Elon_Musk_(3018710552) (1)

Happy Rejoining Twitter Day

For all those keeping social media at arm’s length, maybe today’s a chance to take a second look? The online public square needs you!
A condensed version of this was published April 26, 2022 in the Deseret News.

When the news broke late yesterday that Elon Musk had successfully acquired Twitter, the reaction among many was predictably dire. Hofstra University associate professor Kara Alaimo, for instance, forecast on CNN that the Twitter sale “may be the death knell for the social media platform.” And under the ominous headline, “Twitter Under Elon Musk Will Be a Scary Place,” Greg Bensinger suggested that when Musk insists Twitter be an “inclusive arena for free speech,” what he really means is “free speech for people like Mr. Musk.”

This New York Times editorial board member went on to portray Twitter’s new owner as a paragon of racism, sexism, and wealth—with Dr. Alaimo further speculating that public figures “won’t want to be associated” with a platform that isn’t “inclusive” and which is known to spread “questionable” content.   

These are precisely the concerns, of course, which have motivated well-intentioned efforts over recent yearsaccelerated since the election of President Trumpto use moderation on social media platforms to encourage people to have the right kinds of conversations.  

About the election. About the pandemic. About sexuality and gender. About climate change.  

If only we could help people embrace the right information and “diligently combat misinformation”so the argument goesthen we could ensure people (and society as a whole) would be moving forward in “healthy” and “safe” ways.

As people of faith have fled social media in record numbers, they’ve also made it an even more barren landscape intellectually and spiritually.

It’s understandable that many found this line of thinking comforting and reassuring, especially amidst the political, social, and health turmoil of recent years. But equal numbers have found it all a bit creepy, prompting some of us to crack open Brave New World or 1984 for the first time since high school.

There’s nothing wrong with strongly advocating one’s convictions about truth to all the worldan unabashed specialty of Christians everywhere. But when any particular view gets enshrined in a state or other corporate or media entity with the power to dictate thought and action for millions of lives, that’s a whole ‘nother story.  

Which is why many of us see news of Twitter’s new ownership as something to celebrate, not a sign of impending doom, and why some people who had left the platform wasted no time in returning.

New opportunities for voices of faith online.  In recent years, many millions of right-leaning and religiously-oriented Americans have admittedly given up on social media. Completely.  

Rarely a week goes by that I don’t hear of some other friend bragging about deleting all their social media accounts. And can you really blame them? 

From rampant animosity to mounting censorship to creeping pornography, online social engagement presented lots of risksand seemingly few benefits. Yet ironically, as people of faith have fled social media in record numbers, they’ve also made it an even more barren landscape intellectually and spiritually.

Perhaps it isn’t yet time to flee into our ideological bomb shelters? Indeed, in this very moment in time where blue checks on Twitter threaten a mass exodus, could it be time for normal Americans to move in the opposite directionreclaiming ground they had been ceding in “the new public square for discourse and engagement,” as Utah state senators Stuart Adams and Mike McKell called social media in these pages last year? 

I sure think so. And I’m definitely not the only one encouraging you to “stop deleting your Facebook” (and Twitter). Referring to the “small trickle” of efforts to communicate hopeful messages through social media, Elder David A. Bednar encouraged an audience of Latter-day Saints in 2014 to “help transform that trickle into a flood” in a way that could “sweep the earth with messages filled with righteousness and truth—messages that are authentic, edifying, and praiseworthy.” 

Such counsel echoes the earlier wisdom of Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who wrote in 1927 that when a need arises to “expose … falsehood and fallacies” or “avert the evil” around us, “the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”

It’s not just Christians, of course, who have things of great worth to share with the world.  Imagine what would happen if everyone had a chance to share what they found to be good, true, and beautiful with the world. What a world that would be!  

Sensible social media concerns. We don’t, of course, live in an Edenic intellectual world where everyone opening their mouth has something beautiful to share. And in that, we should take seriously reminders that “Twitter has never been a place for rational, nuanced speech” and cautions about inadvertently “silencing many people” and pushing away “thoughtful users” who “aren’t going to voluntarily keep using a platform on which they’re bombarded with abuse.”

Clearly, some kind of healthy moderation will always be helpful anywhere ideas are exchangedbe that online or in person. But no amount of policing can replace our own collective exercise of virtuous exchangeincluding both practiced civility and decency in our sharing, and enough humility and curiosity to listen as others do the same.  

Yet this is morenot lessimportant in a time when our civic atmosphere becomes especially strained and harsh.  What better time for voices of peace and kindness to be heard?  Near the chaotic and anguished beginning of the pandemic, President Russell Nelson taught that light can “shine ever brighter” precisely amidst “the increasing darkness that accompanies tribulation.” 

Throughout virtually all of human history, that sharing of goodness has happened personally— one by one.  House by house.  And door by door.  Occasionally in a synagogue—or perhaps standing on a wall in a city.

What would these ancient teachers have thought about possibly standing up on a Facebook wall?  Would they have scoffed and turned away in disgust at the vitriol that some people post back in response? 

Arrows certainly didn’t stop them in real life—continuing to share despite beingcast out, and mocked, and spit upon, and smote upon our cheeks.”

Will rhetorical threats stop us from sharing our hearts?  

I hope not.  Because the risks of sharing goodness are worth it. That experience of being able to bring uplift and encouragement into someone else’s life is worth whatever cost.  

None of this, of course, means we need to become “social media experts or fanatics” as Elder Bednar later cautioned—adding, “we do not need to spend inordinate amounts of time creating and disseminating elaborate messages.”

Imagine what would happen if everyone had a chance to share what they found to be good, true, and beautiful with the world.

It’s also true that the addictive, entertaining elements of social media have threatened to eclipse meaningful activities in people’s lives.  If you are one of the many, who open social media first thing in the morning—as soon as they turn off their mobile alarm—before they even get out of bed, maybe think more about the proper time and place to engage in social media. Ask yourself who you want your first interactions of the day—and last interactions at night—to be?

If you are one of the many with an unhealthy relationship with social media, by all means, take a detox, a fast, a vacation for as long as you need. If you’re one for whom social media has fed unhealthy obsessions or cravings—even tempting you to initiate toxic relationships—put in place strict safeguards, perhaps a joint account with someone else you trust and love. If you’re one for whom social media has become a nexus of toxic social comparison—and a regular way to “grind down” your own self-esteem—use this as an opportunity to step back and consider seriously what and where your worth comes from.  

Yes, the risks and dangers of social media are real—especially in excessive, unbounded, unguided ways. Christopher Cunningham once cautioned about the strong pull of our surrounding culture to make “peeping Toms” of all of us, as we look in on people’s lives with obsessive fascination—alternatively craving aspects of someone else’s lives and then “reveling in another person’s sin, crimes, escapades, or misery.”

That doesn’t have to be how we act though!  Because we can also choose to “rejoice not in iniquity” (wrong-doing, injustice, sin, evil),” and to instead “rejoice in the truth.” 

A truth so precious that it’s worth every sacrifice to share, with anyone who will listen.  

Anywhere.  Including online. 

Even in 280 characters.  

___________________

 We gathered seven tips for “healthier social media engagement” last year as a magazine, copied below:   

  • Careful boundaries. Be conscientious of the time and place you engage in something like Facebook:  Not at work, school, or Church.  Not when around children.  And not right before bed—or first thing in the morning. Fight (hard) to preserve times in which your attention is needed for present commitments and people. 
  • Be proactive more than reactive. Rather than spending your time on Facebook just reacting to what others say, consider planning out (and maybe writing out) what you want to share before even going on the platform, as well as individuals you want to contact first—before scrolling any news or messages that have come in.  
  • Healthy expectations of response. Don’t impose on yourself unrealistic expectations of responding to every message or response that comes.  While doing your best to listen to what others are saying, it’s not necessary to respond, address, validate, and moderate everything that happens. So, don’t try! 
  • Don’t take disagreement personally. When someone shares another perspective (or even a critique of what you’ve said), practice taking a breath and “sitting with the discomfort” in a way that lets you hear what they are trying to say.  Is there anything in what they are sharing that you can appreciate or validate?  Start there.  If you choose to respond, thank them for being willing to share another perspective, and point out what you find helpful about it.  Then share, even just briefly, what else their thought brings to mind. (If a back-and-forth ensues, remember you can choose to follow it further if it’s helpful—or move on, and not feel pressured to continue it.)  
  • Block toxic voices anytime you need. If someone shows up not interested in real conversation, and (clearly) only wanting to attack, don’t feel bad about blocking them from your page.  You can also choose to hide their posts but stay friends. Be careful not to over-interpret honest disagreement as an “attack.” This is about protecting your page from haters—not manicuring it towards ideological uniformity. 
  • Embrace pluralism and healthy contestation.  Embrace the pluralism of our public spaces—and commit to be a part of it, however challenging, scary, and exhilarating it can all be. 
  • Take regular social media sabbaths, vacations, and daily pauses.  Once a week, we have found it helpful to take a complete and total break from social media for a full day (like Sunday)—along with similar breaks on a daily basis.  Try to reserve first thing in the morning or the last thing at night—the bookends of your day—for the people most important in your life, including God.

 

About the author

Jacob Z. Hess

Jacob Hess is a staff writer and Latter-day Saint Voices editor at Deseret News and publishes longer-form pieces at PublishPeace.net. He co-authored "You're Not as Crazy as I Thought, But You're Still Wrong" and “The Power of Stillness: Mindful Living for Latter-day Saints.” He has a Ph.D. in clinical-community psychology from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
On Key

You Might Also Like

Is it Time for Latter-day Saints to Support Same-Sex Marriage?

I wanted to thank Blair Hodges for calling attention to an article we ran earlier this year by Professor Robert P. George.  Blair has been a frequent critic of the magazine, and we appreciate his engagement and efforts in drawing attention to the work we’re doing. As one of the pre-eminent political philosophers working today, Professor George’s decision to publish with us was a major sign of legitimacy.  Hodge’s article was, in many ways, perceptive. He noticed that Professor George, and by extension, many of our editors here, is concerned that many people, especially religious people, struggle to justify their beliefs about family, marriage, and sexuality through anything other than appeals to religious authority. (We kindly disagree that these positions are anti-LGBT+ as Blair describes them.) And he’s right about that motivation. Church leaders have been very clear about the doctrine of the family for more than a generation, as we highlighted earlier this year. But where the cultural messaging on sexuality is so dominant, it’s easy for Latter-day Saints to feel overwhelmed and struggle to explain to others why they accept what prophet leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ teach what they do.   And Hodges is right that we hope to make a difference in this regard with our work. But otherwise, his article falls into the same traps of many before him that George and others have largely dealt with. Conflating “Hyper-Individualism” with “Expressive-Individualism” Hodges attempts to address George’s concern with individualism. But he makes a category error. Individualism, as Hodges uses it, seems to be a synonym for selfish. Individualism, as George uses it, means how we define the individual. These are two substantially different concepts. On this basis, Hodges raises concerns about hyper-individualism (hyper-selfish)—pointing out this issue is no more relevant to LGBT+ issues than to anyone else. That’s a fine argument to make, but it really has nothing to do with the point George makes. His point being, how we define the individual is of crucial importance to issues of sexuality. Because today the predominant cultural approach to defining the self is expressive individualism. Expressive individualism is a philosophy that holds that who we are is defined by what we feel we are at our psychological core. And that the greatest good is expressing that psychological core to the world, including through our behavior.  As described by Carl Trueman in his recent book The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, this idea has its roots in the work of Romantic philosophers like Jean-Jaques Rousseau and like-minded poets, literary figures, and artists of the 18th and 19th centuries, but largely took off in the 1960s at the beginning of the sexual revolution. Expressive individualism has substantially become our culture’s default approach to defining identity. But many Christians push back on this idea as we choose to make our central identities based on a different foundation.  As articulated by President Nelson in a recent devotional for young adults, he explained that the three identities we should prioritize (and not allow to be obscured) are 1) Child of God 2) Child of the Covenant 3) Disciple of Christ As Latter-day Saints, then, we choose to make those our central identities and base our choices on that foundation.  Hodges also suspects that “queerness would be less ‘central’ to a person’s identity the less social pressure and regulation they’d face about it.”  But what does Hodges mean by less central? If identity powerfully influences the choices we make, then the less central an identity, the less influence it has over our choices. These choices include why, how, when, and with whom someone has sexual relations. Prioritizing disciple of Christ and child of the covenant as identities, as Russell M. Nelson suggests, would lead to different choices about sex than prioritizing sexuality as identity. Love and Disagreement One of Hodges’ main requests is that George “spent more time saying how a person can be loving towards someone while also condemning an important part of their identity.” In our view, this is a tired argument in an already wearisome conversation. Sexuality is not an inevitably central part of identity.  Our editorial team falls across the political spectrum. In each of our lives, we have people who love us despite having serious concerns with that political part of our identity.  Our editorial team are all Latter-day Saints. In each of our lives, we have people who love us despite harboring serious questions about the important religious part of our identity. We’ve also felt loved by people who thought it was a dangerous and outdated idea not to have sex until marriage, constituting an important part of all our sexual identities. But Hodges’ argument suggests it’s somehow impossible to love someone while having honest concerns about how they prioritize the sexual part of their identity.  But of course, it’s not. Not only is it possible, but Christian believers are under clear command to love those we disagree with.  It’s those who demand “you can’t love me unless you agree with my paradigm for identity” that are preaching an extreme and radically alternative  approach to tolerance in a pluralistic society, not those who say, “I love you, but I disagree.” That has been the durable default of pluralistic tolerance that has helped make our diverse nation possible. Race and Sexuality Blair also goes to the old tired well of comparing race and sexuality. This is a comparison that many civil rights activists have rejected.  Dr. Alveda King, Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece, and William Avon Keen, president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Virginia, the organization Martin Luther King Jr. started, have rejected the connection between sexuality and race in civil rights.  In fact, George takes on Blair’s point at length in his article in Harvard’s Journal of Law and Public Policy: Revisionists today miss this central question—what is marriage? when they equate traditional marriage laws with laws banning interracial marriage. … But the analogy fails: antimiscegenation was about whom to

Christians Oppressed in China + Today’s Digest

Our daily rundown of the articles from around the web that we feel our readers would enjoy and appreciate. We hope to highlight the best of what’s around. Public Square Bulletin recommends: Dramatic story of Kyrgyz Christian swept up in China’s Uyghur repression gets very little ink Julia Duin – Get Religion While much has been said about the religious persecution of Uyghur Muslims in China, the same crackdown has swept up another religious minority group but with much less reporting. Is Jesus Worth Following at Any Cost John Piper – Crossway The chancellor of Bethlehem College & Seminary turns the modern conception of how Christianity can benefit the individual to focus on the deep costs of discipleship that Christ identified in this devotional piece. Towards A Theology of Encountering the World Ben Spackman Latter-day Saint Biblical scholar, Ben Spackman published an understanding how Latter-day Saints understand and interact with the broader world and culture. He writes a little bit about the paper in his blog. The Pulitzers still value opinion writing — and so do readers Rick Edmonds – Poynter If you read Public Square Magazine you probably appreciate editorial journalism. Media analyst, Rick Edmonds analyzes this week’s Pulitzer Prize announcement for the current state of opinion writing.