Volumes have been written about the negative behaviour that abounds on social media, from trolling to cyberbullying. We have all come to accept that people can behave with startling disinhibition online, capable of acting in ways that would be inconceivable in real life. On big issues, internet rage has the power to focus global attention and bring about, for better or worse, societal change. But what about when the topic is the minutiae of everyday life?

For many of us, our local neighbourhood or school WhatsApp groups act as a kind of town square. We mill about in a communal space, exchanging gossip, information and opinions. So far, so constructive. But increasingly when someone steps out of line, they find themselves placed in the virtual stocks ­ – pilloried, mocked, humiliated, publicly denounced. This harsh treatment is meted out for comparatively minor offences – an off-colour joke, ill-advised remarks online, a sub-par professional service – and can have devastating consequences.

Why have we become so Nasty?

It has been argued that we are all suffering from Online Disinhibition. Clearly, in the apparent anonymity of the virtual world we can abandon the normal social restrictions encountered in everyday interactions and one clear reason for this is that we experience feelings of disconnection online. We never experience reactions to our postings in real time, we are unable to judge just how much offence we’ve caused, and we are deprived of the usual social clues – facial expressions, eye contact and body language. Without these pointers, we post in a void, where empathy has no place. Our ability to post negative or cruel remarks anonymously online, where we can hide behind usernames, means that we have very little accountability.

Many internet-users now appear to be making a simple category error; they see their “online friends” as much closer than they really are. They are prepared to vent anger, discuss intimate details of their lives and air controversial topics with people who are, in reality, virtual strangers – revelations that would normally be reserved for an inner circle of friends or family. Of course, it should be acknowledged that this tendency is not inevitably negative; it can also have positive consequences, meaning that people behave in a more openly caring and compassionate way online.

The internet is undeniably an empowering tool. Individuals who choose to post opinions or comments, often negative, can do so entirely on their own initiative, without fear of interference. They do not test their opinions on other people, and do not need to subject themselves to some form of moderation before they hit the fatal “Send” button. When people feel in control and empowered, they may well also unleash bottled-up feelings of rage and aggression.

Finally, and depressingly, negative comments online have become a social norm. The barrage of hostility, rude remarks and incendiary comments that appear to greet even the most innocent online posts, are now accepted as an inevitable part of the social media experience. The more this happens, the more this message is reinforced and perpetrated. Disinhibited comments generate more ‘likes’ and the algorithms react accordingly, generating an ever more vicious circle.

The Cathartic Power of Rage

If we feel unheard, overlooked or disregarded, enraged by an encounter with a stranger, or antagonised by a social or professional group, our natural tendency is to vent our rage. In the past, we would probably have sat down and penned an angry letter to the individuals or company involved, or maybe broadened the critique by writing to the newspaper, a local councillor or a MP. More minor infringements would probably have been processed by the simple contingency of talking to a close friend or partner and letting off steam.

Now we have much more immediate and direct way of venting our rage and frustration at our fingertips. We can rush to judgment, rant and rave, point accusatory fingers and broadcast baseless rumours without even moving from our chairs. This unfiltered outpouring of emotions, many of them negative, is clearly cathartic and addictive. But what are the consequences?

The Right to Reply

Before the days of social media, our complaints and angry outpourings happened in the real world. The targets of our ire and frustration were confronted by our accusations, whether in person or in writing, and were able to put together a considered response. Sometimes, they had rational explanations for their shortcomings, or were able to argue that we had got the wrong end of the stick or had misunderstood. On occasion, they might have been forced to hold up their hands and admit their mistake or inadequacy and maybe put forward a suggestion for restitution or improvement.

It might be argued that all these processes can also take place online, but they are never instantaneous, and negative comments can be disseminated widely and cause irreparable damage before the subject has the opportunity to respond.

We should never abandon the old-fashioned way of venting our anger directly, because it is a much more judicious, positive and fair-minded way of negotiating problems. It gives offenders a second chance, allowing them to explain or make restitution without bringing their world crashing down.

Communicating in person encourages us to listen, carefully, to another point of view and make an informed judgement. So much of social media communication is about haranguing, boasting and broadcasting, rather than attending, listening and empathising – it is obvious that positive outcomes are much more likely to emerge from a context where people are genuinely attempting to understand each other’s standpoint.

Increasingly, on local and neighbourhood groups we see reputations being trashed without a backward glance. A plea is put out for a recommended plumber, builder, garage etc, and a torrent of personal opinions, some of them positively libellous, are unleashed on the forum. This causes severe reputational damage and may lead to devastating business failures. Why would the offended individuals not contemplate the much more just option of taking their complaints directly to the company involved, assessing their response, and giving them a second chance?

Defusing Digital Disputes

•Think before you post

Remember that what you post may haunt you for years to come. It is worthwhile remembering that your nastier outpourings might also become a shameful part of your digital footprint. Do you really want to be that person?

•Focus on de-escalation

Many digital spats get out of hand extremely rapidly because people cannot resist the temptation to instantly respond and comment, often injudiciously, on other people’s posts. Try to think about other ways of responding: can you make a comment that deflects the unpleasantness, or can you even make a joke of it? Most radically of all, have you considered ignoring it? The world will not come crashing down if you do not comment, and frequently discretion is the better part of valour.

•Calm down

Online spats can undoubtedly be enraging, but beware; a personal attack can make you feel under threat, unleashing primitive responses. Try and school yourself to walk away from your screen, even if it is only for a few moments. Take deep, calming breaths, walk around your garden, make a cup of tea, or run an errand – all these activities will take some of the wind out of your sails and enable you to respond more rationally.

•Up your empathy

Take the moral high ground and try to imagine the way your online attacker is feeling. Recognise that they may be feeling angry, frustrated or unnoticed, and remind yourself that their aggression might be more to do with their own feelings of inadequacy than any real antipathy towards you.

•Contemplate the consequences

Before you send that fatal post, think carefully about the fallout. How much damage will your remark do? Is it likely to go viral? Will it permanently damage your target’s reputation? Will you jeopardise the future of their business, or their career? Will their family suffer as a consequence? A logical appraisal of the possible consequences may very well lead you to believe that you do not want to be responsible for that level of personal damage.