You may be familiar with the view among some social media users that “Facebook is not for politics.” A 21st-century version of the “don’t discuss politics at the dinner table” rule of etiquette, it implies a wariness for informal political debate. Friends and family have reason to be cautious — it is easy for ideas to become oversimplified and for debate to take a nasty emotional turn, particularly in the disinhibiting medium of the Internet. But if you see political engagement and discussion as an important part of communities — whether online or elsewhere — then such avoidance is problematic. I argue that Facebook is an excellent forum for the exchange of political ideas, and that segregating political beliefs from friends and family deprives us of a meaningful space for engagement. But politics and Facebook only mix well if done correctly.
Though Facebook cannot take the place of traditional, active forms of political participation, it holds political value as a forum for self-expression and the exchange of ideas. As founder Mark Zuckerberg frequently states, Facebook’s mission is to make the world more open and connected. Citizens benefit from an intelligent, civil exchange of political ideas — local, national and international. Open discussion of such issues is essential for a healthy democracy. With social media providing a ready-made forum for friends and acquaintances to engage, why wouldn’t we take advantage of it?
Many friends and family of opposing political views prefer to avoid Facebook politics because of the unpleasantness that can result from an online sparring match. Such unpleasantness, however, can be avoided with certain habits of political discourse, most of which equally apply to political conversation outside the Internet. Perhaps most important is to be respectful — to show that your political disagreement is secondary to your personal disagreement. A friend will respond quite differently to “You are wrong” versus “Your statement is incorrect.” The first makes a general criticism about the person himself, which is likely to be interpreted as an attack on his character and quickly turn the exchange negative. Simply keep the discussion positive. If you and your friends approach Facebook politics as a joint project in self-education, with each person helping the other to become more informed, interpersonal risk is largely negated.
Informal political debate in any medium — online, written or in person — always holds the risk that participants will oversimplify ideas or fail to sustain an informed exchange. Social media users have reason to worry about these issues, since Facebook is geared more toward short exchanges than long-form argument, but certain features of the website can deal with these particular problems. For your average citizen, Facebook might even allow for better discourse than in an impromptu face-to-face discussion.
As an example, take the issue of climate change. Many promising in-person discussions on this topic dead end under the weight of mis-cited facts, out-of-context references and differing assumptions about what qualifies as “environmentally urgent.” Granted, the conversation would be more productive if both parties took the time to inform themselves beforehand, but this is rarely practical. On Facebook, a friend might share a news or opinion piece on the subject. The participants (other friends who comment on the article) have access not only to the same article, but to the entire Internet. They can check facts, seek out other sources and develop a counterargument at their leisure. The train of discussion might go in any direction, but participants have full and equal access to the resources and may think through these resources before developing a response. It’s a level of control only the best debaters may exercise in person. Constructive political discourse requires meticulous research and careful articulation, and Facebook gives participants the time and resources to meet these standards in informal debate.
Like most technologies, Facebook is a neutral tool. Its worth stems from how well we use it. Though social media cannot replace the role that activism and face-to-face interaction play in traditional methods of political engagement, it provides a useful forum for open dialogue. To excise political discussion from key social mediums — whether Facebook or the dinner table — limits civic engagement. Given that a democracy depends on the participation of its citizens, it’s worthwhile to reconsider these self-imposed limits.
George Knaysi is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. His columns run Tuesdays.
Read More
LETTER: Medical students stand in support of transgender youth
By Rachel Rezabek , Russell Hawes , Ishaan Rischie , Elianna Dunster , Kaile Maske , Zain Ahmad and Zoe Ziff | 13 hours agoAs future physicians, we cannot remain silent, especially since U.Va. Health is one of the most comprehensive gender health centers in the country.
HUYNH: The Supreme Court must support civil rights litigation in Virginia and beyond
By Viet Huynh | 18 hours agoThe Supreme Court must prioritize protecting the litigating power of the people against potentially tyrannical laws by their government.
EDITORIAL: U.Va. Health lets fear trump its mission to do no harm
By Editorial Board | YesterdayIt is high time to resist these authoritative and dangerous actions before there are no federal avenues left for resistance.
