About Me

My photo
Pilgrim, priest and ponderer. European living in North East England. Retired parish priest, theological educator, cathedral precentor and dean.

Friday, 4 January 2019

Farewell Facebook. Sort Of.

There's something faintly narcissistic about discussing social media on social media. But I guess we all do it if only to try to understand why, if it has, social media has become such a pervasive part of our lives.

Six years ago when I was still finding my feet in this strange new world I wrote a blog about Twitter. A week is a long time in social media, let alone six years. But I don't think I'd change anything much, other than acknowledge that the character limit is now 280, not 140 as it used to be in the (good) old days. I tried out these Twelve Principles of Responsible Tweeting on a conference I once addressed on the subject of wisdom and pastoral care. They went down well.

At about the same time as a Durham University colleague told me I'd enjoy Twitter (how right she was), my children persuaded me to reactivate my Facebook (henceforth FB) account so that we could all keep in touch, resuscitate old friendships, share holiday snaps and discuss what we'd had for breakfast. Always compliant, I did as they asked. I enjoyed interacting with people I hadn't seen for years as well as making new friends (whatever we think online "friendship" means). I learned a lot from links people posted to broadcasting, newspapers and journals, enjoyed their photos and was often inspired by their blogs.

But I never cared for FB in quite the way I took to Twitter. Twitter was elegant, disciplined and smart. I loved its minimalism - not so minimalist now. FB sprawled without limit (and by heaven don't some people take advantage of that). Twitter was amazingly simple to use, FB labyrinthine in the complexity of its settings (some of which I don't get to this day). But what irritated me most, and still does, is the gossipy world view it often endorses. The endless fripperies, the studied triviality that was once mercifully confined to the privacy of personal relationships are now on view for all the world (well, all our friendship worlds) to see.

It's not that lightening up isn't a very good thing. We should cultivate humour, laughter, lightness of touch, a sense of the absurd. We all need to do it, myself included - ask my family! But somehow, FB seems to inflate it. And that's true at the opposite end of the spectrum as well, where serious commentary (of which there's a great deal on FB - don't misunderstand me) often descends into rudeness, vitriol and rage. The more words I have, the more I can indulge myself in front of the ever-willing audience with which I share my echo-chamber. In that respect, Twitter's tightness imposes some controls. Yes I know that 280 characters, precisely because of that limit, can curtail nuance, inhibit subtlety, make words sound sharper-edged than they are meant to be, offend where no offence was intended. And if you want to abuse someone, Twitter is ideal for it. It will get you noticed. No medium is perfect. But perhaps I've said enough to explain why I've not found FB comparable to Twitter which, most of the time, has been source of enlightenment, stimulus and pleasure.

Social media holds up a mirror to both our best and our worst selves, and to the shades of grey in between which I suppose account for ninety-five percent of ordinary life. The mirror, if it's telling the truth, won't make us look any better than we really are, or worse for that matter. But the question is, precisely what "truth" are we talking about when we gaze dispassionately at the image of ourselves that we portray on social media? I find that an intriguing question to which I don't really know the answer. Some of us want to promote the image of the clown or humourist, others the sage with profound wisdom to impart. Some aspire to be the angry prophet, some the witty flaneur. There's the friend who cultivates triviality in order to subvert (or just take their mind off) the serious stuff out there in the real world or in cyberspace. And there's always the one who wants to be the cleverest person in the room. God forbid any of us might crave that reputation.

To some extent, these caricatures tell both truth and lies. We're all of us tempted to construct false selves online, create the public or semi-public persona we want others to see, may even want to see ourselves. When we draft our social media profile and select images to go with it, what governs those decisions? Some devote a good deal of time to thinking about it, others take a devil-may-care attitude. I suppose personality type has a lot to do with it, as well as the roles we have in our work or public life, and how social media can enhance or detract from them. And all this assumes that we do lhave regard for truthfulness and integrity online so that what you see is, to a greater or lesser extent, what you you get. I assume that everyone who reads this blog believes that this ought to matter to us. But even if it does, it’s easy to deceive ourselves about what the gap between how others see us and what we truly are. That’s no different from everyday life of course. But on social media, as some have found to their cost, that gap can be fatally magnified.

I have to admit that FB is not altogether the life-enhancing medium I thought it might be. But I won't have it said that social media is intrinsically destructive or bad. It's morally neutral, like the invention of the printing-press or telephone, radio and television, all of which were said at the time successfully to corrupt minds and hearts, especially those of the young. Like any communications medium, the internet is only a tool - a hugely powerful one, but a tool for all that. What any tool does is simply to broaden the scope of our capacity for good or evil. As I've said, it's as good or as bad as we are. So the important question to ask always is, how can we make it better for others and ourselves, put wholesome, positive, wise messages out there to help combat so much that's negative and deleterious and bad?

All of which I've written as a way of telling FB friends that I've decided to change the way I use this platform. Hitherto I've posted a lot of stuff about theology, culture, social affairs and politics on my timeline as well as link to some of the best writing on those or other topics that I've come across in my reading. But I've come to think that maybe FB isn't the best medium for doing this, at least not for me. Someone told me, in the nicest possible way but quite firmly, to lighten up on other people's timelines (and there I was, thinking I'd made a helpful contribution to the discussion a friend had begun in a new year's post). Maybe they were trying to tell me that FB isn't the right tool for this sort of thing, or more likely, that I just wasn't using it properly. However, the effect was to make me feel as though I'd lobbed a hand-grenade into the kindergarten playground. Over-sensitive? Maybe. Even probably. But it had the intended effect of making me think about my use of social media.

So I've reached a decision about FaceBook. It's not to suspend my account - at least, not yet (as for closing it down permanently, how to do that has baffled some of the world's greatest minds). But I've decided to use FB purely for social interaction rather than the political, social and theological debates I've been engaging in for the past few years. I'm going to restrict that kind of content to Twitter, and keep FB for what I guess it was meant to do all along, enjoying the fun-stuff with family and friends and sharing more personal joys and sorrows as appropriate. And, I hope, continuing to enlarge the circle of human relationships, some deep, some more casual, that social media is good at promoting. So I've changed all my privacy settings from public to friends only and drastically reduced what anyone can see of my life online.

In some ways it's felt bleak to do this. But it's not the parting of friends, just a new year rearrangement of the digital homes we are inhabiting. I know many of us will go on meeting up on Twitter where lively debates about everything under the sun will continue. And let me emphasise that I'm speaking only for myself and my experience. We each have to come to our own conclusions. But there's no denying that I'll miss many of you in all sorts of ways when it comes to the often controversial discussions we've had and all that I've learned from you.

I'll give it a few weeks to see how it works out. With the public exposure about its policies and practices that it's had in recent weeks, FaceBook's own hour may be coming, though it's too soon to tell if we're on board a sinking ship. It's entirely possible that events conspire to make all of us question the wisdom of continuing to associate ourselves with FB and be manipulated, as we seem to be, by the vast amounts of information it holds about us, and by the inscrutable algorithms that govern what happens to it (and to us).

When Sherlock Holmes was heading for his last encounter with Professor Moriarty at the Reichenbach Falls, a meeting he believed could only end in the deaths of them both, he told Dr Watson that he did not think he had ever used his powers of detection other than for the welfare of humanity. I’ll make the more modest claim that on FB, I’m not aware that I’ve ever intended to harm or diminish anyone else, however much we may have disagreed or been passionate about the causes we believe in. That of course is no defence if I’ve hurt anyone or damaged their reputation. But as I say a sort of farewell, I can at least say that I’m sorry. That feels important just now.

8 comments:

  1. I think that social media, including facebook has a lot to offer for social interaction as well as passing on or sharing information. We have a Church Facebook Group, which is closed an accessible by invitation. We welcome a number of people who are not in church, but live in our parish, and are interested in the ministry and mission and outreach that we do. I don't pretend that it is anything serious, but it allows us to share our life with a wider audience. We link to other groups for our community, which means that our communications is shared more widely by their members when appropriate.

    We also share news from around the Deanery and Diocese, and opportunities that brings for others to join in activities and social events. It isn't perfect by gentle moderation allows people to express their views, without causing upset to others. We have yet, in three years of operation, never needed to block or censure anyone who posts.

    We do have some rules, or expectations of those who ask to be members, which we are delighted that those who come, follow, perhaps we are a little too genteel, but we've found the community that we share our life with, are protective of the church. Last year, when a number of forged notes were passed at our parish summer fete, when they found out we had lost money, donations poured in, which more than covered the loss.

    This years Victorial Event at Christmas was exceedingly successful, with over 500 people through the doors and around £2.2k raised for our mission and ministry. We used both our Church Hall and the Church itself, and were rewarded with people, who'd never been into the church, or those who had relationships of hatch, match and despatch, renewing that relationship. A flood of new people joined us on facebook as a result and our 9 lessons and Carols and Midnight service numbers exceeded our expectations. Social media via Twitter and Facebook contributes to this. Many parishioners, including our last Vicar, engaged through both mediums and we have seen the benefit of having a public presence on both mediums. We are looking to develop this ministry, one step at a time, but those who are shy about using the internet, can also subscribe to our monthly magazine and newsletter and it will be delivered to their door if needed.

    I have been using social media since 2008, and have yet to be trolled or verbally harassed, perhaps because I have always sought to engage in love and peace. It can be exciting, revealing and helpful. It has allowed me to share my story of vocation, and discernment to ultimate licensing as a Reader two years ago. Stories that might have well been hidden if I had not engaged for so long.

    I will stick with it as long as it works, but being careful not to offend or troll anyone, and hoping that something of how God has worked in my life in the past, and continues to do so, day to day, week on week, year on year. which I am thankful for.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I hadn’t realised your “default” security for FB was public. Reading that in the blog was the moment when I went “ahhh”.

    I suspect a Dean Emeritus occupies a (maybe semi) public role in life and perhaps some people felt they were interacting with someone occupying an office rather than a human called Michael and hence had rather less respect for that person. That’s their misread an no excuse but it’s there nevertheless.

    I’ve never got to grips with the sheer quantity of stuff on Twitter but maybe because I’ve spent my time getting to grips with what’s on FB.

    But there does remain the fundamental difference which is that Twitter’s default is open publication - “you are what you Tweet” as its privacy policy says; whereas the default mode for FB is limitee to friends and friends of those tagged.

    Which difference hugely influences the environment and nature of discourse.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think you have now got it right, and the names help - FB is for family, friends, frivolity and fun, Twitter for thinking, talking, testing, teaching - and perhaps sometimes tormenting!

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks for these comments. UKViewer: yes, Durham Cathedral was one of the first to engage in social media & flourishes on both FB & Twitter for the reasons you give. I think organisations, when well advised by PR/Comms/Marketing/Legal departments, can be very successful on social media, and don’t fall into the bear-pits we amateurs don’t see all round us. Local churches too. It’s when we engage at a personal level that risks escalate. Adrian’s comments are revealing. I consciously chose the public security option to emulate the public nature of Twitter and designed both profile pages to look the same. “Public” means among other things, publicly accountable, being careful about what I said about other people in particular. I don’t regret that choice, but now see that this wasn’t really how FB was designed to be used, which makes it altogether different from the public forum that is Twitter. Hence my decision, amply confirmed by Anonymous’ helpful mnemonics. And thank you Clio1326 for your kind words, whether you intended me to be “missed” or even “greatly missed”!

    ReplyDelete
  6. A thoughtful article, as ever. My own experience of FB and Twitter is the reverse of yours, largely to do with my history of engagement with the medium. I started off on FB, and really appreciate it as a tool both for connecting with people, along the lines you're now choosing to use to exclusively; AND as a way to engage with the more serious stuff I'm passionate about: sport, politics and religion. Whereas I've never found Twitter particularly engaging, largely because there's just too much of it. With FB, you can be Friends with someone, but not have to follow their feed. If there's a way to follow someone on Twitter, but not see their Tweets unless you look at their page, then I've not worked out how to do that ...

    ReplyDelete