This is my introduction to Jon Ronson's writing (and thinking), though I've heard his name bandied about quite a bit before coming to this book. "So You've Been Publicly Shamed" is an investigation into the phenomenon of online shaming (via social media) of individuals deemed to have somehow transgressed against the community (usually with some comment deemed racist or sexist), as well as a probing (or more like skimming) of the historical antecedents of this process, going all the way back to the stocks and pillories.
Mr. Ronson writes in an accessible and breezy style, which has its merits, and he seems a bit more thoughtful than your average pop sociologist, and he's a bit more rigorous with his questions than your average journalist. Still, having read the book, it felt light on substance, more like a think piece in a magazine or maybe a 10,000 word long-form article in "The Atlantic."
I admire Mr. Ronson for wanting to constantly check his own assumptions and question his motives, but this desire for honesty with himself sometimes shades into solipsism. Too often in this book, it seemed that Ronson was more apt to concern himself with how things made him feel rather than what he thought. And each time he overturned some stone whose underbelly seemed worth exploring, he quickly moved on. Everything he does alright reminds me of works by someone else on the same subject done much better. The sort of Stasi-Big Brother-Panopticon concept of a society where we all police ourselves, and our thoughts, and try to police those of our neighbors, reminded me very much of Timur Kuran's "Public Lies, Public Truths," and Ronson's book regrettably suffered each time the comparison made its way to the fore during the course of the book.
His recognition that our current mavens of propriety have their origin in English and New England Puritanism is also true, but David Hacker Fischer and Colin Woodard both figured this out well before Ronson, and considering Ronson's an Englishman, his inability to expound upon what he sees as the neo-Puritanism of progressives is frustrating, but, at the same time understandable. To probe too deeply into this area would be to risk alienating a large segment of potential readers, who might take it as an insult if Ronson were to link their social justice crusade with previous moral crusades (there seems to be an overlap between social justice types and atheists, so the last thing you want to do is point out to these people that they're basically religious fanatics).
Still this is a decent, timely, and even-handed treatment of the virtues and dangers of social sanction, applied now to the virtual commons rather than the "meatspace" of the city square or the agora.