This past Sunday, the Academy of Motion Pictures recognized last year’s best films, actors and actresses.

You might not have known that if you got your Oscar recaps from Twitter, news websites or other commentary on Monday or Tuesday.

Instead, the focus by commentators has been on host Seth MacFarlane’s jokes, which have been called anti-semitic, homophobic, racist and sexist. The Onion is also under scrutiny for satirically tweeting the word “c*nt” in reference to 9-year-old Best Actress nominee Quvenzhané Wallis.

But these opinions haven’t been limited to professional and semi-professional commentators. As Salon.com noted in an article yesterday, Twitter was especially harsh through the whole affair. Through every small stumble, every subtle hint of possible vile ideology, a running, anonymous commentary acted as a moral watchdog.

This democratic commentary and endless stream of outrage is emblematic of more than just a concerned population. It is another example of how the Internet has altered our views of acceptable, appropriate and desirable discourse.

To be clear, this is not an issue only concerning the oft-cited nastiness of Internet anonymity. The issue is more fundamental: As the cost of being outraged has approached zero (neither awkward face-to-face conversations nor paper nor even a computer is needed anymore), there are no forces that minimize a public expression of outrage.

Therefore, an individual upset by an Oscar presenter or any other entity, such as a corporation or activist group, has no incentive not to scream at a ten. If we are outraged and expressing ourselves feels good, we might as well do it passionately.

Multiply this one individual by 500 million — the approximate number of Twitter accounts worldwide — and pretty soon everything has just devolved into a large mess of screaming. But this is not the directed screaming of a population looking to effect social change. Instead, it is the chaotic yelping of the masses; an indistinguishable soup of sanctimony where misogyny is held to the same moral standard as a burnt sandwich.

Unfortunately for those who care most deeply about these social causes, continual repetition on a theme is one of the better ways to discredit a perspective. It’s also one of the worst ways to actually effect change in people’s hearts: If MacFarlane’s comments after his performance are any indication, his refusal to participate in any future Academy Awards telecasts seems rooted in his annoyance with the roar of criticism as opposed to any real personal analysis. Similarly, the weak apology by Onion CEO Steve Hannah is more indicative of thinking, “Please shut up,” than, “We are abominable for allowing that tweet.”

But can they be blamed for their lack of reflection? With a roar of controversy inevitable, controversy isn’t something to actually consider. Instead, it is just background noise.

Collectively, the best way to address this problem would be a more deliberate thought process before tweeting or retweeting an expression of outrage. Taking the time to consider the cultural relevancy of the institution being criticized or the connection between the institution and the root problem may cause enough pause to put the phone down.

Lower frequencies could lead to higher impacts when the time comes for true outrage or change. After all, it was only when staunch anti-Communist Richard Nixon visited Communist China that association with the Chinese no longer carried a stigma. His single act outweighed lifetimes of controversy.

Regardless of the method by which change comes about, as society evolves into the adolescence of the Internet, we hope the social norms change so the loud din of constant screaming transforms into a meaningful dialogue.

In the meantime, fewer tweets wouldn’t hurt.