For a while I was tempted to believe that the insanity on social media was not that big a deal. Its disgusting attributes were a consequence of the medium. Or it only represented a small group of narcissists and troublemakers. It did not represent society as a whole.
No, it doesn’t represent society, but it does seem to lead it. They’re not called “influencers” for nothing.
It seems we have created a medium that attracts and promotes the worst elements of human society, which then infiltrates and poisons the rest of society.
What is the proper response to such a thing?
Generally speaking, I don’t want a government with the power to prevent or curtail something like social media. But no other institution (education, church, media, the family) has the will, ability, or desire to stop it.
In an earlier time, preachers would rail against it and it would be far less socially consequential.
This is an illustration of John Adams’s statement that our government is inadequate for any but a good and religious people.
So we seem to be faced with a choice of (1) giving our government the power to rule an irreligious people, or (2) hoping, praying, and working for revival.
Do you you mean, like, Fathter Coughlin, raging against Jews? He had widespread appeal on the radio and would no doubt have taken full advantage of social media to advance the anti-semitic cause in America. The same could no doubt be said about pro-Jim Crow preachers. The KKK was also very “religious” on their own terms.
The Muslims are doing plenty of raging against Jews.
But what do you believe is an effective counter weight to the morally degrading influence of social media?
America needs to get its own house in order. Marjorie Taylor Green, with all her anti-semitism, claims to be a “Christian nationalist.” Whataboutisms about Muslims will not help.
Trump of course was a major stepping stone in demoralizing social media. The best counter weight at present lies in the forces againt his movement.
We don’t want preachers (religious or secular) raging against Muslims. That can get as bad as raging against Jews.
I am also reminded of Billy Graham’s very explicit and well documented agreement with Richard Nixon’s anti-semitic outbursts about the news media. When I was growing up in Kentucky, Graham was, like, the Ultimate Preacher. It would have have been a total disgrace for anyone to say that Martiin Luther King, represented Christianity in any way, shape, or form. And yet, King is one of the outstanding examples of a religious leader taking up a moral cause in public.
The medium (social media) is new but the dynamic you describe isn’t. Society has been this way for some time. Social media just provided a way to expose many more people to society’s ugly underbelly.
Government can’t fix this. We already have laws and limits and people still behave badly. Some are now even threatening law enforcement and desiring to dismantle/defund legal institutions. We even have lawmakers in Congress that openly defy lawful subpoenas but try to enforce them against their political opponents. Little credibility, if any. Therefore, I don’t see adding more laws and limits (relative to social media) having a major impact. Besides, how would the be enforced…especially if offenders follow the current pattern of some of our leaders by calling the prosecution of potential unlawful behavior a witch hunt or hoax?
ISTM, this is a matter of the heart. The best remedy for a heart problem is a moral solution. Yet, society isn’t interested in such these days and have lost faith in moral institutions. In fact, some of this reminds me of passages like Matthew 24:12-14…”…at that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold…“