AntiSocial Media

Lets start by changing the name - social media implies they are a sub-grouping of the main news channel. Social media simply is not media in any acceptable use of that term, rather it is a putrid cesspit of prejudices, gossip, slander, tittle-tattle, and what-aboutism. Responsible media, and sadly the broadsheets, and media based upon proper journalism, is in serious decline the World over; we may all wake up one day and wonder what happened to Democracy - social media is catnip to the deranged narcissists like Trump, and that way leads to a very dangerous and heavily polarised World - and the death of democracy; as both Greece and Rome learnt to their cost all those centuries ago.

Social media polarizes people. It feeds us what we want to hear and convinces us that the other side is totally wrong. We will eventually stop talking to each other.

Is social media the problem, or is it the readers' response? Let's consider this ... A guy enters the social media space and makes a comment about wine, referring to murders in South Africa. It's a toxic comment to many. Social media posters respond and slate the guy. Turns out, Mr. Toxic is associated with a formal media house called Daily Maverick. Said tabloids editor decides to enter the fray, and accuses the readers who did not like the social media comment as being devoid of humor. It's the readers who are the problem, she persists. In her view, it's okay to have a 'wicked' sense of humor on social media. The comment is not toxic, in her esteemed opinion. If someone else had made the comment, the post would have been toxic. I now avoid this particular chaps commentary, and think both he and the editor are people who I would rather not have in my circle of acquaintance. So, taking the lead from DMs editor, the problem isn't social media. It's the readers and how they interpret the message?