Social Media is an environment of intolerance, filled with conflict and tribalism
Freedom of speech is often considered the bedrock of a civilized society. Though boundaries are important, especially when negative speech is spewed without any other intent than hate, we still respect the right to speak freely without retaliation. This right is oppressed in China, Russia, and many other countries, where human rights violations are rampant. Here in America, we often take for granted the right to protest peacefully, and express our thoughts openly for those who care to listen. Truly our society has benefited from the advocacy of past generations. Facebook, Twitter and Instagram have provided us with the opportunity to share with the world our opinions on everything from politics, sports, current events and religion. However, there has been a disturbing trend about big tech’s ability to censor content they don’t agree with, and this shouldn’t be accepted.
Last summer, it became clear that achieving consensus when discussing emotional topics is extremely difficult on social media. Take the defund the police movement. Though I disagree with the rhetoric that the majority of officers are racist, I still understood the importance of reform. Lapel cameras on uniforms, banning choke holds, and ending qualified immunity are reasonable solutions that most can agree on. Yet often, submission, not consensus is the goal. It’s often believed that whoever gets the final comment in has “won” the discussion. Ego, not compromise is the motivating factor for many, and I found myself continuing to debate with others despite the fact we had found mutual ground. Rather than stopping the conversation and leaving it at an acceptable outcome, the comments continued, almost never ending, with no resolution or acknowledgment.
Communication, especially when having conversations about passionate topics, involves so much more than words. It involves tone of voice, body language, eye contact, and facial expressions. The 1960 Presidential debate between Kennedy and Nixon is a prime example of how audio and visual formats can result in two different outcomes. In that case, the majority of those who listened on the radio believed Nixon won the debate. Those who watched it on television, a relatively new format, believed Kennedy won. How viewers processed what they heard and saw led to a new era that showcased the power of television.
It is possible that social media can be used in a manner that achieves consensus rather than conflict. But the line of what is acceptable and appropriate continues to be blurred. Tech companies have resorted to tribalism thinking, deciding what should be allowed on their platforms, yet at the same time, taking advantage of the immunity they have by stating they are not the “arbiters of truth”. Many defend this behavior, stating they have the right to decide what is best for their own business. Quite often, this same courtesy isn’t granted to other types of businesses, such as restaurants and churches, which exposes the hypocritical nature of those who throw the word tolerance around meaninglessly, or to whatever suits their own ideology. Unlike the activists of the 1960’s, today’s social justice warriors often believe that government should interfere in the right to free speech. This should concern everyone who remembers the Cold War, Tiananmen Square, and the oppression of advocates in Tibet.
It’s often easy to give into emotion, especially when you are extremely passionate about a subject. Controlling impulsive reactions to comments we don’t agree with is vital if we are to move forward, and heal the divide between us. Let me be clear, I’m not saying you should compromise your values for the sake of convenience. In fact, now more than ever, it’s important to take a stand in what you believe in. We often apologize out of fear, which is exactly what cancel culture is all about. You have to learn to be fearless, and accept the criticisms that will come your way. Here is where we can change the trajectory of social media, and allow it to be a format where all can practice their right to free speech.
Until next time
JPN