When One Person’s Folly Becomes Everyone’s Guilt—How YouTube Amplifies Prejudice

A tori-tetsu—a Japanese term for a railway enthusiast who specializes in photographing trains—was reportedly arrested after cutting down a tree on private residential property without permission.

The news prompted a flood of YouTube clips with titles such as:

“This Is What Train Photographers Are Really Like!” “This Is the Level of Morality You Can Expect from Train Photographers!”

Recently, when I watch YouTube, I notice a remarkable number of videos attacking particular groups.

A similar example involved an Islamic jurist who was said to have declared, “Let us marry Japanese women and turn Japan into an Islamic country.”

Both cases concerned the behavior or words of particular individuals.

But when I looked at the comments, the story had somehow grown much larger.

“This is why train photographers are scum.” “Muslims are trying to invade Japan.”

Before long, the behavior of a single person has become evidence proving the true nature of an entire group.

I find that leap in logic fascinating.

People Wait for Wrongdoing by Groups They Already Dislike

Why does this kind of news spread so easily?

The reason is that resentment toward the group already exists.

Train photographers have long been criticized for poor behavior while taking pictures. Some people are also wary of Islam because of differences in religious values and the existence of extremist groups.

Then someone appears who behaves in an extreme way.

People who already felt a vague dislike for the group immediately seize on the incident as though they had been waiting for it.

“See? I was right all along.”

This is what psychology calls confirmation bias.

And YouTube’s algorithm is remarkably good at exploiting this psychology.

Videos that provoke anger attract more clicks and comments, which causes them to spread even further. When people continue watching similar videos, an echo chamber forms in which they encounter only opinions resembling their own.

Eventually, one person’s misconduct comes to be perceived as a characteristic shared by the entire group.

Can We Simply Say, “It Was Only a Few People, So It Has Nothing to Do with the Group”?

That said, I also do not think the matter can be dismissed by saying, “It is only a problem involving a few individuals, so criticizing the group is discrimination.”

Consider the problem involving train photographers.

Since disruptive behavior has been documented repeatedly, the railway enthusiast community must also work to improve standards of conduct and show that it will not tolerate misconduct.

Muslims living in Japan likewise need to respect Japanese law and the rules of Japanese society. If they use religious beliefs to justify imposing one-sided demands on Japanese society, opposition will inevitably follow.

Simply demanding that people “stop being prejudiced” will not eliminate distrust.

At the same time, criticizing misconduct and holding unrelated people with the same identity responsible for it are two different things.

For YouTube, Anger Is the Perfect Product

Who benefits most from this structure?

The people who make inflammatory videos.

“One train photographer caused a problem” will not attract very many views.

But change it to “The Disturbing True Nature of Train Photographers Exposed!” and it immediately attracts attention.

Turning one person’s statement into “Muslims Declare Their Invasion of Japan!” uses the same technique.

Viewers become angry, leave comments, and share the video.

The critics believe they are carrying out justice, but in reality, they are contributing to the uploader’s revenue.

The difficult point is that even when the reported incident is true, the conclusion drawn from it is not necessarily correct.

But once people are angry, such logical distinctions cease to matter.

In the End, People Want Their Prejudices Confirmed

Watching videos like these makes me feel that people do not necessarily consume news because they want to know the truth.

Instead, they want confirmation that someone they already disliked “really was a bad person after all.”

YouTube then supplies one convenient piece of evidence after another.

Real misconduct and extremist ideas should be criticized, and the communities concerned should make efforts to address their problems.

But turning an individual’s misconduct into the collective guilt of an entire group is a completely different matter.

Turning one person’s folly into everyone’s guilt is sloppy logic, but it is an excellent business model.

And today, once again, someone clicks a video while angrily declaring, “I knew those people were like that!”

To the uploader, neither train photographers nor Muslims really matter.

What matters most is that the angry viewer comes back for the next video.