Unsocial Media
Is social media creating isolation and division instead of understanding and co-operation?
I have been a read-only Twitter user for many years but recently branched out into issuing tweets as @flyk6cr. I am now active on Facebook and have started writing articles like this on Medium. What has struck me most is the stark divisions and oppressive nature of many exchanges between people on social media. There has been much written about this already but I thought I would throw my hat into the ring as well.
Tolerating Differences
I was born in the early 1960s long before mobile phones and the internet became the primary means of communication. As such I’ve been privileged to observe and actively participate in the rapidly evolving adaption of the human race to the technological era.
Social media was I assume intended to bring people together so that we could exchange views and information through a universally accessible and uncensored medium. This would help to increase understanding and co-operation in a globalized world. The evolution of social media from its birth has seemingly taken a turn towards the dark side. In the process it has revealed some unpleasant facts about the base nature of humans.
We all have our own unique perspective on life. We may share the same values and opinions with others but we may also have significant differences. This has always been the case. The differences can be slight or they can be unbridgeable chasms. No two people are exactly the same but we tend to surround ourselves with those that have a similar world-model to us as that is a comfortable place to be. This is a manifestation of the group security we seek from being part of a common structure such as a family.
There are environments where we must tolerate significant differences between ourselves and those that we interact with. The workplace is the most obvious location. Diplomacy is a full-time occupation where the representatives may have fundamentally different views and objectives but must seek common ground or at least an acceptable compromise in order to succeed. We cannot retreat from the differences in these situations and are compelled to treat them rationally. We may have to talk in depth to a potential adversary in order to avoid an escalation of minor differences into an all-out conflict.
Retreating From Differences
Social media is a unique and quite often a dysfunctional environment. It allows our views and beliefs to be instantly communicated to random strangers from all backgrounds across the face of the world. We have no incentive to act with a diplomatic approach to these exchanges. There are in general no serious consequences of disagreeing with a remote stranger in a dismissive or aggressive manner.
One of the key problems is that we use short messages such as 140 character length Tweets for example. These provide little scope for a detailed exchange and usually end up as blunt statements which trigger emotional responses. Rational debate of complex issues requires a lengthy and detailed interaction. People read short tweets and make broad assumptions about the author based on a single line of text.
Social media seems to be a cause of increased polarization of views and disconnection between people. Rather than taking time to listen to and understand differing viewpoints people often lazily condemn others using generic labels such as “white racist misogynist”. They then block any further communication. The result is that exchanges occur only between closed groups of like-minded people reinforcing their own world view while dismissing all variations.
The recent UK European Union exit referendum and the US 2016 Election have produced remarkable divisions between people. Furious exchanges occur on social media in relation to these topics with the two sides of the debate seemingly irreconcilable. Each side declares that there is no purpose in interacting with the opposite camp. The world of social media is drawn in black and white whereas the real world is many shades of grey.
I would also note that social media does not encompass all strata of society. The bulk of those taking part in the activity tend to work in white-collar industries. A random sampling of actively posting Twitter profiles appears to corroborate this hypothesis. It should be remembered that in the pyramid structure of society there are many more in the lower layers who are potentially not taking part in the debate. The foundations of the pyramid are essential to its structure and their opinion should not be discounted simply because it is not represented in the on-line world.
This is perhaps part of the explanation for the unexpected results in the two voting opportunities referenced above.
As such in many ways social media is a skewed sample of society and opinions.
The Future
Social media is not going away unless some apocryphal disaster strikes our civilisation. Where is this increasing polarization of views and disconnection between people going to take us?
Since World War 2 we have as a species managed to avoid starting another global conflict. This has been down to sometimes uneasy co-operation and toleration brokered through diplomatic channels or organisations such as the United Nations. The world has by no means been a peaceful place with many regional conflicts such as the ongoing situation in Syria. The key feature is that we keep talking to each other in order to avoid the ultimate escalation.
I genuinely fear for the future as the trend being encouraged by social media is to block any form of exchange with differing views and to retreat into a fortress surrounded by like-minded individuals. From within our closed world we strike out at those that are different. The latest generations present themselves as global, inclusive, tolerant and keen to accept diversity. Their behaviour on social media seems to be precisely the opposite in reality.
Misunderstanding and lack of communication is the doorway to conflict.
I fear that if the latest generations lose the art of diplomacy then they may well be those that take us into the next global war.
