Myths about Social Media

I have encountered many close-minded liberal opinions.

Think about this: we have seen ideas on the right that go too far (e.g., storming the capitol, white nationalism, racism or other forms of hateful discrimination). But there are ideas on the left that go too far also.

Who is keeping check on the other end? Can liberal or left-leaning ideas go to far? When they do, are they being criticized publicly or excuses/ignored? If that’s not happening then bigotry will become rampant.

You'll see people from both sides doing all sorts of pirouettes to justify why when the others do it it's bad, but when they do something similar it's justified, or they'll point out to other stuff to deflect the criticism. In any sufficiently large group of people you'll always find people who are not good at admitting mistakes or doing any self reflection, that goes for conservatives, liberals, socialists, fascists... You can argue it's to different extents, but all have plenty of it.

My experience with social media is that it tends to amplify the stuff that's most reactionary, causing it to spread until the fastest growing one takes over, kind of like a mould on stale bread. The analogy kind of works for new websites too, as it seems new social media is often more enjoyable and it takes some time for toxicity to start seeping in.

People naturally self-organize according to common interests and values. Prior to "modern social media", forums were popular and each forum was special-interest and broken into sub-forums. There was usually the obligatory "Off Topic" forum where anything goes (and you'd still have organized threads) and often the "Only Religious" thread and "Only Politics" thread. People would venture into those threads knowing exactly what to expect, and they could bail out at any time. Some of those threads got heated, but I don't remember people saying Forums were causing a mental health crises or that people were being censored because mods deleted off-topic or obscene content.

Social media like Twatter and Facebook introduced the "news feed" where everything and anything gets shoved down your throat and you have no ability to filter by content or topic. The best you can do is follow / un-follow or mute certain pages or friends. I don't know anyone who doesn't want a chronological sort option, but "the algorithm" wants to push the most engaged with content to the topic. And we all know that the most engaged with content tends to be the most incendiary and provoking.

Don't get me wrong, exposing yourself to "uncomfortable" information and challenging your beliefs is healthy and everyone should do it from time to time for self-growth. But the vast majority of people who go on Twatter of Facebook are looking for entertainment, not rational discourse. They log on after a hard day at work looking to unwind with cute cat gifs and instead get their crazy uncle's political rantings shoved down their throats or, far worse, some clickbait news headline that makes everyone of all political stripes want to click because it's so stupid and provocative.

It's no wonder people seem more angry on social media.

You don't want discussion to be only available for people with 'thick skin' because that is like 'only the strongest are allowed to eat'.

I think as a society we are well past that.

The opposite toxic behavior is of course labeling every disagreement as 'hateful'.

Feelings and tone should be used appropriately.

If someone writes that 'my candidate' is bad I am not going to swear and scream all caps.

If someone is standing with his phone and filming car crash instead of helping he is going to get couple juicy words from me.

His opinions are based on claimed research while yours are based on intuition. I’d sooner trust his opionions compared to yours because he at least could be exposed as a liar if it turns out that the research doesn’t back up his opinions. You on the other hand would at worst be called naive.