This is interesting. I see and understand much of the criticism in some of the other comments. One is that calling out acts as a deterrent, and as such does attempt to affect broader societal and systematic changes. A fair point, however I would counter that it’s generally proven that incentives work better than deterrents in just about all walks of life. Focussing on what behavior you want encourage rather what behavior you want to curb just seems like a more strategic approach to me. Of course, tactically there are things that specific individuals do, that need to be called out, and we should keep doing that, but I think a lot of people focus too much on this day to day churn and don’t think enough about the long term. Of course this is not a full answer to anything specifically, but I think it does bring forth a couple of questions that should always be considered: For any negative behavior that is prevalent in a population, what is are the positive alternatives that should be fostered? How can we most effectively encourage / incentivize these desired behaviors in that population?