6 Lessons Learned from Facebook During this Election

Photo source: https://www.wpclipart.com/weapons/index.html

Love ‘em or hate ‘em. It looks like you’re stuck with them.

No, I’m not talking about the winners of the tortuous election cycle the US has just gone through. I’m talking about your Facebook friends.

Facebook, for me at least, has been an enlightening social experiment: a way of getting to know some friends in a different context, exploring issues and ideas, and, of course, sharing the ubiquitous silly memes. Over time, FB evolved for me into a means of keeping in contact with others and promoting myself as a writer. Mostly, though, it’s been a convenient excuse for social contact. It’s like sitting down in front of a computer with a large group of friends from all over the world and seeing what happens.

But, like any gathering of large groups of people, FB exchanges often take on a life of their own and gravitate toward certain issues or themes. For much of the last year, the dominating theme on my FB feed has been politics.

I have FB friends on both sides of the political divide—liberals and conservatives—as well as some in between, and some who favor third-party candidates. One would think (hope) that such variety of views would enrich conversations and provide enlightening glimpses into how other people think.

However, that’s rarely been the case.

Most political exchanges on FB have been brief—usually condensed into a Willy Wonka meme intended to show how stupid the other side is. Even the few in-depth conversations I’ve participated in have left me feeling frustrated and more alone than ever. Sometimes a meeting of the minds is not a good thing.

Herewith are six lessons I’ve learned on FB during this political season:

1. Everybody wants to be “heard.”

Being heard is not a bad thing, but FB creates the impression of being trapped at the bottom of a well and crying out for help against the political rainstorms: “Help! I’m a liberal! Save our same-sex marriage!” “Help! I’m a conservative! Save our guns!” FB creates the impression that the world is falling apart, and only you and your side can save it.

2. Social networking is a lazy way to have a relationship.

I confess I’m guilty of this. Rather than going out to events and interacting with “real” people, I find it more expedient to get on FB and see what people have to say. I post my bits—usually short quips intended to be humorous—before going on to the next post.

This is the Internet equivalent of speed dating: Make snap judgments and then move on.

3. Some relationships outlive their usefulness.

Sad but true. Some people were not meant to be friends forever. There’s a wonderful saying that some friends are yours for "a reason, a season, or a lifetime." FB makes it possible for everyone to be “friends” for life. However, this is not always a good thing.

People change as different experiences shape them. Hanging onto an old relationship can prevent you from moving on and making new friends.

4. “Friends” may have their own agendas.

One of my FB friends shared a meme that was patently and historically false. I took it upon myself to respond with a thoughtful correction. My friend replied with a “thank you.” He explained that he knew I would set people straight and that he was just waiting for me to do so.

I did not feel honored to be put in that position. I felt used and even baited.

The experience led me to wonder just how many messages are posted not because they truly reflect what the other person believes, but to get a rise out of someone.

5. It’s not always a good thing to know what your friends are thinking.

As adults, we develop a social filter for a reason. There’s a lot going on in our minds that, frankly, is indefensible. Yet FB seems to encourage people to “put it all out there,” which can lead to some silly, illogical, and even hurtful exchanges. 

One of my FB friends argued that Trump should win because, when he is impeached and forced to resign, it would be good for third-party candidates. (As someone who lived through the Watergate scandal, I don’t want to see the country go through another period of disillusion and distrust brought on by the resignation of a president.) 

A dear relative posted a meme which said anyone who favored any form of gun control could defriend this person immediately. (As someone who favors background checks and a ban on assault rifles, I was tempted to do so.)

FB polarizes people perhaps even more so than the real election did.

6. People of every political stripe can be unreasonable.

Nothing new here. Politics provoke extreme reactions from people on all sides. But FB creates the impression that there are two sides: OUR side and the WRONG side.

In the past, I’ve considered myself an independent and a moderate. I’ve always been wary of political parties. Yet I understand that the way to get things done is to ally with people who share the same positions and ways of looking at the world as you do, and to work toward making changes you agree with. For this reason, I’ve found myself leaning more and more toward the left—the side that promotes equality, inclusiveness, and a way of looking at the world through the guarded lens of hope instead of fear. 

Yet some of my liberal FB friends go to extremes in mischaracterizing conservatives, just as some of my conservative friends have gone to extremes in characterizing liberals. If one is on either side of the divide, it’s easy to find “evidence” that the other side is stupid, corrupt, or lying hypocrites.

FB has allowed users to take mudslinging to new lows.

It can be argued with justification that FB is only a platform. What users do with it is up to them. This is true, which is why it is up to users to regulate the messages and the people we allow into our circle of FB “friends.” I’ve been wary of doing this because I don’t want to be the person who shuts out contrary opinions.

Yet the recent exchanges have left me feeling more and more isolated from deep, meaningful conversations. Perhaps it’s because FB, in its straight-to-the-point simplicity encourages us to categorize each other and ourselves in the most convenient terms: liberal, progressive, conservative, atheist, Christian, Muslim, Jew, veteran, non-veteran. 

Perhaps it’s because everyone feels they have to have the last word—after all, others are watching, even if they don’t participate or “like” our post.

Perhaps liberals and conservatives do see the world in such widely different terms that no true coming together is possible. But if such a meeting of the minds were to happen, it will not be facilitated by the sharp comments, cartoonish memes, and one-upping arguments on Facebook.

The Power of Words, and How Not to Abuse Them on Facebook

Facebook logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As writers in the modern world, we are often encouraged to make ourselves known on social media outlets such as Facebook, so we can build a following, inform potential readers or our work, and “be relatable” (a necessary ingredient for building a following, it seems).  

All well and good, but there are some things writers and non-writers alike should avoid posting, even on Facebook.

Facebook, valuable sociological experiment as it is, can be virtual ground for vitriol.  Posters can say anything they like—and if it disparages politicians, those with different views, or religious organizations, so much, it seems, the better. 

After all, certain individuals and organizations lend themselves easily to mockery.

But before you go blasting away at your favorite target, ask yourself two simple questions: Would you say the same thing at a party filled with strangers or acquaintances, and how would you feel if someone you admired were subjected to similar attacks?

“But it’s just my opinion.”

A frequent defense for posting attacks is that the user is simply stating his or her opinion. The underlying assumption is that an opinion is basically harmless. But is this really so?  

Next time you post an attack on someone, delete that person's name and type in your own before you hit "post." How do you feel now about the post being made public?

Opinions carry weight. If you repeat something often enough, you run the risk of others thinking you know what you're talking about.

Besides, what often passes for opinion on Facebook is not well-thought out points of view but memes —those clever pictures with captions started by someone and so easily "shared" by the rest of us. 

I admit I’ve shared memes, too. Memes can be clever or funny ways of making a point. 

And there’s nothing wrong with creating memes or sharing them, unless the sole purpose for doing so is to ridicule someone or present something in a simplistic or distorted light.

Awhile back, one of the memes making its rounds on Facebook showed an image of Abraham Lincoln and featured a quote from him: “That I am not a member of any Christian church is true.” On the surface, there’s nothing wrong with this. Lincoln did say those words. But the meme presented them out of context and left it up to the reader to guess what Lincoln (and the person sharing the meme) meant. 

What are we supposed to take from Lincoln’s statement? That because he did not belong to a Christian church, we shouldn’t either? That Christianity is bad? The meme carries an air or authority behind it, but, by being purposely vague, it invites us to read into it anything we want.  

(For the record, Lincoln’s beliefs were mysterious and open to scholarly debate.)

Do you even know what that word means?

Another frequent form of attack is aimed at President Obama. Actually, FB is not alone in this. Media pundits who oppose Obama are fond of calling him a socialist or claiming that the United States is becoming more socialist under his administration. While Obama, like any politician, merits criticism on any number of fronts, socialism isn’t one of them.

People who hurl the “S” word often don’t know what it, in fact, means.  Rather, they use it as a scare tactic, as “Communist” once was used.

Furthermore, they seem oblivious to the fact that the U.S. already has policies which emphasize that “individuals do not live and work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another." You may have heard of Medicare, income tax, or even the U.S. military.

Yet some portray socialism as inherently bad and Obama as an evil man for foisting it upon us. If that is what you truly believe, fine. But please keep it to yourself.

(And, just to be fair, similar attacks on Republicans are no less execrable.)

Lighting a match

Opinions are wonderful. Everybody has them. And there’s nothing wrong with expressing yours on Facebook, but please do so responsibly.

My former uncle used to have a saying, which I will present in cleaned-up form: Opinions are like that part of your body which leaves behind solid waste—everyone has such an anatomical feature. 

To this, I add: No one likes it when you pass gas in public, and, if you do, don’t be surprised when someone else lights a match.

To Copyright or Not to Copyright?

© is the copyright symbol in a copyright notice (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

File this under: Just when you thought it was safe to use social media . . .

Two days ago, The Kansas City Star published an article entitled “Digital Era Puts Your Photos in Odd Places” by Judy L. Thomas, which describes the thorny issues of copyright protection in the modern era of photo sharing, file sharing, and social networking.

The thrust of the article: Items you may not think of as needing copyright registration probably do.

The article begins with the story of a bride who was shocked to discover one of her wedding photos had been used by the diocese in which she was married for an ad in a bridal magazine. The photo had been stored on the church’s computer, where the bride’s mother worked at the time of the wedding.

The diocese justified its use of the photos because the bride had never filed for copyright protection of the photos.

Copyrighting wedding photos? Who would think to do such a thing?

And yet Thomas drives home the point that anything you publish (e.g., put on social media outlets such as Facebook and Twitter) may be used in ways you don’t want them to be used unless you file for federal copyright protection.

Facebook Can Use My What?!?

Facebook, Twitter, and other social media outlets offer writers an enormous avenue to reach prospective readers, network with other writers, and promote their work. But even these sites may stake claims to using whatever you post for their own purposes.

Facebook’s “Statement of Rights and Responsibilities” (which you can access at the bottom of your FB homepage by clicking on “Terms”) specifies that, by using Facebook, you give the site license to use any intellectual property content you post, such as videos and photos—a license that ends only when you terminate your account (though backup copies of posted material may continue to exist, the site says).

If you think it’s unlikely that Facebook would use your photos, artwork, or posts for its own ends, you’re probably right. However, the material we post online can wind up in the unlikeliest places. What if your child’s high school graduation photo shows up on a billboard? That really happened to a woman, according to her Ohio attorney quoted in the Star article.

Copyrights and Copywrongs

Copyright is widely misunderstood. Basically, it is a form of legal protection for “original works of authorship” created in “a tangible medium of expression,” according to the U.S. Copyright Office’s website. Furthermore, a work has copyright protection the moment you created it.

But don’t rejoice just yet. In one of those legal-loophole type things, you need to actually register your work in order to sue for infringement, according to the site. The benefits for registering your work include having a public record of your registration and possible eligibility for statutory damages and attorney fees.

Registering a copyright can be done online at the site above. Fees are $35 for a basic registration and $65 for a group of photographs.

So, should you copyright everything you post on Facebook and Twitter?  Probably not—unless you’re insanely wealthy and paranoid. But knowing your rights and making informed decisions can help you avoid the risk of that brilliant piece of art being used to promote tobacco-flavored cheesecake without your permission or compensation.

Is Your Writing too Vanilla?

A couple of posts ago, I mentioned recent political comments regarding rape and abortion and wondered if breaching such topics in a blog aimed at promoting a forthcoming YA novel was going too far.

I received no comments on that post, which is not unusual, yet November was my most successful month ever in terms of page views (835!), so I must not have offended too many readers.

So, here I go again.

My intention is never to directly offend anyone; however, writing, if it is to matter, must occasionally risk offending some. Writing that does not stick its literary neck out can become bland and boring—vanilla, to borrow a term from a work-in-progress belonging to a member of my writer’s group (thanks, Rachel).

What’s wrong with vanilla?

Nothing, really.  I like vanilla, but I also like chocolate, orange, lemon, and other flavors. A strict diet of vanilla—in either ice cream or writing—is safe and predictable. Writers who create a vanilla world in which their protagonists never face controversy or risk offending segments of their audience do their readers—particularly young readers—a disservice. Readers (whether you want them to or not) will look to your characters as models for how they are supposed to be in the “real” world.  

Characters who never have to deal with difficult problems give the impression that the reader shouldn’t have to, either.

What prompted this line of thinking was spending last night on Facebook. Far from being an addictive waste of time, as some claim, FB has become a valuable sociological experiment. People from diverse backgrounds all across the globe “friend” each other and interact. Most of the interactions are silly or conversational, but occasionally real discussions take place.

And any time a real discussion takes place, disagreements are bound to ensue.

The other day, I posted a link to a petition that’s been making its way around the Internet. The petition seeks to urge the government of Uganda not to proceed with legislation that would criminalize homosexuality. Regardless of whether you believe homosexuality is natural or not, a sin or not, no one should condone imprisoning or executing people because of their sexual orientation.

Yet the FB friend of an FB friend responded, “not our country . . . not our problem.”

In our discussion which followed, the poster claimed he was not apathetic. He just didn’t care about what went on in countries other than the U.S.

I resisted the urge to post a link to Merriam-Webster’s definition of “apathy” and let the conversation drop. After all, he makes a valid point. It’s certainly his right (and anyone else’s) to care or not care about a particular issue. And there’s nothing wrong with focusing his attention on battling intolerance in this country (which he claimed he would do).

But his attitude represents, I think, a rather narrow definition of “us” and “them.”  “I only care about us,” this attitude proclaims. “Us” can be defined in terms of national borders, as in his case, but it can also be defined in terms of race, sexual orientation, politics, gender, social cliques, and any other distinction one cares to identify with.

In other words, the “us and them” attitude promotes a vanilla world in which all of “us” are the same.  

But in a world which is becoming increasingly connected through technology, trade, and travel, there is no “them.”  There is only “us.”

I differ with my new FB acquaintance in that, where he sees division, I see connections. Our signatures on the petition may have no effect on a government half the world away. Yet hope and a desire for a better world (not just a better country) compelled me to try. Assuming the government of Uganda wasn’t prompted “merely” by hatred of homosexuals but rather by a desire to protect its society from something it perceives (wrongly) as a threat, then making our opinions known may educate others who have more influence.

There are also connections between “the real world” and writing.

So, you want to write escapist fiction or fantasy? Great. So do I. But even escapism is a product of the real world and reflects that real world back upon the reader.

It all boils down to this: Do you want to immerse your reader in a vanilla world, or do you want to open her palate to other flavors?