Cruelty dresses up as fashion

June 30th marks International Social Media Day, and it's vital to promote responsible use amidst so much digital crime and violence. In these times, social media has become a reflection of our society. The cruelty and violence we see on the streets is replicated on our device screens. A lack of empathy and indifference to the suffering of others are characteristics that have become normalized in our digital culture, where haters, trolls, and often anonymous users employ and enjoy harassing people based on their appearance, identity, or ideology.

But cruelty is not limited to social media. The state also plays a significant role in perpetuating violence and cruelty in our society. The lack of effective public policies to solve, or at least contain, problems such as poverty and unemployment are just a few examples of how the state can be complicit in cruelty. Sometimes passively, or even actively, with hate speech from those in government, who are supposed to set an example for all citizens.

In our country, we have historically seen how economic and social crises have led to an increase in poverty and inequality. The state's response has been insufficient, and in many cases, even cruel. We need only recall 2011 or the repression that retirees have suffered recently when complaining about their low benefits, or what became known through the testimonies of residents in Mar del Plata about the occasional violent action by municipal patrols harassing vulnerable people, as described in public testimony following the death of a homeless person for reasons that must be investigated.

In this sense, the lack of protection of human rights and indifference to serious social problems are just a few examples of how the State can be complicit in cruelty. Institutional violence through repression or media attacks, rather than complicity, is barbaric.

It's time for us, as a society, to pause and reflect on the cruelty we are allowing. It's not a question of the State failing to enforce order, an argument violent governments like to use to justify their abuses; it's just as sinister as the kind a violent person uses to "set limits" on their partner, child, or whatever. The latter constitutes a crime, which is why institutional violence used excessively, unjustifiably, or primarily as a means of conflict resolution is also a crime. It's even more serious because we expect good examples from leaders at different levels of the State. The victims can be any of us.

citizens.

Clearly, if a government's primary or most visible measure is media/digital violence or repression, it means it has failed or outright ignored prevention and assistance, when it should be the opposite. In this sense, it is about establishing rational and sensible policies to resolve underlying problems such as unemployment, joblessness, and people's mental health. Ultimately, as is their very nature, using security forces or criminal law itself to address a situation that could not be resolved through the desired channels.

It's time we demand more from the State and from ourselves. Cruelty is not tolerable in any form, neither as victims nor as bystanders, because it only generates more violence. We know how it begins, but not how it ends. We can make it go out of fashion because forms also matter, and healthy, peaceful coexistence is better for everyone.

*Lawyer and member of the Technical-Advisory Council on Cybersecurity of the Metropolitan Foundation.