Anti-Social Media
Yesterday, after a turbulent weekend of social media “interaction” on Next Door, I opted to disconnect. I have not formally taken myself off of the system since I may want to still know if there is a rattlesnake on the loose or a lost kitty wandering about. But I have signed-off of the text exchange that got far too bitter and entrenched for my delicate sensibilities. I know what you’re all thinking, but I truly am getting kinder and gentler in my repose here in Escondido during the era of COVID-19. My days are filled with the beauty of my hilltop surroundings and the gentle chirping of songbirds, humming bird buzzing and marching mini-ants. The babbling brook of my spa is not so natural, but it is certainly calming and I am finding that I like calm. Who among us doesn’t enjoy that commercial for Calm when it gives us thirty seconds to hear the falling rain?
The element in the online dialogue that so disturbed me was when it devolved to a disagreement about whether there was more truth in the reporting of the New York Times and Washington Post or in Fox News and Breitbart. That was the final battlefield, and it is hardly an unusual point of disagreement. My point was that the 169-year history of the New York Times, with the respect and award-winning reporting was second to none. I also noted that the 24-year history of Fox News has been deeply marred by volatile and questionably-driven leadership that is motivated not by truth, but by raw commercial instinct. Creating controversy and leaving watchers with jaw-dropping shock and awe makes for good business for Fox and Breitbart where the Times has been venerably acclaimed for its objectivity. The reaction was that the old grey lady ain’t what she used to be and that the demise was highlighted by the financial support that had been gotten from Carlos Slim. I asked what was wrong with a respected and tough business man like Carlos Slim other than that he is Mexican? I heard crickets. I asked what was different about Jeff Bezos owning the Washington Post that was not like Rupert Murdoch and sons owning Fox News? I heard crickets. This was not a fact-based disagreement, this was an ideological disagreement. Surprise, surprise.
My interaction so disappointed me that I tried to sign off and made the mistake (there, you see, I am more soul-searching by the moment in my dotage) of saying that we had to agree to disagree and that the reasons were a matter of personal perspective. I said mine was forged by a life of living around the globe (I was aiming for breadth) and working as an investment banker (I was highlighting pragmatism) and a Clinical Professor at an Ivy League University (trying to counteract the suggestion that I didn’t read the content and was not doing proper research and just shut down when seeing that it was from Fox News). That illicited a strong rebuke for trying to flaunt my resume and suggesting that my views were superior to and thus more important than their views. Recognizing my mistake and being depressed that I had, indeed, fallen back on my personal history to validate myself, I sent a two-word final sign-off of, “My apologies”.
I have found that in general, nothing soothes the wild breast more than a simple and genuine apology. It is hard to combat in its simplicity and its gracefulness. I once saw the legendary Jimmy Cayne throw me out of his office in total frustration (he preferred to fight than have someone submit) when he realized I had indeed apologized for a badly-placed joke that had been seized upon by a bad colleague as grounds for reversal of a valid business issue. This time, it caused the conservative combatant to also accept the apology and make one to me in return, thereby tieing a bow on a rough few days of text battle. It is a shame more people don’t see the salvation in a simple apology. Certainly Mr. Trump was never taught that tactic by Roy Cohn.
Since Mr. Trump has now come up (how did that happen?), I must comment about the real reason for this story and this title of Anti-Social Media. It is front page news today that Twitter has finally….finally…determined that it is wrong to allow a major world leader to use their social media platform to mislead and misinform the general public. What is Trump without a platform like Twitter through which to share his 18,000+ lies over the last four years? He has already lashed out at Twitter for impinging his First Amendment rights, much like he lashes out at Fox News any time they say anything even remotely unsupportive of his agenda. How dare the media fact-check him. he is the fucking President of the United States. If he says or does it, it is not only legal by definition, but it is true by definition.
While the worm that is twitter, turning as it now has, seems pretty monumental in its own right, I think digging one level deeper is even more noteworthy. Why has Twitter chosen this moment to make this dramatic policy change? God knows, they have been fully aware that Trump has been lying through his tweets for years and their fact-checking has shown repeatedly that he will tweet and retweet falsehoods with great abandon (no consequences is a very slippery slope). It seems that the change agent in all of this has been the Coronavirus Pandemic. They came to the determination that lying through Twitter about the pandemic (not specifically from Trump, but from anyone) was harmful to the public good. I’m sure someone at Twitter, most of whom are diligently working from home and have been doing so for three months, thought through the reality that stopping pandemic falsehoods would quickly lead them to needing to block or place warnings on Trump’s tweets and they decided as a policy that that was not only OK, but necessary.
The way Twitter is doing this all is to put a warning label on Trump’s objectionable tweets that Twitter followers can click through on such that they are taken to a detailed fact-check rebuttal to what Trump is saying in his tweet. That is huge and that is a valuable public service. It is high time that responsible people and businesses that have benefitted from Trumpanomics did the right thing. I am sure we have not heard Trump’s last rant about how Un-American it is to fact-check anything he says, but thank God for this small step by the otherwise Anti-Social Media.
Good fences ( electronic and otherwise) make good neighbors.
Will twitter fact-check everyone now, or just the chosen few?
I think its fair to say that their focus is on important global political leaders, which is as it should be since these people supposedly have the burden of the public trust and have been granted powerful podiums.