One of the things that really annoys me about TOP, and most blogs and social media in general, is the phony moral outrage.
Even way back when, before blogs and Facebook, back on usenet, I noticed the tendency toward phony moral outrage being used as a weapon.
Shaming someone into silence/obedience is always the objective.
Calling someone out for phony moral outrage will always prompt that person toward ever greater levels of phonier moral outrage. So it's possible to goad someone into such ridiculous displays of moral outrage that they discredit themselves to their own supporters.
The question is: what were these people hoping to accomplish? This article helps explain that.

There are big mysteries here. Why are some people more prone than others to express moral outrage? Why are people set off by different triggers? Why is one animal killing or tax shelter a travesty and another business as usual?

Psychologists say it all starts to make sense if you think of outrage as a form of display. Expressing it advertises a person’s views and allegiances to potential allies. And the more popular a victim's cause, the less risky it is to join in displaying your umbrage.

In an attempt to test this display hypothesis, a group of psychologists from Yale created an outrage-provoking situation in the lab. One of two players was randomly handed some money and allowed to share it with the other player, or not.

The interesting part was the behavior of a third party, who acted as a bystander. The bystander, if outraged enough by the tightwad behavior of one of the players, could inflict “punishment” in the form of a fine. The bystander would gain no part of this fine and in fact would have to pay to inflict it -- and yet about 30 percent of the bystanders found it worth the cost.

The punishers ended up profiting in the end, thanks to a subsequent game geared to measure trust. There, other players placed more trust in those who had inflicted fines on the tightwads. The psychologists published their findings last month in the journal Nature.

They also popularized the display idea in a New York Times opinion piece, using it to explain an infamous incident involving a woman who provoked massive online attacks by tweeting a bad joke about race and AIDS. “Whether or not they were conscious of it, these attackers were most likely advertising to their Twitter audiences that they were not racist.” Not too surprisingly, this display itself offended various people for various reasons -- some who defended the original tweeter, others who wanted to demonstrate that they were sooooooo anti-racist that they found the detractors' displays of anti-racism quite inadequate. And so we get the first round of meta-outrage.

"Meta-outrage" is a good term.
In my mind it comes from the same place that our early ancestors used to establish social standings (i.e early politics).
Which is why the people who use it a lot are some of the most phony people on social media.