On a quiet Monday evening, I published a post on LinkedIn that rippled far beyond my immediate network. It spoke about a South African influencer, Penny Ntuli, allegedly “arrested by order of President Ramaphosa” after twerking on the N3 freeway. Unknown to me at the time, this statement emerged from an AI-generated draft, carrying with it the seductive power of misinformation.
Within 72 hours, the post exploded: more than 40,000 impressions, thousands of new viewers, and a torrent of comments — some critical, others affirming, many simply debating. What unfolded was not merely a case of “going viral,” but a living laboratory of social psychology. In it, I witnessed how attention, authority, moral outrage, and algorithms combine to shape the digital public square.
Here are four reflections I draw from that experience.
Reflection 1
Authority + Provocation = Engagement Magnifier
The first trigger was the formula of authority + provocation. On one hand, the President — a symbolic authority figure. On the other, an act deemed provocative — public twerking on a national freeway.
Social psychology tells us authority carries a cognitive shortcut: if a powerful figure is involved, the claim feels weightier. Pair that with a socially transgressive act, and you have a magnet for attention.
I saw this play out in real time. Many believed the story at face value; others rejected it instantly. But both groups engaged — liking, commenting, debating. The combination of power and provocation magnified engagement far beyond what a neutral, “ordinary” post would achieve.
Reflection 2
The misinformation trap and the correction paradox
This incident reminded me of the misinformation trap. Once a provocative claim enters circulation, it spreads faster than correction. Even as I clarified that the statement came from an AI-generated draft, the original line — “the President ordered an arrest” — had already burned itself into people’s minds.
Here lies the paradox: correction often reinforces the memory of the error. Social scientists call this the familiarity backfire effect — repeating a false claim in order to debunk it can make it more memorable, not less.
In my case, the very act of defending or disputing the claim in the comments gave it oxygen. Ironically, skepticism amplified the post just as belief did.
Reflection 3
Moral outrage as social currency
The flood of comments underscored another reality: much of social media thrives on moral positioning. People weren’t simply debating facts; they were declaring values.
Some framed their stance around propriety: “This is unacceptable in public life.” Others argued for freedom of expression: “Why shouldn’t she dance if she chooses?” Still others used the moment to critique politics, culture, or generational divides.
Every comment became a badge of identity. Social psychology calls this moral outrage as social currency — the chance to say, “Here is where I stand.” That is why the post drew not just attention but heated interaction. Outrage, more than agreement, is what the algorithm rewarded.
Reflection 4
Attention, narrative control, and the ethical turn
Finally, this episode became a lesson in attention economics. The algorithm rewards content that induces strong reactions, regardless of accuracy. Controversy, in essence, is free fuel.
But here lies the responsibility for me as a thought leader: how do I harness this surge ethically?
- Reframe the narrative — I can use such spikes to educate about misinformation, digital responsibility, and the psychology of outrage.
- Invite dialogue, not just conflict — thanking commenters, moderating civilly, and elevating thoughtful voices.
- Disclose uncertainty — making transparent when AI-generated drafts or unverified claims appear in my process.
- Redirect to value — channelling attention back to my mission of mental health, leadership, and human flourishing.
This incident reminded me that every viral moment carries two risks: losing narrative control, or squandering the chance to lead ethically.
Epilogue: The virality mirror
The Penny Ntuli–Ramaphosa post was more than a viral spark. It became a mirror of our digital age. It showed how quickly authority, provocation, and rumour can mobilise attention. It revealed how moral outrage, whether grounded or not, spreads faster than sober analysis. And it forced me to confront my role: not just as a participant in this digital ecosystem, but as a steward of flourishing within it.
As Dr. Awesome, my calling is not merely to provoke, but to provoke with purpose. Every post is an experiment in human behaviour, and every reaction is data. The lesson I take forward is this: controversy may ignite, but clarity must illuminate. And in the crowded agora of LinkedIn, I must choose to be the voice — not merely the echo.
