Social Media and Me

I have been struggling with a problem where I hope Five Cent Thinking's readers will offer some advice either as a response to this post or via my normal email.   NOTE #1 - As the owner of this blog I have control over what appears here; so if you want to respond but not publicly please put that in your response and I will not publish your comments.

I joined Facebook in its early stages(2004), at the time it seemed like an interesting platform which could provide two benefits.   First, as someone who spent a career working on public policy issues I thought it might be a place to participate in engaging discussions about key issues.   Second, it seemed like a way to communicate with friends and acquaintances many of whom I have not been able to keep up with over the years.

About the time I started being on Facebook I also set up a Twitter account.  But I have never used it much, if this blog has proven anything, I am not prone to short form writing!   But part of my aversion was based on the need to not react to events instantaneously.  

I continuously avoid watching any of the cable channels because of their absurd need to fill every waking minute with "news".   I first recognized the trend when I was coming back from a trip to Mexico at the time that Princess Diana died (1997).  My Spanish at the time was much more limited than now but even without understanding all the words, I noticed a pattern of commentary and images that I found disconcerting.  

Soon after I joined FB, a friend who I knew from both politics and because she was a doctoral student at SC when I was there, invited me to join a group of political types her dad had created (but this time the group was digital).   I knew a lot of the people in the group and  met some interesting people through it. The politics of the group was diverse.  But the "Wheelspinners" deteriorated after a couple of people on both sides of the political divide substituted invective for argument.   In a valiant attempt to continue the positive notions from the original group it revived it under a new name.  But that also deteriorated somewhat quickly.  

One consequence for me, if I decide to leave FB, is that I will no longer be able to exchange  insights with the half dozen people on the group who constantly help me understand nuances on a wide range of issues.  In the time I have been on FB I have been periodically surprised by a someone's different take on something I had thought quite settled.  In the Bismarkean sense part of the "politics is the art of the possible" for me is the ability to consider all sorts of options.

Both Facebook and Twitter seem to fit what a good friend in Sacramento used to call Kabuki politics.  We watch contending sides put on their makeup and join the political fray with masks or makeup on - not wanting to contend but more wanting to engage in stylized discussions where the genuine opportunity to think about things in new ways is scorned.

Let me add that I believe that the key people at FB and Twitter have absolutely no scruples.  They have consistently censored substantive ideas which do not fit their worldview.  

From my perspective the country needs to have some reasoned debate about a lot of issues including (for me)  the big four of 1) Climate change, 2) Wealth and Income Inequality, 3) Racial Reconciliation, 4) Fiscal Policy (come on, when one wrote his dissertation on Tax Theory that one is essential).   But serious discussion does not seem to be forthcoming.  You are not a "denier" or a "deplorable" because you have a different understanding of both the nature of a specific problem and the best way to handle it.

In my mind the current system of identifying political leaders is not serving us well. When I started in the political arena there were politicians on both sides of the aisle that I admired.  Now the number of politicians in that group from either party is very limited.   IF you believe that in at least the last two presidential elections we had what David Halberstam called the "best and the brightest" as the standard bearers for either party, I guess we are going to have to disagree.   Dick Tuck, who was a thorn in Richard Nixon's side for a good part of his career had the great quip that the "lesser of two evils is still evil" (I know that many attribute that to Jerry Garcia) and I think in trying to defend our choice for President that we ignore that maxim.   

For the last year and a half, the country has devolved into discussions which I believe have been structured to evidence virtue signaling rather than exchange of views.  I will admit that I can get on a high horse too.  But quite frankly, I am tired of engaging in these kinds of yammerings.  As long as we are relegated to retreating into tribes, we won't make progress in discovering the best of options.

A bit more than a year ago, a good friend who had been a distinguished college president and a keen analyst of our political environment posted on Facebook that she was leaving it.  She is a certified FOB (Friend of Bill) having gone to law school with both Clintons.  She actually taught a course with an economist of my persuasion in the Claremont Colleges.  I would have liked to been able to audit the course.  I am sure it was a good set of exchanges.  When she announced her intention to dump FB I wrote her (outside of FB) about the decision.   She replied that the cost of participation in FB far exceeded any benefits.  Over the years I have had some superb discussions with her about a wide range of issues.  We often do not agree on solutions but the exchanges have been fun.

About a decade ago a Georgetown computer science professor, in his blog Study Hacks offered a simple equation to discern the value of technologies - “ Technologies are great, but if you want to keep control of your time and attention have the self-confidence to insist that they earn their keep before you make them a regular part of your life.” FB fails on that equation.

One final comment;  an obvious solution would be to use the Wildavsky Maxim (Aaron was a professor at UC Berkeley) He quipped that politicians should "NO, thyself" - so I could simply quit responding to political posts. Quite frankly, I am pretty sure that would not work for someone who spent more than 4 decades working in the vineyard of politics.

So here is the ask.  I am thinking of dropping Facebook by the end of the month.  Here are my three questions.  1) do you have any thoughts about stepping out of social media?  2) For many of my buddies on Facebook is there a good way to stay in touch without FB? I really do enjoy hearing about families and trips.   3) Do you have any other suggestions about how someone who would like to continue to discuss public policy issues can do that in without being stuck in the mire of virtue that both sides of the spectrum try to hold us in?

NOTE #2  - If you do not have an Email address for me (outside of FB) and want to communicate privately or simply stay in touch after I leave FB,  please use messenger and I will get back to you.

NOTE #3  - On October 4, Facebook went down and Joanna Stern - the ACE technology reporter for the WSJ had suggestions for getting your data from Facebook and ideas for alternative platforms to use to stay in touch.   If you do not subscribe to the WSJ - send me an Email and I will send you a Pdf of the article.

NOTE #4 - And I realize this might sound contradictory.  Even if I dump Facebook - I will continue to use the FB product called What's Ap - it is an essential, and at least for me, non political tool in Mexico.