People may be watching but they are not listening.  Social media and technology are revolutionizing the way we communicate, but there isn't always a roadmap, legally or psychologically, as to how we process the information and what to do with communication that often can be vague and cryptic. Recently, I spoke with a woman whose nephew had threatened her on a social media website.   He has a history of mental illness and drug addiction and became angry at his aunt and posted a threatening message directed at her.   She went to the police in hopes of obtaining an order of protection.  Surprisingly, she was told that because the threat was online, somewhat vague ( "I hate my aunt and hope she gets in a terrible car accident but if that doesn't happen rest assured I have only just begun to take you down" )  would fall under the category of "free speech" and that  likely he is just "letting off steam".  Only if the threat was direct and specifically named her in the post (after all she is not his only aunt)  might action be taken and she was encouraged to call 911 if he threatens her in person.  Similarly, psychologists are often faced with situations where information is presented that raises concern for a clients safety or the safety of others, but without a direct and specific threat, it can be difficult to do anything legally.  If it can be difficult for trained professionals to act in such circumstances it is certainly asking a lot of the general public to know what to do with "updates" and material that may be of concern.

Legalities aside, there are likely psychological reasons that people don't take action when people use the internet to communicate their distress or pain.  Recently,  An English woman communicated to her 1048 Facebook friends that she had made a suicide attempt.  No one helped, called the police, or reached out to her family.  Several people did take the time to post cynical and mocking remarks in response to the post.  The bystander effect is a psychological term that may explain this non-reaction by so many.   The bystander effect illustrates a  phenomenon whereas the greater the number of people present to witness a   person in distress the less likely they are to do something to intervene and try and help. In 1964 Catherine "Kitty" Genovese  was stabbed outside of her apartment building and despite numerous witnesses and onlookers,  no one called the police or attempted to help for over 30 minutes despite her cries for help.  In these circumstances, it is believed that other people create a "diffusion of responsibility" and that individuals do not feel the pressure to take action and may believe that someone else will be the one to do something or that they are impacted by the need to respond to correct and socially acceptable behavior.   While "not reacting" seems like an obviously  incorrect response, the group looks at how each other is responding and then determines that because no one is responding, that must be the reasonable response.   The group responds paradoxically to the reality of the situation at hand.   Consequently, the online world creates the perfect situation for the bystander effect to take effect.   The ambiguity of communication online, the number of friends and followers we perceive as taking part in our online interactions, and no clear guidelines for what is socially acceptable behavior online, create a perfect storm.  Sadly, cynicism may make it more socially acceptable to taunt and encourage a person in distress than to respond with care and compassion.

On the other hand, we also hear accounts of people whose posts, tweets, and updates have definitely not fallen on deaf ears.  The internet is full of tales of people whose public, but seemingly innocuous, posts get heard and actions have resulted in serious consequences.   A waitress in Charlotte was fired for a Facebook message that called out her cheap patrons who tipped her poorly and a negative online review  of a hotel got a couple kicked out mid-stay.  Perhaps in situations like these, the bystander effect does not come into play because although there may be a large audience that the information is disseminated to, the information is really only relevant to a specific audience member -the one who unequivocally, has power and authority to do anything about it. 

While Jared Lee Loughner made the case that he was in trouble to a to a large audience, he may not have been specific enough for anyone in his reading audience to feel they had any power, legal or psychological to do anything about it.   Perhaps it is time we started to figure out, as a culture, how we are going to start to pay attention to the sound bites that drive our communication with one another and find ways to be more proactive in developing better psychological, legal and common sense responses to responding to people in distress.