Coded Convictions:

Coded Convictions: When Algorithms Become Judge, Jury, and Shamer

In today's data-driven society, courtroom gavels have been replaced by algorithms. Invisible yet omnipresent, they operate at scale and speed, deciding what content is amplified and what is buried. But what happens when these machine-learning systems begin reinforcing public shame, online defamation, and digital vigilantism? At what point does a line of code evolve into a digital executioner?

Originally designed to optimize user experience and streamline content delivery, algorithms have become self-reinforcing engines of emotional contagion. As they prioritize engagement over accuracy, they often escalate inflammatory, divisive, or defamatory content—because outrage sells. This shift turns AI from a neutral tool into a subtle but powerful arbiter of reputational life or death.

Online hate campaigns rarely start in a vacuum. But once an AI-driven recommendation system picks up on spikes in engagement—comments, shares, watch time—its underlying logic is simple: amplify it. For individuals targeted by coordinated digital shaming (such as professionals, journalists, or forensic experts), this algorithmic push becomes an involuntary spotlight, often accompanied by real-world consequences ranging from career damage to personal safety threats.

A 2018 MIT study revealed that false information spreads significantly faster than truth on Twitter—nearly six times faster, in fact. This isn't because humans inherently prefer lies, but because algorithms measure emotional intensity, not factual integrity. If something sparks rage or fear, the algorithm boosts it. Truth, nuance, and context get lost in translation.

This mechanism fuels what I call algorithmic vigilantism—a system in which AI accelerates the court of public opinion. Unlike humans, machines don’t comprehend nuance. They don’t ask whether a viral post involves satire, deception, or malicious intent. They only measure metrics. And when those metrics are weaponized by digital mobs, the results can be devastating.

Platforms often claim neutrality, citing Section 230 as a shield against liability. But when their algorithms are actively promoting defamatory or harmful content, does this constitute complicity? From a media law and ethics standpoint, the answer is evolving. Courts are beginning to examine whether content curation and algorithmic promotion go beyond simple hosting—and into editorial decision-making.

This has major implications for targeted professionals. As a 37-year forensic handwriting expert and ongoing law enforcement consultant, I've seen firsthand how misinformation—amplified by platform algorithms—can destroy careers. Videos or Reddit threads that misrepresent expert opinions are not simply "free speech." They become defamation engines when amplified without scrutiny or balance.

This isn’t just a legal issue—it’s an ethical one. Algorithms now control access to information and public narrative. Their decisions are opaque, unregulated, and increasingly consequential. Platforms profit from engagement, but bear no legal responsibility for the harm caused when engagement turns toxic. We must ask: who is designing these systems, and what values are embedded in the code?

What does it mean when AI rewards those who sensationalize hate but punishes those who promote thoughtful critique? This question sits at the intersection of applied ethics, human rights, and digital governance. As I continue my studies in internet law, defamation, and constitutional protections at ASU, it's increasingly clear that reforms are needed—ones that balance free expression with reputational protections for professionals and experts who are unfairly targeted.

While forensic handwriting analysis is often dismissed as niche, it faces the same public platform risks as any other expertise. The umbrella of forensic handwriting analysis includes both forensic document examination (signatures, forgeries, etc.) and forensic graphology (behavioral risk traits, deception indicators, criminal profiling). Both are rooted in scientific validity and used globally by law enforcement. Yet, platform algorithms can allow haters to discredit decades of legitimate work in seconds.

Ethical digital design should require transparency, human oversight, and intentional safeguards against viral defamation. If platforms are the new courts, algorithms are now the prosecutors—unregulated, unaccountable, and fueled by outrage. That’s not justice. That’s chaos disguised as convenience.

Until we build systems that prioritize truth over traction, digital lynch mobs will continue to hide behind the veil of automation.