Why social media is problematic

Bild von William Iven auf Pixabay

Case in point: COVID-19

The CBC posts an article on social media (FB) covering a proposed 2 week Covid lockdown in my home province of Alberta with the question „Do you agree?“.

So, people are invited to share their thoughts and engage in conversation on the topic. And so do I.

I should point out, that I understand Covid lockdowns as an absolute last measure when reason and other regulation do not contain a virus that is primarily empowered by anti-mask and anti-social distancing idiots proclaming their „personal freedom“ as above anything else – including the lives of the people around them.

So and in this context a Mrs. Lauren Wareham Pham claims „data and facts“ of a 36 YO British professor being quoted in a newspaper.
Said (British) professor’s statements do appear to be neither supported or challenged by her peers, so her claim stands – alone and amidst a thousand others – by itself.
„Absolutely not!!! This will do more damage to all then covid will. Data and facts have shown a lockdown would be worse!!!“
We do remember the spelling mistakes and exclamation marks in tweets of our (at time of this writing still current) orange-haired white house resident?

So I reply. Colorful perhaps, ending in the suggestion, that:
„For all I care, all anti-mask and anti-distancing activists should be duly registered and wait in their nearest hospital parking lot upon infection. Indefinitely.“
Exclude yourself from ethical and responsible judgement and you forfeit the care by those you have kicked in the teeth. Fair enough in my books.

Another expert by the name of „Shon Adams“ jumps in and exclaims:
„Volker Manns, you miss the point. Our(my) freedoms are exponentially more important that anyone’s life, especially that of those 70+ who are the vast majority of deaths.“
Oh really? Obviously not familiar with Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Mrs. Wareham Pham then links her comment to a Jason Kenney (incumbent Premier of Alberta) article on CBC: „A lockdown would damage Albertans‘ health„.
So we go from an unsupported view to a politician’s opinion as gospel.
To put this in perspective: Kenney is a politician first, playing to his constituents – as any politician does. Secondly his vitae includes unfinished studies in philosophy, writing speeches, then being appointed minister for culture, Canadian identity, immigration, refugees and citizenship and eventually defense. Health or a study in virology? Ahem – no.
This is a widespread problem with politics. People placed in politically relevant positions, called upon to make decisions and utter opinions on subjects, that they are not qualified to decide or utter opinions upon.
Lockdowns are the last and desperate move to slow the spread and save lives. Period.
Side effects? Plenty. But that’s not the point.

I do reply.

Sarcasm? You bet. To get the point across.

Enter the FB „Community Standards“ and a simple click claiming „harassment“ – my comment is pulled.
I disagree and get the following rhethoric within 30 seconds:

Seriously: NO ONE looked at my reply – this is a predetermined process.

Now I get to justify my comment in 5.000 words or less.
Seriously? Forgive my exaggeration: Some pimple-faced nerd decides in Caesar style, whether this comment constitutes harassment?

 But I reply. 201110 – User Appeal Just to make my point.

What started as a community platform some 16 years ago has become the sole proprietor of right and wrong. Judge, jury and executioner. Scary.