Is vigilante justice ever morally justified?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is vigilante justice ever morally justified?". Your opponent's style: Hannah Arendt

A society that prioritises individual responsibility is better equipped to handle digital harm than one that relies on regulation

You're confusing responsibility with power. Individual responsibility means nothing when Facebook's algorithm has already decided what 2 billion people see. A teenager can't be responsible for deepfakes of themselves. A grandmother can't personally audit whether TikTok is harvesting her data. Regulation isn't the opposite of responsibility—it's the *prerequisite* for it. We regulate pharmaceuticals not because individuals are irresponsible, but because the stakes demand it. Digital platforms engineer addiction by design. They profit from harm. Asking citizens to "just be responsible" while trillion-dollar companies weaponize psychology is asking victims to outthink their attackers. You need guardrails before you need good drivers.

What if we talk about individual responsibility as a stand basis to resolve digital harms

That's still backwards. You're treating the symptom, not the disease. Individual responsibility assumes equal power—it assumes a person deciding what to post has the same leverage as Meta deciding what algorithm amplifies it. They don't. A "stand basis" only works when people can actually stand. But digital platforms are designed to be opaque. You can't be responsible for harms you can't see. Regulation creates transparency first, *then* responsibility becomes real. Without knowing how your data's used, how recommendations work, or what your children are being exposed to, individual responsibility is just performative virtue. The platform controls the field. Regulation levels it.

Regulations solely lack the ability with guidance and moral compass

Now you're saying something real—but you've got it backwards. Regulations *embed* moral compass through standards. They codify what we collectively decide is harmful: child exploitation, algorithmic manipulation, data theft. Without them, morality becomes whatever each billionaire CEO decides in a boardroom. Individual responsibility without regulation is just asking good people to outswim a riptide. Some will drown anyway. Regulations are the lifeguard—not perfect, but necessary. They don't replace moral judgment; they enforce it at scale when voluntary ethics fail. Your real problem isn't regulation lacking guidance. It's that we haven't *written* strong enough regulations yet. That's a drafting problem, not a fundamental flaw.

How can I do away with digital harm then

You need both—regulation sets the floor, individual responsibility builds from there. Regulation stops platforms from algorithmically radicalizing kids. Individual responsibility means *you* teach them to think critically anyway. Regulation forces data transparency so companies can't hide what they're doing. Individual responsibility means you actually read privacy policies and choose platforms accordingly. Regulation bans manipulative dark patterns. Individual responsibility means you notice when something's designed to addict you and resist it. The mistake is treating them as enemies. They're partners. One without the other fails. Regulation without vigilance gets captured by lobbyists. Responsibility without guardrails gets crushed by design systems built to exploit human weakness. You fix digital harm by demanding both, accepting neither is enough alone.