Skip to main content

EPISODE 13: SOCIAL MEDIA POLITICS


Social media platforms are supposed to bring people together and break communication barriers, permitting open conversations across the globe or amongst select communities.

These platforms provide a voice for billions of people across the globe, allowing them to provide input or comments on anything and everything they wish. 

No longer did one have to be a subject matter expert to get a mass following. The entertainment value and shock factor contribute more to attraction than accuracy and facts.

Social media is a great tool to assess the pulse of a population. But, one must keep in mind that it is not a reliable sample size or reputable population to base credibility on. 

The downside of social media is that anyone can post anything, anytime, and from anywhere. Content creators can put whatever hashtag they dream of. 

Conversations are not supposed to be held only by the intellectual elite or societal power brokers. Social media provides an instant channel for people to enter these discussion.

In its purest form, free speech is supposed to be somewhat universal and absolute to some degree. People have the right to an opinion, regardless of accuracy. 

In truth, people have a moral responsibility to not purposefully put forth fraudulent misleading statements. But, the anonymity of social media relaxes moral consideration for some. 

One can agree with the notion that social media companies should be more proactive in regulating fake news stories meant to influence electoral outcomes. 

Social media companies should regulate legitimate hate speech and threats to society, communities, or individuals, informing law enforcement of potential threats. 

Those are reasonable expectations. The issue social media channels have is what content they consider fall into these categories and consistency of enforcement. 

Both social media and traditional media should refrain from denying free speech rights based on political motives. Simply disagreeing with a position is not enough to claim offense. 

There is clear as day evidence that social media organizations have little to no tolerance for those in our society with conservative viewpoints. 

Many conservatives are unfairly targeted for simply disagreeing with liberals or stating political positions that are right of center. 

The controversy is that liberal content creators never face any punishment for posts, even when the material is directly threatening to others or patently false. 

Again, the purpose of social media is to promote conversations and free speech, not groupthink and censorship. Especially when the censorship is completely inappropriate. 

There is too many political ostriches in our society. Those who only converse with people that think, act, look, pray, and speak like them. 

People should engage with others than hold ideological viewpoints, cultural or religious backgrounds, and life experiences to shape more well rounded opinions. 

All too often people reject viewpoints simply because it came from someone from a different perspective. There is nothing wrong with engaging and questioning why they feel that way.

Outside of The CRC Review, rarely do people have all the answers. That is why it is important to debate to see what compromise is available or which viewpoint draws from facts.

Despite our growing political divide, there are many times where both sides have valid points that should be considered in the final recommendation. 

More all of the above outcomes are possible if conversations actually occur and are not censored by social media and tech companies.