Social Media Debates
often fuel mis/disinformation and division
I posted something about the hypocrisy of Senator Marsha Blackburn in the recent Senate Confirmation Hearing for Attorney General: Pam Bondi; where Blackburn was complaining about crime issues in the country so I shared stats of Tennessee crime highlighting gun violence and the fact that the Tennessee legislature has been totally controlled by Republicans including the governor for the last 14 years so it really doesn't ring true that they want to resolve the problem or have real solutions. They only want to complain and blame someone else for it and people need to recognize the truth and not get caught up in their rhetoric or reframing of the narrative. They can’t continue to blame democratic leadership when they’ve literally had the reins of power.
Someone came into the TL and commented on the post asking if I could cite the T.C.A. law., stated Red Flag Laws were unconstitutional with 2nd Amendment rhetoric.
I waited til the next day and responded with several posts that included the actual Senate Bill along with a link to the Tennessee government page with all the gun laws. I also included links to other articles with stats and opinions from law enforcement.
He came back again with more questions (anticipated certain answers), to confirm and fuel assumptions and opinions he had already held. I decided that he was there to debate but what he didn’t know is I was not. I am on social media to get and share information. Debates are useful and have their place, however, in this era of information warfare I find it more of a tactic to infuse mis/disinformation into the conversation or information ecosphere. I am not seeking debate but conversation. I prefer to debate people I can look in the face or know them to be real people, honest brokers.
I really got the sense he was looking for some antagonistic back and forth for it all to end where it began, neither person’s mind being changed. In this upcoming administration, I will preserve my energy and be strategic about how I use it and how I choose to engage with others.
The information war being waged through social media platforms has created an atmosphere that amplifies anger, grievance and adversarial interaction which creates divisions more than it fosters positive universal human relationships or community. This adversarial see-saw of course increases the algorithms and provides more revenue for the platform owners while slowly destroying the very essence of the thing that strengthens communities --collaborative relationships.
Social media is a place where I go to engage with friends, get and share information and important resources. I focus my energy on building community, a community of civically engaged, well-informed people. I think this work is more important than ever, now. So this was my closing response to him.
You came into my TL, with your opinions I have mine. You will not change them I am not trying to change yours nor continue this dialogue. I've said all I care to say. Have a nice day.
At this point, a bit of a test began for me about him. If he accepted that statement and moved on, I thought this is a reasonable person desiring discourse. If he didn’t, I knew he was seeking to pull me into the social media antagonistic, adversarial see-saw engagement. Of course he came back with more questions challenging me to respond. I will not provide that fuel or expend anymore energy.
I will be penning another essay about the topic that bought him into my TL, #GunViolence because it’s a public health and safety threat that is uniquely American. I will also share the links and resouces that I shared with him in the “BlueSky” thread.