What's more interesting to me, and a problem more befitting the intellectual horsepower of folks here, is: what are the sociological causes of this behavior? And what realistic mechanisms or release valves could we put in place so people either didn't feel the need to do this, or when they did, the ways in which we could ensure justice apart and aside from online bandwagoning?
This is a broad and complex topic. I don't claim to have any answers. But I think there are some interesting questions:
1. To what extent does this dynamic align with the political spectrum? If it doesn't align with the obvious left/right dynamic, is another way we can identify those who think it's acceptable vs. those who don't, so we can pursue appropriate policies?
2. To what extent is online outrage driven by systemic factors that prevent injustice from being addressed by other means? Arguably, the impetus behind the #metoo or #blacklivesmatter movements is the fact that the status quo systems are inherently weighted in favor of bad actors. The online bandwagon angle would likely not exist if victims felt they had any other meaningful recourse. Indeed, that's the whole point.
3. Free association is also A Thing. Shouldn't we be free to disassociate ourselves from those whose views we find distasteful, and (due to freedom of speech) encourage others to do the same? And how is this different (or the same) than an internet bandwagon?
4. Is there a difference between bandwagon driven by a (misguided or not) desire for justice, and pure spiteful trolling? Undoubtedly, both exist. But can we make a distinction without making a value judgement between various sociopolitical positions?
5. Where does online behavior "cross the line"? Is near-universal criticism and reprobation itself problematic? Or does it only become a problem when it becomes targeted harassment? Or when the harassment begins to extend from the internet to the real world (doxxing) or involve actual crimes (swatting)? What happens when a concerned entity (e.g) an employer take entirely legitimate action (firing a racist employee), but which they would not have otherwise taken?
It's not enough to rail against the dynamic. We need to seriously grapple with all the individual factors that go into it. Because (hopefully) the internet and freedom of speech on the internet is here to stay. Reductive approaches only serve you to shove you into one camp or the other. How can we try and figure out how to make this very new informational landscape both sustainable and just?