Have you considered that people use angry mobs because good counterarguments get dismissed historically, and how they are angry, and want to do capture the momentum of rhetoric?
Historically, the mainstream news media would not even cover certain stories and would just spike them. People eventually go upset and found other ways to tell their story or force their opinion, e.g., social media and mobs.
An angry mob isn't about stories. It has no correlation with righteousness or reason or fairness. It's an instrument of chaos and destruction that can as easily be turned against you as your enemies. It's the rhetorical equivalent of setting the theater on fire instead of talking to the people inside.
Doing wrong is wrong even when you're angry.
And it's a short term gain for a long term loss. Every careless attack on a person who turns out to be innocent is an advertisement to join the opposition.
Worse than that, if you shout down dissent then you stay wrong. If you can't admit to a mistake then you can't stop making it.
Historically, the mainstream news media would not even cover certain stories and would just spike them. People eventually go upset and found other ways to tell their story or force their opinion, e.g., social media and mobs.