Cyber Vigilantism Is Not Helping Anyone

---

 
THE recent spate of bullying cases in Malaysia has triggered widespread anger, frustration, and mistrust. What could have been an opportunity to examine the systemic roots of bullying has instead escalated into moral panic where public outrage is fuelled by fear, amplified by media narratives, and channelled into hostility.
This heightened emotion has manifested in calls for vigilante justice and a wholesale dismissal of expert opinion, deepening the erosion of institutional legitimacy.
The situation is complex and does not rest on the shoulders of any single actor. Like many societies, Malaysia faces ongoing challenges in ensuring that responses to crime are perceived as fair, transparent, and consistent.
Public frustration can grow when communication gaps emerge or when formal processes appear slow to deliver answers.
Media dynamics both mainstream and digital can further intensify these sentiments, sometimes resulting in “trial by media”, where accusations spread rapidly before facts are fully established. In such an environment, perception often outweighs evidence.
This climate makes vigilante justice particularly concerning. It reflects anxiety about whether justice will be done but replacing due process with mob rule risks arbitrary punishment, escalating violence, and miscarriages of justice.

Online, this manifests as cyber vigilantism which refers to the act of individuals or groups using digital platforms to identify, shame, and punish perceived wrongdoers outside the boundaries of legal authority.
It often appears as hostile comments, digital shaming, doxxing, or coordinated harassment campaigns.
Such actions not only harm reputations and mental health but also create a culture of fear and suspicion where anyone can be condemned by collective anger rather than verified fact.
Adding to this, comments on platforms like TikTok and other social media can quickly spiral beyond the issue at hand into debates over politics, culture, or religion.
While these topics are important in their own right, their intrusion into specific cases can be counter-productive, shifting the focus away from justice and instead fuelling division, hostility, and even hate.
Fear-mongering becomes central in this process, where exaggerated claims, speculative narratives, and unsolicited personal beliefs overpower reasoned discussion and drown out evidence or expertise.
What results is a form of digital moral panic in which outrage and assumption circulate more rapidly than facts.
Experts, courts, the criminal justice system, and even witnesses may find their credibility twisted or attacked, not because of what they establish through evidence, but because collective anxieties dictate a different ‘truth’.
A further worrying trend is the way some netizens respond when expert opinions or official findings do not align with their personal beliefs.
Instead of engaging rationally, they often resort to hostility questioning, belittling, and rejecting the views of experts. This reaction is not grounded in fact but in emotion and presumption.
It reflects a deeper epistemic distrust, where personal outrage is elevated above fact, and expertise is treated with suspicion simply because it does not conform to what people want to believe.
Such behaviour undermines reasoned debate, erodes respect for knowledge, and exposes society to cycles of misinformation, polarisation, and mob rule.
Criminological scholarship reminds us that moral panics often lead to reactive policies, harsher punishments, and social stigmatisation rather than constructive solutions.
(Image: Tech Wire Asia)When trust in institutions is tested, some may feel compelled to “take matters into their own hands”. Yet this approach rarely solves the problem. Instead, it perpetuates cycles of fear, exclusion, and violence.
The path forward lies in reinforcing accountability and trust. Authorities can continue to strengthen transparent communication and consistent processes, thereby reassuring the public that justice will be served.
Experts, too, must engage with empathy, bridging the gap between technical knowledge and public concerns.
And society at large must resist the temptations of mob justice whether on the streets or online recognising that anger cannot act as a substitute for justice, and that sustainable peace requires trust in lawful, evidence-based processes.
If we continue down the path of cyber-vigilantism, we reduce ourselves to a reactionary and irrational crowd: loud, emotional, and ultimately misguided.
Cyber-vigilantism is not justice but a dangerous, counter-productive practice, corrosive in nature and incapable of producing real solutions.
A better path lies in patience, empathy, and collective commitment to fairness because only then can we build a society that is safer, wiser, and more just for everyone. 
Dr Haezreena Begum Abdul Hamid is a Criminologist and Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Law, Universiti Malaya.
The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of  MMKtT.
- Focus Malaysia.

---