Don't be a Drive-By Critic: The Ethics of Public Disagreement

Criticism matters. Disagreement can be a tool for discovering truth and exposing error. So, we should welcome criticisms like:

• “His argument is unsound—here’s why.”

• “She thinks the only options are A, B, and C, but she overlooks D—and here’s why D is actually a good idea.”

• “They offer an objection to this argument, but it rests on a false premise—one that presupposes the very thing they’re trying to critique.”

Constructive criticism sharpens ideas. It leads to better reasoning, clearer thinking, and sometimes, genuine progress.

But there’s another kind of critic—one I’ve long thought of as a drive-by critic. This person publicly criticizes someone’s views—in a blog, podcast, article, or video—but does so without engaging the person they’re criticizing. Here’s what they typically don’t do:

• they don’t contact the target of their criticism, even when that would be easy;

• they don’t check their understanding with the target to avoid straw-manning or misrepresenting the view;

• they don’t ask their target, “Is there any merit to this criticism?”—because they aren’t interested in the target’s answers;

• and crucially, they usually don’t even notify the person that they’ve been criticized. The “target” only learns about it—if ever—by accident or through a third party, which is the intellectual equivalent of learning that someone has been "talking about you, behind your back." 

This kind of engagement, or lack thereof, lacks intellectual virtue. It’s not offered in the spirit of seeking understanding. It seems to be offered in the spirit of performance—for followers, fans, clicks, or ego.

Philosophers and other thinkers—especially public ones—should hold themselves to higher standards. When Socrates challenged someone, he spoke to them. John Stuart Mill argued that even flawed objections deserve hearing because they help sharpen the truth. None of these thinkers advanced knowledge by avoiding the people they disagreed with.

Why Do Drive-By Critics Act This Way?

Sometimes it’s strategic. The critic wants a “gotcha” moment—a dunk, a mic-drop, likes and reposts. Interacting with the person they’re targeting could get in the way of all this. What if the target says, “That’s based on a misunderstanding,” and they’re right? What if the target points out a crucial distinction or nuance? That’s less fun. It’s harder to rally the tribe when the other person seems reasonable.

Some drive-by critics might be extremely confident that their criticism is just devastating so there’s no point in contacting the target first—that would just complicate things and maybe even embarrass the target. But such overconfidence is often misplaced. Skipping the interaction stage protects the critic from pushback—especially the kind that could reveal that their critique isn’t as strong as they think; indeed, it might be a total flop.

Drive-by criticism can be motivated by insecurity. The critic might not be confident in their own view. They’re afraid to “check their work” because it might not hold up. But the responsible response to this fear isn’t avoidance—it’s engagement. It’s OK to misunderstand something. It’s OK to offer an objection that misfires. What’s not OK is not making responsible efforts to find out whether you’ve misunderstood or misfired.

Some critics may think, “Why bother? The person I’m criticizing probably doesn’t care.” But how do they know? Why not ask? In many cases, they'd be surprised at how open people are to real engagement—especially when it’s offered respectfully.

And sometimes there are bad incentives. Some people are paid to produce something, anything—so they take cheap shots. Others work in environments that reward confrontation more than collaboration. But none of these are good excuses for abandoning fair, intellectually honest practice.

What Should We Do Instead?

We should model the kind of world we want to live in. A world where people talk to each other about disagreements. A world where people say, “I think you’re mistaken, and I want to understand you better—and I want you to understand me better too.”  

Of course, we all fall short. If I’ve ever been a “drive-by critic” myself, I regret it. I’ve rarely thought as carefully as I should have about these ethics, and to my knowledge, there’s no established literature on how to handle these kinds of interactions. So here’s a first pass at what responsible criticism looks like:

1. If you publicly critique someone’s ideas, tell them.

2. Where possible, interact with them beforehand—or at least check that you’ve understood them correctly.

3. Be open to refining or abandoning your criticism if it turns out you missed something.

4. Offer criticism in a way that invites dialogue, not just attention.

We can’t expect everyone to follow these norms. So, how should we respond to drive-by critics?

Sometimes, ignoring them is best. Starve the troll. Don’t reward the behavior with attention.

Sometimes, the higher road is better: respond charitably, publicly, and thoroughly—showing what better engagement looks like.

But let’s be honest. Drive-by critics usually don’t want dialogue. They want confrontation without consequence. They want to shoot and keep driving. In these cases, I’m sometimes tempted by a Kantian thought: treat them according to the rule they themselves act on. If they want to live in a world of casual, aggressive criticism, maybe they deserve some of it back—ideally with bigger "guns."

But better still is to reserve our energy for those who want to think together. Most of us are partly right and partly wrong about most things. The best way to make progress is to criticize each other’s ideas sincerely and collaboratively. More truth, less error; more justification, less irrationality—for all.

And to any would-be drive-by critics out there: hold your fire. Aim instead for clarity, fairness, and understanding. If you’re going to criticize, do it in a way that might actually change minds—starting with your own.