The digital dilemma: Ethics in the age of social media

The day internet ‘killed’ Dharmendra

It began, like most rumours do, with a post. Within hours, “RIP Dharmendra” was trending across social media platforms. Emotional tributes poured in, fan pages turned monochrome and even a few news portals picked up the story. It took his daughter Esha Deol to finally issue a statement: “My father is fine, please stop spreading such rumours.” The next day, Hema Malini confirmed that the actor had been discharged from hospital and was recovering well.

The episode could have been dismissed as another bout of online foolishness, but it deserves more attention. It exposes a deeper crisis, a collapse of digital ethics. A living man was digitally declared dead, not out of malice but out of carelessness; not because people wished him harm, but because nobody paused to check.

This is the moral landscape of our times, one where the speed of sharing has outpaced the depth of thinking. Social media has given every citizen a voice but taken away the collective discipline that once anchored public discourse. It has democratised communication but also democratised irresponsibility.

Social media is no longer just a platform for connection. It is the new arena where truth, privacy, empathy and accountability collide. The dilemmas it presents are not merely technological, they are profoundly ethical.

Truth vs virality

The internet rewards immediacy, not integrity. A post that provokes emotion spreads far faster than one that informs. Fake news, manipulated videos and premature obituaries are symptoms of a larger design -- algorithms that prioritise engagement over accuracy.

During the pandemic, misinformation about vaccines and “miracle cures” caused genuine harm. In political seasons, half-truths and doctored clips reshape public opinion before fact-checks can catch up.

The ethical question is clear: Should platforms remain passive carriers of information or do they bear moral responsibility for the consequences of what they amplify? Freedom of expression cannot mean freedom from truth. The challenge lies in drawing a line without sliding into censorship.

Privacy vs public curiosity

The Dharmendra episode also reminds us how digital curiosity can turn invasive. His family’s privacy was violated at a vulnerable moment, their emotional distress multiplied by millions of “shares”. We live in an era where a person’s hospital visit, home address or child’s photo can go viral within minutes, often without consent.

The ethical boundary between public interest and private dignity has blurred. Citizens and celebrities alike are vulnerable. Even civil servants, who must maintain public transparency, are often targets of intrusive commentary about their private lives.

Ethical governance demands respect for privacy even in public roles. Technology should illuminate governance, not expose individuals to digital voyeurism.

Algorithmic manipulation

What we see online is not random, it is curated. Algorithms decide what to show based on what keeps us engaged, not necessarily informed.

Outrage, anger and fear are more clickable than facts, so digital systems quietly learn to feed those emotions. The result: echo chambers, polarisation and emotional exhaustion.

If technology is designed to profit from division, can it ever serve democracy? This is not merely a technical issue. It’s a moral one. Platforms must be held accountable for the social impact of their design choices. Transparency in algorithms and ethical tech regulation are now as vital as electoral laws or media codes once were.

Free speech vs hate speech

Social media is the modern public square — open, accessible and often vicious. The right to speak freely is a cornerstone of democracy, but online it often mutates into a weapon. Trolling, character assassination and communal hate-mongering thrive under the shield of anonymity.

The real ethical challenge lies in balancing liberty and restraint. Regulating content too heavily risks stifling dissent and doing too little invites chaos. For civil servants and policymakers, the line between expression and incitement must be navigated daily.

The Civil Services Conduct Rules already require officials to exercise restraint on social media, a principle ordinary citizens would do well to emulate. Freedom, after all, must walk hand in hand with responsibility.

Accountability in a leaderless space

Traditional media had editors, ombudsmen and publishers. Social media has millions of micro-publishers but no collective conscience.

When the Dharmendra rumour spread, thousands of people clicked “share”, but no one owned the mistake. This diffusion of responsibility is perhaps the most dangerous ethical vacuum of the digital era.

Just as public officials are accountable for administrative lapses, users too must be accountable for their digital actions. Every forwarded message, every shared image and every careless comment adds to a digital ecosystem that either uplifts or corrodes public trust.

The erosion of empathy

Beyond facts and algorithms lies a subtler loss: the decline of empathy.

The internet’s anonymity emboldens cruelty. People say online what they would never say face-to-face. Deaths, illnesses or disasters become “content”. The Dharmendra incident was a mirror: the rush to post overshadowed the instinct to care.

In public life, empathy is not weakness. It is the foundation of ethics. For civil servants, journalists and influencers, the test of digital conduct lies not in silence or speech, but in how humanely one communicates.

Restoring ethics to digital sphere

Social media is not inherently unethical; it is amoral, a mirror reflecting its users. The Dharmendra episode reveals that our problem is not with technology but with temperament.

To rebuild digital integrity, several steps are essential:

Digital ethics education: Introduce critical thinking, verification habits and online conduct training from school to civil-service academies.

Fact-checking infrastructure: Strengthen independent verification networks and public awareness campaigns.

Algorithmic transparency: Mandate disclosure of how content is ranked and recommended.

Legal and moral accountability: Enforce penalties for deliberate misinformation without chilling genuine speech.

Empathy-driven communication: Encourage influencers and public officials to model compassion and restraint online.

The human choice behind every click

The internet didn’t kill Dharmendra, our collective impatience did. The tragedy of our times is not that technology is heartless, but that people have stopped using their hearts when they go online.

Social media will continue to shape democracies and decisions. But the ethical compass guiding it must come from within us. If we choose responsibility over recklessness, truth over trend and empathy over ego, the digital world could yet become not a battlefield of outrage, but a bridge of understanding.