There are some good things about social media, but it also provides an opportunity for ignorance to get much greater exposure than it deserves.
Some people would likely have a platform to reach large numbers of people even if it weren’t for social media. But the average science-naïve person who thinks that snow in one area means that climate change is nonexistent can only spread that opinion to large numbers of people because of the existence of social media. Twenty years ago they would have had no such opportunity.
Ignorant by choice
What I wonder, though, is if challenging people who seem to be willfully ignorant actually gives them more attention than they deserve. Perhaps it only reinforces the posting of ignorant messages; maybe the best thing to do would be to let their posts fade away into obscurity.
Lately, on Twitter, I’ve seen some misogynistic tweets written by males with head firmly up arse.; There was a very strong response from both females and males calling out the dumbasses who wrote the original tweets. In the meantime, though, these guys have had a ton of exposure. That just happens to mean that their social media stats have also gone through the roof.
I’ve written before about the use of stigmatized language, but what about when the problem is the content, not the words? Anti-medication views are what I’ve probably come across the most often on Twitter. Often, there’s a strong response from mental health advocates condemning this kind of ignorance. Still, I’m not convinced that’s always the most effective way to handle it.
Selectively responding
Yes, we need to challenge ignorance and stigma. When this is coming from organizations, the media, or public figures, we absolutely need to call them out on it. But if we’re boosting Jo(e) Dumbass’s social media stats by attacking their dumbass comments, is that helpful? Or are we just sending them the message that dumbass comments are an effective way to garner attention? It’s also concerning that the more prominent the whole thing is, the more people end up getting upset by it.
In the case of misogynistic comments, I tend to swing more strongly in the direction of radio silence. When it comes to anti-medication or other mental health-directed comments, there are voices in my head chiming in for both sides. Perhaps part of the issue is that I’m not a big social media user, so none of this feels natural to me.
Choosing not to amplify ignorance
It feels a bit icky that people like Youtuber Logan Paul, who posted a beyond tasteless video of an apparent suicide victim in Japan’s “suicide forest”, have managed to gain such notoriety online. Why do millions of people follow this jackass? Perhaps that’s where the biggest problem is, though. Ignorance and stupidity draw attention, and they sell. This isn’t a problem of a few random dumbasses, but rather a social community that elevates the dumbasses to a place where their stupidity has massive reach.
Things were so much simpler back in the early days of the internet age. Not all of the progress that we’ve made since then has been good. Sigh…
You may also be interested in the post What Makes Someone a Mental Health Advocate?
My latest book, A Brief History of Stigma, looks at the nature of stigma, the contexts in which it occurs, and how to challenge it most effectively.
You can find it on Amazon and Google Play.
There’s more on stigma on Mental Health @ Home’s Stop the Stigma page.