When sociologists like Stanley Cohen first studied moral panics in the 1960s, the media world looked very different. Newspapers and TV controlled what counted as a “threat,” and moral panics spread relatively slowly. Today, moral panics still happen but social media has changed who starts them, how quickly they spread, and how they affect people.
There are several reasons that osciologists suggest:
1. Social media makes moral panics spread faster
One of the biggest changes is speed. Online platforms allow rumours, fears, and dramatic stories to spread almost instantly.
A well-known study by Vosoughi, Roy and Aral (2018) analysed millions of tweets and found that false news spreads faster and reaches more people than truth – especially when it is shocking or emotional.
This means a small rumour can become a national panic in a few hours.
Example:
The “Momo Challenge” panic (2018–19) spread through WhatsApp, YouTube, and Facebook. Schools sent letters home warning parents; newspapers ran dramatic headlines.
But fact-checkers found no evidence that the challenge actually existed as a real threat.
The panic was created by social media sharing, not real behaviour.
2. Online audiences “collapse” and this can create misunderstanding
Researchers danah boyd and Alice Marwick study how young people use digital media.
They argue that social media brings different audiences together in ways that cause confusion – called “context collapse.”
Something said as a joke among friends can be reposted, taken seriously, and used as “evidence” of a moral problem.
Example:
A private argument between teenagers gets screenshot and posted to TikTok.
It then gets shared with adults, schools, and newspapers — who interpret it as a sign of a “dangerous trend among young people.”
This turns everyday teenage behaviour into something society sees as a threat.
3. The media exaggerates risks to young people
Sonia Livingstone (LSE) leads large research projects into children’s online experiences.
Her studies show that while real risks exist online (bullying, sexual messaging, manipulation), the media often focuses on rare but dramatic dangers instead.
This can create fear that is bigger than the actual problem.
Why this matters:
- Schools may block useful sites instead of teaching online critical-thinking.
- Parents may panic about unlikely threats while missing everyday issues like stress, loneliness, or body image pressure.
The result is a moral panic that distracts from real support needs.
4. Anyone can now act as a “moral entrepreneur”
In classic moral panic theory, moral entrepreneurs were usually politicians or campaigners.
But now influencers, YouTubers, concerned parents and school Facebook groups can trigger or amplify moral panics.
Sometimes, institutions actually help spread the panic — trying to “warn” people before checking the evidence.
Example:
Many UK schools forwarded letters warning about the “Blue Whale” challenge before confirming whether it was real.
By trying to prevent harm, they accidentally helped create the panic.
5. Social media encourages public shaming
Research by Marwick on online harassment shows that social media encourages “pile-ons” where people work together to shame or punish someone they think has broken a moral rule.
This is a new form of community policing — but without due process.
Consequences:
- Reputations are destroyed before evidence appears.
- Apologies or corrections rarely spread as fast as accusations.
- People may face harassment or anxiety even if they did nothing wrong.
Moral panic now happens through the crowd, not just the press.
Tackling Moral Panics
Sociologists suggest:
| Strategy | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Check before sharing | Slows down viral fear |
| Teach media literacy | Helps young people evaluate sources |
| Focus on real risks | Ensures support goes where it is needed |
| Hold platforms accountable | Algorithms encourage emotional, viral content |
The key message from research is:
Don’t confuse what is viral with what is widespread.
Final Thought
Moral panics haven’t disappeared — they just travel faster and involve more people than ever.
Understanding how new media works allows us to see the difference between real harm and socially constructed fear.
If you can explain that in an exam, you are already thinking like a sociologist.
References:
danah boyd, It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens (2014) — networked publics and youth practices. danah.org
Alice Marwick & danah boyd, “Networked privacy: How teenagers negotiate context in social media” (New Media & Society, 2014). SAGE Journals
Sonia Livingstone et al., EU Kids Online / Risks and safety on the internet (LSE reports, 2009–2011). eprints.lse.ac.uk
Soroush Vosoughi, Deb Roy & Sinan Aral, “The spread of true and false news online” (Science, 2018) — empirical study of virality and false news. Science
Erich Goode & Nachman Ben-Yehuda, Moral Panics: The Social Construction of Deviance (1994) — a clear update to Cohen’s theory for modern readers.
Leave a Reply