The Ugly Underbelly of Facebook and Twitter

I don't recall when I joined Facebook and Twitter.

The reasons for joining were the obvious: the ability to reconnect with old friends and make new ones, the chance to explore a new social media that was being talked about everywhere, and the opportunity to peer into the thinking and trends being posted all over the Internet.

Facebook and Twitter were going to offer me a platform from which I could see and read the opinions and activities of people far and near, alike and unlike, conservative and liberal, similar and dissimilar. These social networking sites were a townhall, a public forum, and a debate hall. Much like debating in high school and college, Facebook and Twitter encompassed what I loved so much about debating - the social interaction and the lively exchange of ideas.

Now I oftentimes wonder why I stay on Facebook and Twitter.

The easy answer is that I'm bullheaded and like many of us, sometimes just can't resist rubbernecking and watching the collision - the collision of ideas.

I use Facebook and Twitter for social purposes but also to express ideas and thoughts from my website, MichaelBrownToday. And therein lies the conundrum. I have an active albeit small following that debates civilly, thoughtfully and passionately. For those followers and participants I am grateful and often learn and sometimes even change my position or perspective on issues.

But these sites also have an ugly yet insightful underbelly. There you'll find caustic remarks, shallow thoughts, ad hominem attacks, and, most frightening of all, the dreaded "de-friend" or "stop following" actions. In that underbelly you'll find tunnel vision, hatred, laziness, rudeness, and a tendency to just shut out any opposing viewpoints.

I often tell my listeners on my radio show that they should listen to all points of view, whether you agree or not. If you're passionate about an issue, then you owe it to yourself to at least hear the other side, even if you ultimately decide there is no merit to their side. Listening and considering other points of view strengthens your arguments and doesn't weaken them. If it does weaken them, then you have some more work to do.

Just as I watch a smattering of all television news and opinion shows and read both left-wing and right-wing opinion pieces, I enjoy the back-and-forth on Facebook and Twitter. What I don't like and worry is a reflection of our culture, is the willingness to quickly and without thought "de-friend" someone on Facebook or "stop following" someone on Twitter.

I know it happens because if you dig deep enough you can find scripts and other programs to show when someone de-friends you or stops following you. When you post a link to a blog entry and someone drops you very shortly thereafter, you can generally assume they didn't like your point of view. I know that all sorts of reasons exist for dropping someone from Facebook or Twitter. I've dropped people because they're abusing the system or just posting or tweeting on matters completely beyond my interests (can you comprehend why MLM schemes continue to proliferate post-Madoff?).

If you're guilty of "de-friending" or "stop following" because you disagreed with someone, consider what you might be missing - a chance to learn, grow and strengthen your point of view by understanding your opposition. The townhall aspect of these two social media sites is their strength. We should work to maintain that strength.

Besides, we'll know when you drop us!

 

 

Follow Michael D. Brown on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mikebrowntoday

Comments

[iblogleft]

Social communication in any form, outside the strict walls of government or business, will invariably lead to a larger and larger class of people that find the similarities and common needs over division and individualism, and find the ability to overcome the subjects that separate them from one another. On that day, the excesses of the free-market, the politics of division, and the ineptitude of hate will be finished.

Thank goodness it has already started.

[Michael D. Brown - Huffpost Blogger]

Miles, this is a great question, and one that I struggled with during my tenure in the federal government and certainly afterwards because of the frustrations I experienced in making significant changes in FEMA and DHS.

Why do conservatives both to enter public life? I can only answer for myself, but it was to try and effectuate change that would make the government more efficient and eliminate wasteful programs and procedures. CQI would be difficult to implement because Congress sets up regulatory processes that make it virtually impossible to utilize concepts like CQI. Instead, you work around those regulatory barriers and create programs such as RAMP that I used at FEMA to track and incorporate best practices and lessons learned into the regulatory framework. Unfortunately, even that process takes years to have any real effect.

The other problem is that politics literally permeates everything in the executive/­legislativ­e branches. For example, I attempted to eliminate or reduce FEMA's payments for ice during disasters. Originally (1979 and later) ice was provided only to hospitals, patients that needed to keep certain medications cool and lactating mothers. Today, ice is provided to every single person in a disaster regardless of need. It's grown to a program costing taxpayers tens of millions with no discernible benefit, other than to keep beer and brats cool. You would have thought I was committing a cardinal sin by simply trying to scale back this one program.

Great question, too short a space for a better answer!

[miles120]

Thanks for the response; I appreciate the time. I guess - being one who doesn't identify strongly with a political ideology - I've always been one to grab whatever tool is useful at the time. That puts me at odds with half of the participants, although it's impossible to say which half. Still it would be far less frustrating and more intellectually stimulating if we could get past the big/small government argument and talk about why CQI is so difficult to implement (just as an example - I don't want to get hung up on CQI.) To reference the Senator Coburn clip on your website, the idea of 88 more government programs doesn't even begin to resonate with me, because there is no argument made about their merit. Frankly, this country might desperately NEED 88 more government programs.

Sorry for the ramble, but this kind of relates to your post (or I'm going to make the connection anyway): electronic communication, and more specifically social networking, has enabled civic discussion far beyond what was possible ten years ago, but the moderators of that discussion are working hard to keep most of the participants ill-prepared. I am optimistic that if intellectual leaders engaged the public in a more respectful manner, there would be more people who could argue for the merits of a plan, not just pick a side and cheer.

That's all for now! Hopefully HP will take the whole comment.

[Michael D. Brown - Huffpost Blogger]

One thing is certain - the big/small dichotomy does stymie much of the dialogue. I you talked to a lot of the people on the "inside" I think you'd hear the same refrain - it's difficult under the present structure to make many changes. Until that structure is changed, the natural tendency is to frame everything in a big/small context. Frankly, just taking the existing programs and trying to frame them in an efficient/­dysfunctio­nal or efficient/­nonefficie­nt context would be more helpful.

Alas, we were at one time talking about the lack of civility in the dialogue on Facebook and Twitter. We've just proven that at least in this case, I'm wrong!

[Jeff Yablon]

When all is said, this is very simple:

1) We all want to BELONG
2) Those of us who are in the marketing business understand the value of social networking

Oh wait . . . you're asking about actual utility to the users? Just the fact that there's no clear roadmap for or understanding of how to use these tools is all the proof you need that there's really none to be had.

But sheep don't care. And we're all that, aren't we?

Jeff Yablon
http://answerguy.com

[miles120]

I have to admit that it wasn't until I visited your website that I realized who you are. I did read a couple of pages and found a definitive style and message. Because of that, I want to ask a question that has never been answered for me:

If conservatives believe with such fervor that government is less effective than the private sector, why do they bother to enter public life? It often seems that their sole purpose is to to a mediocre job, or sabotage things so that they don't work. If CQI is admirable in a private company, why aren't best practices like those embraced in government?