I made the mistake earlier today of clicking a Twitter link that someone sent me. I was quickly reminded of why I avoided that place and other "social" media when it came to politics and other complex subjects:
- Oversimplified posts aimed at generating responses and getting likes rather than having much substance or depth. After all, how would someone cover a complex issue while bound by a 200-character limit?
- Tribalistic, inaccurate, and/or toxic comments from people of all kinds of political and religious persuasions. This includes social media "celebrities" like Jordan Peterson, Richard Dawkins, Linda Sarsour, and Sam Harris. Worse yet, when people who have a lot of followers like those four make inaccurate or inflammatory comments, they often end up causing a quagmire of hostility, misunderstanding, and fruitless bickering--or sometimes even encouraging hatred or demonization of others (whether intentionally or not).
- Poor takes devoid of nuance that instead rely on "sick burns" and "gotchas" to appear clever or substantial. This not only comes at the cost of worthwhile discourse but also fosters a toxic climate where people address each other as if they were mere words on a screen without any feelings or multifaceted lives.
- Insufficient space to address inaccuracies or faulty/problematic claims, consequently leading to verbal retaliation in lieu of any useful or productive response. Rinse and repeat.
I could go on and on, but suffice to say, I despise "social" media for almost anything but entertainment, chatting, and lighthearted topics. They're not a consistent or reliable source of information, not a suitable venue for nuanced and lengthy discussions, and certainly not a good outlet for airing brief takes about important and hot-button issues.
I don't regret my decision to minimize my exposure to such content in those places. There's enough toxicity elsewhere; we don't need spaces dedicated to generating more of it for recreation and profit.
- Oversimplified posts aimed at generating responses and getting likes rather than having much substance or depth. After all, how would someone cover a complex issue while bound by a 200-character limit?
- Tribalistic, inaccurate, and/or toxic comments from people of all kinds of political and religious persuasions. This includes social media "celebrities" like Jordan Peterson, Richard Dawkins, Linda Sarsour, and Sam Harris. Worse yet, when people who have a lot of followers like those four make inaccurate or inflammatory comments, they often end up causing a quagmire of hostility, misunderstanding, and fruitless bickering--or sometimes even encouraging hatred or demonization of others (whether intentionally or not).
- Poor takes devoid of nuance that instead rely on "sick burns" and "gotchas" to appear clever or substantial. This not only comes at the cost of worthwhile discourse but also fosters a toxic climate where people address each other as if they were mere words on a screen without any feelings or multifaceted lives.
- Insufficient space to address inaccuracies or faulty/problematic claims, consequently leading to verbal retaliation in lieu of any useful or productive response. Rinse and repeat.
I could go on and on, but suffice to say, I despise "social" media for almost anything but entertainment, chatting, and lighthearted topics. They're not a consistent or reliable source of information, not a suitable venue for nuanced and lengthy discussions, and certainly not a good outlet for airing brief takes about important and hot-button issues.
I don't regret my decision to minimize my exposure to such content in those places. There's enough toxicity elsewhere; we don't need spaces dedicated to generating more of it for recreation and profit.
