Empathy in the Age of Facebook

Prior to the November 13^th terrorist attacks in Paris, I was thinking about how we interact on Facebook and other social media. Some “friends” share extremely personal details of their lives, everything from happy news of weddings and life cycle milestones to breakups, illnesses and deaths. Often, the response is a heartfelt “like” although liking bad news always seems a bit odd. Posts and responses about news--good and bad--are shared according to one’s privacy settings.

Because of today’s technology we are in touch with friends and contacts from decades ago; this makes the process even more intriguing. So when cataclysmic events shock and anger us, the responses and opinions shared can be both inspiring and terribly disturbing. We quickly learn—or have reinforced—who blames George W. Bush for getting us involved in Iraq or Barack Obama for getting us out. Sometimes, the vehemence of the comments is shocking and ridiculously personal. Questioning President Obama’s loyalty to the United States or his legal right to be president damages the questioner’s credibility even though it may endear him or her to like-minded followers. And those on the left who want to stifle all expression of views rooted in another time or born of  “white privilege” do a disservice because they prevent their more current and sometimes enlightened views from standing persuasively on their own merit. Banning speakers from universities is a disturbing trend. Those who spew hatred should not be invited. But differing political perspectives should not be grounds for bans. Remember, as Paulo Freire and others have pointed out, those subject to oppression can become oppressive themselves when they gain power.

Freedom of expression has always been a cherished value. So when I see comments at odds with my own views in response to my posts, I almost always let them stand. If there are factual errors I will point them out. In the words of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell, “Under the First Amendment there is no such thing a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries, but on the competition of other ideas. (Gertz vs. Robert Welch,1974).” And that’s the law of the land. False facts, on the other hand, deserve to be exposed and corrected.

So the question emerges, in the age of Facebook, do our differences become magnified while our ability to see others’ points of view diminishes? Can we really care about our “friends”, “like” the pictures they post of the new puppy or grandchild, but still respect them when they post political views sharply at odds with our own? More importantly, do we care? I ask the last question rhetorically and seriously. And my answer is that we should care. It’s too easy to write off a comment, with which we disagree or even find offensive, when the person making it is only real in our lives because we knew him or her decades ago. Ultimately, the root question is whether real dialogue can happen on social media. Or is it, to use the words of Stephen Stills, just a digital version of "carrying signs (that) mostly say hooray for our side (For What It's Worth, 1966)." If we only get our information from sources that reinforce our own views, we wind up in echo chambers and bubbles. So seek out different media. That is actually one of the best things about Facebook; if you have a diverse group of “friends” they will post from a range of media.

My hope is that on the grass roots level we can elevate the discourse and be empathetic about more than the tragedies and joys, personal and global, where it is easy to agree. Maybe our politicians could learn a few things. But having worked as a newsman for decades, I doubt the tone of political and cultural disagreements will change anytime soon. The challenge is for us to resist the crass and try to treat even those with whom we disagree with respect. But let’s agree that lies and falsehood are real enemies.