It began with a scene that probably occurs in every country in the world: A group of young Italian students were misbehaving on a BTS train in Bangkok. Silly, loud, disrespectful – youthful foolishness that is neither excusable nor unusual. The young men crossed a line of decency, and an apology was entirely appropriate.

But in Thailand, this developed into a national moral drama within a few hours.

Videos spread across social media with the usual speed of digital outrage. What began as an incident involving a few teenagers suddenly became a supposed symbol of disrespect towards Thai society. Commentators outdid each other in moral outrage. The Italian embassy’s Facebook page was flooded with more than 11,000 comments – a digital form of public shaming.

Finally, the embassy reacted. It released an official statement. Shortly afterward, a video followed in which the young Italians publicly apologized with a traditional bow.

Thus, the true goal of social media was achieved: not merely the clarification of an incident, but the visible submission of those affected to the judgment of the digital public.

Of course, courtesy is important. Anyone who is a guest in a foreign country should respect its rules and customs. There is no doubt about that. Nor is there any doubt that misconduct should have consequences.

The more interesting question, however, is: Why does a diplomatic event develop from an episode of youthful immaturity?

Every generation produces its own blunders. Anyone who claims to have never made embarrassing decisions at eighteen or twenty either possesses an exceptionally good memory – or a very selective one.

Social media, however, knows no proportionality. Its logic rewards not nuance, but maximum outrage. Every additional comment reinforces the next. A single instance of bad behavior erupts into a national debate, and a debate becomes a moral competition in which no one wants to appear lenient.

It’s easy to forget that public humiliation is rarely the best teacher. A sincere apology, insight, and the chance to learn from mistakes are usually more effective tools than a thousand indignant comments.

A remarkable side effect of this affair was the behavior of a segment of the Italian diaspora in Thailand. No sooner had the videos gone online than numerous Facebook users transformed into self-appointed judges and moralists. Outrage was widespread, judgments were unequivocal, and public condemnation followed in record time.

This, however, raises an uncomfortable question: Where was the same moral resolve in recent years, when controversial decisions about school closures, restrictions on fundamental rights, and vaccination campaigns—including for minors—deeply divided society during the pandemic? Regardless of how one assesses these measures today, the same passion for open debate and critical questions would have been just as welcome back then.

Morality is convincing when it is consistent. However, those who only speak out when an easy opportunity for public outrage presents itself risk confusing morality with self-promotion. Furthermore, some comments gave the impression that the public indignation served not only to defend societal values ​​but also to enhance personal visibility—whether to cultivate a personal image or in the hope of gaining attention for their restaurant, hotel, or other business interests. On social media, moral superiority and self-promotion sometimes go surprisingly close together.

Paradoxically, the real winner of this episode was the Italian embassy. It’s rare for it to have received such intense attention in such a short period. Between official statements, crisis communications, and an apology video, it demonstrated remarkable activity.

One could say, with a wink: Such a high level of commitment from the Italian embassy has not been seen in a long time.

The real lesson, however, lies elsewhere. In an age where social networks can turn every misstep into an international indictment, composure has become an underestimated virtue. The line between legitimate criticism and a digital witch hunt is thin.

A mature society is not characterized by publicly shaming young people for a moment of foolishness. It is characterized by its sense of proportion, its ability to distinguish between a mistake and a life sentence.

Because those who believe they have to turn youthful exuberance into a national crisis may ultimately reveal more about the state of our culture of outrage than about the young people themselves.

—

The comment was taken from the online portal SWISSVOX, where it was published on 25 July 2026.