hive mind whose currency is gossip and the infliction of cruelty.  

But the real question is what is the consequence of such an altered perception of social media’s moral code? Figures say, it is the manifestation of negativity and demise, particularly among adolescences, with 4400 deaths per year of the youth alone. Clearly this is not a desired outcome and hence this thriving on Schadenfreude and negativity, is not social media’s true moral code.

To conclude, social media’s ambiguous moral code is created by its users’ alternate perceptions of morality. But is it not already too late to make sense of media’s ambiguous morality: one that has plagued lives and reputations; grappled hold and destroyed 4400 lives and whispered the idea of suicide into 1 in 10 cyberbullied children. Perhaps it is now time that we forfeit this battle and follow our true moral code online in order to realise the potential for unity in the digital world.