For whatever extent you want to talk about the news itself being the cause of stress (which is fair to do), I think we have to look also look at the setup of the platforms, human nature, and the culture around social media, as likely contributing factors.
Because really, however bad the news was, 20 years ago you'd be waiting for the nightly news to find out about it. Several decades before that, you'd be waiting for the following day's newspaper. Now, we're getting constant updates, and those updates may be causing a device in your pocket to vibrate and make noise every time something new comes out. We know that checking all of those notifications is addictive, and not checking causes stress. However, constantly feeling the need to check also causes stress. (human nature)
Also, we have grown to expect that everyone is constantly online, always checking all of their platforms. Speaking for myself, I get messages via various social networks, and if I don't respond immediately, people freak out and take personal offense. Even when I try to remove those apps from my phone or turn off notifications, I get angry messages from people because I'm ignoring them. (culture)
I think it's also worth pointing out that most of these platforms are not really designed for occasional use. I've thought it would be nice if you could set a time-based digest of a social networking site. For example, instead of looking at Twitter, give me a weekly digest of the tweets that (based on some criteria) I'm going to be most likely to want to read and respond to. Only update Twitter at 9am on Sunday mornings with the 25 most important tweets of the week. But Twitter doesn't work that way. It's basically built on the idea that you're always looking, always paying attention, because if you stop paying attention for a day or two, you're just going to miss things and they'll get buried under a flood of other tweets. (the platforms)
Basically, I don't think we can do much about the human-nature aspect. Realistically, I don't foresee the platforms changing because they're providing the instant-feedback that people want. In my thinking, they key would be to change the culture and expectations around social media, which would change what we want from the platform, which would change the platform.
But then, intentionally changing culture is not so easy either.
Ok, so what's the "other way" that it goes? In the one case, you have "aggressive behavior by an employee goes unchecked because of poor management." What's the other way?
Are you interpreting one of the examples to be "aggressive behavior by management goes unchecked because of poor employee behavior"? Because then it would make sense to say, "It goes both ways." But I feel like, in both cases, it's a problem of bad management.
I documented all of this, got supporting statements from my colleagues, and went to HR - who basically said that she's untouchable because she's a minority and a woman.
I don't understand why you say, "Goes both ways". It seems like the same problem. Someone is abusive at work, but getting away with it due to poor management. This isn't "going both ways", it's "going the same way".
Unless you're just trying to make some kind of "I hate 'political correctness' and affirmative action!" argument, in which case, that's kind of off-topic.
I'm not sure we're disagreeing here. My point is that, contrary to the idea that, "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear," the people who genuinely have something to hide are likely to plan ahead and circumvent this security measure. If you're a terrorist and you know people are going to be asked to unlock your phone and computer, then you're just not going to store your terrorism plans on those devices.
The information the government is likely to gather from this is just a bunch of personal/private information from innocent people.
That's a longer answer than a single number or range of numbers.
"All my life I wanted to be someone; I guess I should have been more specific." -- Jane Wagner