Unstoppable Online Firestorms: Introducing Key Countermeasures and Case Studies

The term “Internet flaming” refers to a situation where a specific target is inundated with slanderous comments on the internet to the point of being uncontrollable, or a situation where a specific topic is subjected to bashing on various blogs and bulletin boards as a result of a discussion.

The number of flaming incidents has increased dramatically since the advent of social media in 2011, and currently, about 100 individuals and companies are targeted for flaming each month. In this article, we will explain the overview and examples of Internet flaming.

Media of Online Firestorms

Looking at the media where online firestorms have occurred, the proportion of incidents on Twitter has been rapidly increasing since 2008, and has remained steady since reaching about half in 2011 (Heisei 23).

Due to Twitter’s 140-personality limit, exchanges often involve strong, definitive words, making it a platform where trouble can easily arise.

Furthermore, there has been an increase in cases of posts on Instagram, traditionally considered a “hard-to-ignite” media, causing online firestorms. One of the factors pointed out is Instagram’s “Story” feature.

Unlike Twitter, Instagram itself is centered around closed communication and does not have a high spreadability. However, there have been frequent cases where inappropriate posts made carelessly, due to the fact they disappear after 24 hours, are reposted on platforms like Twitter, leading to their spread and subsequent online firestorms.

https://monolith.law/reputation/instagram-flaming-countermeasures[ja]

The Structure of Internet Flaming

Various types of internet flaming are causing a stir online. Even though the circumstances and types of spread may seem different, in reality, all instances of flaming follow a similar pattern from inception to expansion.

The Five Processes of Internet Flaming

Internet flaming follows these five processes:

Step 1: An incident that triggers the flaming occurs

Step 2: The incident is posted on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, bulletin boards, etc.

Step 3: The posted content is spread on platforms like Twitter

Step 4: The process of becoming a topic and spreading is posted on “summary sites” and “internet news”

Step 5: The incident is picked up by mass media and becomes known to the general public

Initially, it is critically discussed on SNS and then spread. At this stage, it is only shared on SNS, so the range is limited.

However, when the incident is picked up by internet media and “spreads”, and then picked up by mass media, it becomes a major flaming incident.

There are “summary sites” and web media that exceed 100 million PV per month, and the operators of these sites earn advertising revenue proportional to the “number of people reached by the information”. Therefore, they often write articles with sensational titles or biased views to increase PV numbers, and are waiting for flaming incidents. The flaming occurs when they pick it up.

Internet Flaming and Mass Media

Furthermore, what magnifies and exacerbates the flaming is the reporting by mass media such as television and newspapers.

Despite the rise of internet media and the increasing trend of young people moving away from television and newspapers, mass media still has a significant influence on society and is trusted as a source of information.

Moreover, recent mass media often check these summary sites and web media as a low-cost and easy means of gathering information, and have started to actively pick up on flaming topics. There is also a survey result that the most common way for the general public to learn about flaming was through TV variety shows (58.8%), while Twitter was only 23.2%.

In other words, despite being a phenomenon on the internet, it can be said that mass media is actually the one spreading flaming the most widely.

Furthermore, one of the recent personalityistics is that the flaming is fueled by the interaction in the “media space”, where things that have been reported by mass media and recognized by the general public are again spread on internet media.

People Participating in Online Flaming

What kind of people, and how many, are involved in these online flaming incidents?

Number of Participants in Online Flaming

As we have written in another article on our site, the results consistently show that the number of people participating in online flaming is a very small percentage of internet users.

According to a survey cited in the “Report on the Impact of Digitalization on Lifestyle and Work Styles” (March 2019) by the Information and Communications Policy Division of the Information and Communications Bureau of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (Japanese Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications), it is estimated that the number of people participating in online flaming is less than 0.5% of the total number of internet users. In terms of individual incidents, it seems that the number of participants is in the thousands.

Furthermore, the majority of these participants only tweet on their own, and the number of participants who directly attack the parties involved and force them to close their accounts is only a few to several dozen.

https://monolith.law/reputation/company-flaming-correspondence[ja]

Online Flaming Participants and Internet Public Opinion

There are also survey results that show that the voices of a very small number of online flaming participants form “internet public opinion”.

In another survey conducted in 2016, 66% of active online flaming participants participated in flaming incidents three times or less per year, while 10% of participants were involved in flaming incidents more than 11 times per year, or almost every month on average. Also, when looking at the number of times the most posts were made per flaming incident, 69% made three posts or less, while 3% made 51 posts or more.

In other words, even if you add up the number of posts made by all the light flaming participants who post three times or less per incident, it does not reach the number of posts made by the unique flaming participants who post 51 times or more per incident. It turns out that only a very small number of the already small 0.5% of flaming participants are making a fuss.

Number of People Creating Flaming Incidents

It’s quite difficult to create a flaming incident on your own, but with three people, it can be easily created. In the case of small and medium-sized enterprises, it is safe to assume that the perpetrators are a specific few. Flaming incidents created on aggregation sites and the like may seem to be swarmed by an unspecified number of people, but when a request for disclosure of sender information is made and the sender is identified, it is often found that there were only about three posters.

For example, there was a case where science writer Kumiko Katase mentioned the government’s accountability for the disclosure of official documents related to the Moritomo and Kake issues on Twitter, and was persistently defamed over a long period of time with comments such as “She prostituted herself when she was young to get her degree” and “She teaches her children the art of prostitution and forces them to practice it”.

The male defendant in his 60s, who was accused of defamation by these posts, created hundreds of accounts, so-called “throwaway accounts”, and used them to repeatedly spread defamation and rumors. Such cases are not uncommon.

Anonymity

In situations where comments are made anonymously, a sense of responsibility decreases, consideration for other participants disappears, and people tend to say whatever they want. As a result, while discussions become equalized, the motivation to stand out from others leads to extreme opinions becoming dominant, and attacks and insults against others increase. In such situations, moderate and calm opinions such as “we should think more calmly” or attempts to mediate are often ignored or ridiculed as they do not fit the atmosphere of the place.

Anonymity and Public Opinion

The exchange of extreme and radical opinions on the internet may be disconnected from society as a whole. Even if those who post criticisms and defamatory comments on the internet are only a small minority of internet users, the stronger their desire to express their opinions, the more they will post and increase their presence. As a result, the more radical opinions spread, the more people with moderate views will shrink back and refrain from speaking out.

Anonymity and Number of Posters

Another point that should not be forgotten is that under anonymity, the actual number of senders is unknown, and there is a possibility that the opinions of a few may be regarded as the opinions of many.

When a flame war occurs, the individual or company targeted may feel as if they are being attacked by society as a whole. Social media may be filled with defamation, and it may seem as if the whole world has become an enemy. However, in reality, only a small number of people are defaming, and there is a possibility that it is just a handful of people who create many throwaway accounts and repeatedly defame. In extreme cases, it could even be just one person.

On April 7, 2020, when it seemed that citizens’ anxiety about the new coronavirus was at its highest, the Asahi Shimbun reported that the hashtag “#EscapeTokyo” was spreading. The article stated that people were widely spreading this hashtag to escape from Tokyo, where the number of infected people was rapidly increasing, to the countryside due to the declaration of a state of emergency. However, it was later found that there had only been 28 posts and spreads before the Asahi Shimbun’s official Twitter account distributed this article. However, the day after the article was distributed, there were over 15,000 posts and spreads in a single day.

Summary

Online backlash, or “flaming”, can potentially cause serious damage, not only in terms of psychological harm, but also in terms of financial loss such as a decrease in a company’s stock price and profits. It can also affect personal life, employment, marriage, and educational advancement.

However, it can be said that those who cause such backlash are often in the minority, and the opinions formed in such situations are likely to be disconnected from the views of society as a whole. Of course, this does not mean that such situations can be taken lightly. On the contrary, because it involves a minority of people, it is necessary to respond promptly, calmly, and decisively.

Please consult with our experienced attorneys.

https://monolith.law/reputation/yahoo-real-time-search-google-alerts[ja]

Introduction to Our Firm’s Measures

Monolith Law Office is a legal office with high expertise in both IT, particularly the internet, and law.

In recent years, overlooking information related to reputational damage and slander spread on the internet can lead to serious harm. Our firm provides solutions for managing reputational damage and online crises. Details are provided in the article below.