Orlando shooting: Why I quit social media

We’re sorry, this feature is currently unavailable. We’re working to restore it. Please try again later.

Advertisement

This was published 7 years ago

Orlando shooting: Why I quit social media

By Andrew MacLeod
Updated

I used social media pretty well. I strategically built a Twitter following of over 50,000. My LinkedIn has 2,500. I kept my Facebook for people I had met, liked and wanted to stay in touch with.

But I have closed these accounts. First Twitter, then Facebook and shortly LinkedIn. I even went as far as asking a good friend to log on, change my passwords and not tell me the new ones. During social media "cold turkey" I didn't want to change my mind and go back.

Illustration: Andrew Dyson

Illustration: Andrew DysonCredit: Illustration: Andrew Dyson

But why?

Initially, when I signed up, Twitter and Facebook were places to debate public policy. They were places to send and receive alternative views, to refine one's opinions and sometimes to change one's views based on new perspectives.

Illustration: Andrew Dyson

Illustration: Andrew Dyson

But recently the tone of social media has changed. Social media is now a place where there is lots of talking and very little listening. While debates no longer take place, shouting matches do. While new online friends can be made, real ones can be lost. I found myself becoming guilty of this, too.

The last straw for me was the tragic murder of Jo Cox, the British MP, by a man yelling "Britain first". The attack happened in the last few days of Britain's referendum campaign to stay in or leave the European Union, where the victim of the murder was a pro-EU MP and the murderer proclaimed an anti-EU view.

The week prior we had the Orlando murders. Mainstream and social media branded this an Islamic terrorist attack. Then it was a gay hate crime. Then it was a crime by a sick man questioning his own sexuality.

The Orlando murders may well be a combination of all those factors, but many with a drum to beat proclaimed their cause, and their cause only, loudly.

Advertisement
Flowers surround a photograph of British MP Jo Cox. Her death is almost forgotten in the social media storm about how to characterise her attacker.

Flowers surround a photograph of British MP Jo Cox. Her death is almost forgotten in the social media storm about how to characterise her attacker.Credit: Chris Ratcliffe

"He may be gay," some now say, "but he was still a Muslim". "He may have been Muslim," others say "but his hatred was driven by his own confusion which itself is driven by homophobia – just look at his father."

The Orlando victims immediately were mourned, but also became martyrs to a cause of anti-Islam, pro-gay rights, US gun reform or perhaps even pro-mental health. The latter may have the most validity.

When Cox was murdered I noted that many of my conservative "friends" immediately criticised people for "politicising" the crime in the context of the UK referendum.

I pointed out that if the murderer had yelled "Allahu Akbar" instead of "Britain first", these same people would have immediately politicised the murder and labelled this man and this attack as an Islamic extremist act of terrorism.

But he didn't yell "Allahu-Akbar". He yelled another political slogan. "Britain First".

Is it any wonder that the loudest voices calling for the non-politicisation of Cox's murder were anti-EU campaigners? Was this not a radical, lone wolf Brexit supporter's act of terrorism? Not to my friends. Their cause could not possibly be linked to an act of terrorism, could it?

On reflection I agree with my friends. The murderer was deranged and was not actually connected to the Brexit campaign. But in Orlando the murderer had no links to Islamic State or other terrorist groups.

To politicise one and condemn people for politicising the other is breathtaking hypocrisy – and I said so. In calling out my friends I repeated the hypocrisy I accused them of, but from the other view. In yelling we all forgot the main point of both events. Innocent people had died.

When something tragic happens now, social media gives us a platform, not to speak, but to yell. Not to engage, but to bully, not to consider, but to scream. Social media has lots of proclaiming and no listening. Things can be said online that threaten friendships in reality.

And I found myself doing this and I didn't like what I was becoming.

But I miss the positives to social media. I created a closed group that includes 50 cousins, and cousins' children. Facebook allows me to connect with cousins a generation removed that normally would not be known to me. Recently two of them joined me on a trip to Scotland to visit the land of my great-grand father and their great-great-grand father. We shared the trip video with all our cousins.

The closed family group is a magnificent way to share family births, deaths and marriages. In the end this sharing might drag me back to social media. But if it were to, I need to be cautious not to become a "screaming hater".

Social media is a magnet for the like-minded – positive and negative. IS recruits the vulnerable on social media. Trump supporters proclaim "build the wall" and do not listen to the voices opposing the wall. Democrats scream that Trump is a fool, yet don't stop to consider why he has gained traction.

Few are listening to the other side any more. Is this what society has become? A shouting match? A contest of loudest voice not strongest idea?

Voltaire believed that even if he did not agree with what you said, he would defend your right to say it. Would he do so now?

Andrew MacLeod is a visiting professor at Kings College London and former CEO of the committee for Melbourne. He could have been followed @AndrewMMacleod, but not any more.

Most Viewed in National

Loading