Why the Kim Soo-Hyun scandal is a mirror for our collective addiction to outrage

When the news broke that a retailer in Seoul had submitted a suit of 2.8 billion ₩ against Kim Soo-Hyun for an “irreparable brand dilution”, the story flashed in Korean portals, global K-culture blogs and western business angles in a few minutes, not in hours. Within a day, the usual choreography unfolded: hashtags that climbed on X, fast-fire English descriptions at entertainment locations such as alkpop and a second wave of thinking-in-in-one-one that looked that looked that looked like the guilty, the actor, the advertisers or the mob itself.

I have followed every turn since March when a YouTube stream broadcast pictures that allegedly made Kim with the late actress Kim Sae-Ron while she was even a minor. Gossip metastasized in branded panic; Two cosmetics labels and a fashion house went away, and a drama series allegedly resumed entire episodes to extinguish their star. Observers frame the affair as another moral game about idols and broken contracts. I see a little less local and more revealing: a living stress test of our appetite on outrage-so insatiable appetite that it now prescribes the pace of public life.

Outrage is no longer a by -product of the scandal; It Is The product. The neurosciences have been warning for years that the digital account economy hijacks reward circuits that are usually reserved for food, sex and survival. Frequent social media use suppresses the basic dopamine synthesis and allows users who pursue the next jerk of just anger, just to distribute themselves, as in today's psychology. As The Atlantic As soon as the provocation has been observed, the provocation becomes the shortest way to status when every click is evaluated in public. Platforms reward the top; Advertisers fear the trough. A rumor about the private life of a 37-year-old actor immediately gains the economic profit of the middle of the mid-cap.

The brands that Kim sue know this as well as every neuroscientist. In their spellings, cite “moral clauses”, but the true threat is algorithmic: negative-senimented ratings on Naver or TikTok can increase an advertising offer in the penalty box and increase CPMS because the board members scan the dashboards. Legal disputes offer the illusion of control: Switch from the semantic swamp of the “allegations” to the law firm basis for contract law and shareholder reviews. However, the story indicates tactical relapses. When Samsung dropped the hip-hop artist Tablo in the wrong rumors in 2010, the company's own social shape feeling fell further than the actor-a result, which was described in a contemporary report by the Korea Times. Court halls extend the half-life of the gossip and ensure that every registration becomes another micro hit of outrage for an already sensitized audience.

Korean entertainment is often awarded for his “idol economy”, but the mechanics are hardly parochial. Regardless of whether Kevin Hart loses an Oscars appearance, the defamation duel from Johnny Depp or the latest political cancellation, the cycle is the same: accusations, advertisers, performative apology, monetized counter -reaction. The economist in me sees a market failure: social platforms private revenue from outrage and externalizes its volatility towards individuals and brands. The philosopher in me sees a spiritual one. An annoyance is seductive because it gives us the warm certainty of moral superiority without the cool work of moral thinking.

This scandal is a mirror, and what it reflects is our preference for a quick emotional orientation through slow examinations. Outrage feels like agency; In fact, it disappoints us to train it. A study published this spring in Science It found that groups -kel can be triggered with minimal evidence, but the participants do the strength of the original evidence. This slip between affect and fact underpins the entire business model of the virus scandal.

Kim Soo-Hyun can delete his name or not. If he does this, advertisers count the damage and accountants will write off as the costs of “brand security”. But the rest of us will remain tied to the outrage machine and feel more exhausted, react and, ironically, feel more exhausted with every goal. The Finance times Recently, the readers advised to put the phone away if they really want to relax. The difficult truth is that many of us no longer know how a calm cognitive baseline feels.

I do not argue for forgiveness or a moratorium for the public examination. The mighty keep to consider matters. Also empathy for alleged victims. But outrage, which tariffs as an accountability, corrods both goals. It breaks the distinction between claim and judgment between the feeling of feeling insulted and proving damage. The longer we spoil the cycle, the more we license algorithms – and your corporate customers – to monetize our adrenal tips.

Where to get attention back? First resist the reflex to exchange claims that have not been checked, especially – especially – if you flatter your priors. Second, treat every social media jerk as a question: Who benefits when I reinforce that? Third, practice what behavioral therapists call stimulus control: curate short, deliberate news windows and report the rest. Interruption is still addicted; The opposite is, as the author Johann Hari reminds us, not the sobriety, but the connection.

Kim Soo-Hyun's case will change through the SEOUL dishes for months. Long after the docket has been closed, the permanent lesson will consist of whether we continue to outsource our emotional balance to a global playing machine based on outrage. Instead, if we decide to cultivate slower, more robust forms of attention, the next scandal could still stab – but our collective nervous system will not be kidnapped.