As many people have pointed out, there will likely be a future redemption arc for Amber Heard, like there was for Britney Spears. I realized I couldn’t wait for that. I wanted to be on the right side of history today. End thread.
Unfortunately, social media incentivizes us to care very, very much about what other people think of us. This has a net negative effect on social progress, because progress is rarely popular in the moment.
This thread isn’t going to be popular, because reporting on this case fairly is really unpopular. When I first started talking about it, I realized that I couldn’t share anything neutral without attracting hate or losing followers. So I had to stop caring.
When people cherrypick from Amber’s testimony, hyper fixate on her emotions and “body language,” lie about her, and make fun of her, they feed into this culture that hurts ALL victims. Even if Amber isn’t a victim, this behavior hurts victims.
Many of the criticisms of Amber Heard are rooted in misogyny, but beyond that, they’re also rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of how trauma and abuse work.
We’ve known for a while that social media incentivizes bad behavior because it fuels engagement. It also incentivizes conspiracy theories, groupthink, cruelty, and harassment. This case exemplifies all of that.
A pitfall of going to YouTubers and TikTokers for coverage is that these creators aren’t beholden to any editorial standards or journalistic norms. In fact, they’re incentivized to break them, to fit the narrative and make money.
Why do they believe this? Well, most articles about it tend to focus on reactions to the trial, rather than analysis of the actual evidence. @rottenindenmark has been doing excellent threads about this https://t.co/MnHvdRRkrc
As Adam Waldman testified in this trial, YouTubers and social media played an overwhelming role in the perception of this trial. People who consume their news from content creators, specifically news around this case, believe it is more trustworthy than mainstream media.
Many people who consumed this trial don’t even know that Amber has evidence, or that a UK judge ruled in her favor for 12 out of 14 incidents of abuse she testified to (with evidence). https://t.co/3GGaGT5cbI
Posting from a pro-Amber or even a neutral position means you will lose followers. There’s no incentive to consider “both sides.” As a result, Amber’s evidence has been largely ignored.
What economic purpose? Well, follow the money. Most of the viral content around the trial fell into a dichotomy of “Johnny good, Amber bad.” As long as your content fit that narrative, it could increase your views, audience, and earnings.
Media literacy around this trial was abhorrent. Most people, even if they say they did, DID NOT watch the trial. They watched TikToks and YouTube videos, most of which were biased for a clear economic purpose. That’s not the same thing.
For people who have been studying the misinformation campaign around the Depp v Heard trial, this verdict is chilling. The success of Depp’s “redemption arc” narrative reveals a lot about our social media platforms and ourselves.
A thread of things I learned during Depp v Heard:
Imagine being a normal Virginian called for jury duty and you're suddenly launched into six weeks of hell on behalf of a movie star who doesn't even care enough to show up for your decision
Literally nothing about this trial has been surprising, from the treatment of the accuser to the eventual verdict. She certainly did face our culture's wrath. https://t.co/Rp218Sr5KX